A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

The meaning is clear to anybody who has even the most basic of reading comprehension skills. The sentence begins with a presupposition. If that presupposition does not exist, if that CONDITION does not exist, then the rest of the sentence is rendered null and void.

Therefore, all of you American gun fetishists need to ask yourselves two questions.

First, is a well regulated militia still necessary for the security of your so-called free state. Given the fact that you have the biggest military in the world (by a huge factor), given that you have a National Guard which is armed to military levels, given that you have a Coast Guard that is armed to military levels, given that you have multiple law enforcement agencies that are armed to military levels, the answer to that question is a resounding NO!

Second, are you a member of a well regulated militia. Again, the answer is a resounding NO!

Ergo, the conclusion is clear. Your “right to bear arms” is total bollocks.

Of course, there is a third question that you could ask yourselves but you’re all too psychotic to even consider it.

DO YOU WANT TO CONTINUE TO SEE INNOCENTS BEING ANNIHALTED BECAUSE OF YOUR GUN FETISH?

It doesn't matter. [quote]The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. [/quote] End of discussion.

Part of the issue here is in understanding the situation at the time it was written as well as the purpose of was written for.

The US was just formed out of a war where the army had been formed out of locals and largely with personal weapons. If individuals did not have weapons, they could not have risen up against the government at the time to take their freedom.

The US was in a balancing act to try to maintain a cohesive federal government without stepping too much on individual states rights. The Articles of Confederation, the first pass at the US government, had shown itself too weak and so they came back with a stronger proposal. Individual states such as New York and Pennsylvania tied their identities much more strongly to their being New York and Pennsylvania than they were tied to being the USA. Hence the term State, which often means whole countries elsewhere in the world. As part of securing the Freedom of the State from the power of the federal government, the individual states were given the responsibility of managing their own militias. The USA was not meant to have a standing army, but was given power to rally the militias during wartime.

Putting militias into state hands rather than a standing federal army meant that states had the ability to protect themselves from abuse by the federal government. In exchange, sure to having dangerous frontiers and threat of war at any time, states were charged with maintaining and regulating militias so that they would be useful when needed.

The nature of militias is that they generally aren't full time soldiers. Further, being agricultural at the time, keeping weapons exclusively in central armories would inhibit the ability of militias to respond to emergencies. So it was common for people to keep weapons at their home so they would have something to use until they got to mustering points.

Preserving the right of people to keep their weapons meant that the federal government couldn't come in and disarm a populace before passing unpopular legislation. By being armed, the individual states could protect what they saw as their rights with force of need be.

Which brings us to the civil war. The south, feared the loss of their state rights to invade other states and abduct people they saw as property against the will of the state those people were in was being violated. (Yes, it was a states rights issue. Southern states wanted to violate northern states rights to say that people weren't property within their borders). So the south issued declarations they were leaving and mustered their militias for war.

After the civil war, the USA moved to the standing army model. Militias were severely undercut, though so still exist. National guard and national guard reserve are the big ones now I believe, which are usually named by the state that manages them. Someone can correct me if I am wrong on that.


The changes of time really make the old law seem like it fits oddly. We no longer rely on militias. People still have the right to keep arms in support of allowing militias to be formed and regulated. However, the technology of war has also changed so much that the original purpose of being able to quickly respond to war or fend off an overreaching federal government would require laughably permissive weapon ownership.

To uphold the spirit of the second amendment, The Ohio National Guard would be permitted to have nuclear weapons. Your neighbor would be allowed to keep a fully armed tank in their garage or build a jet fighter airstrip in their back yard. Live along the coast? Make sure you keep up maintenance on your nuclear submarine and it's payload.


The second amendment was stripped and severely limited over a hundred years ago. It is a zombie, a shell of its former self not even able to carry out its original intent.

I am not even against gun ownership. I just recognize that the second amendment is near useless and referring to it in order to try to keep an AR-15 at home is the same logic as your neighbor referring to it in order to keep an ICBM launch system. The line we are drawing with it for what weapons are acceptable to keep is completely arbitrary. And if the line is so arbitrary, then the amendment text is bad and needs to be rewritten and modernized.

Both.. they go hand in hand.. that was the intent.. the right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear Arms.. SHALL NOT be infringed.

i think the key phrase here is "well-regulated" especially in the wake of recent events. regulated to me meaning controlled and militia meaning body of men possessing weapons

The experience of the German people just 90 years ago should help us understand the beauty of the 2nd amendment and the contrast between a militia and individual rights.

Germany had a well regulated militia and also enacted laws that prohibited Jews from possessing firearms. It was through required registration that the Nazi government knew which Jews had firearms. Prohibition was extended to anyone who wasn't political reliable with the penalty of death.

Germany in the early 1930s went through much of what politicians in Washington DC are proposing in Washington now. And with the same promise that it's for everyone's safety.

The right isn't guaranteed to the militia, it is a right guaranteed to the People. A well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state(comma) this is a statement, the comma separates this idea from the next sentence because they are not the same thing. We as a nation need an army, this is a danger to the people and the government as history has shown us in many cases when a military coup takes place. That is the reason for the right of the people to be armed.

The Bill of Rights does not "give" the people any rights, it just affirms these rights endowed by our creator and limits government from reducing them.

The militia being necessary isn't important because the right isn't for the militia, it is for the people.

Number of mass shootings in the UK since march 1996 = 3, Dunblane school shooting in 1996 and cumbria non-school shooting in 2010, and a shooting of 5 people with a shot gun in 2021

Luckily we have the right to bear arms, which is why we are so safe....oh wait a minute !!

the USA is so backwards at times.

I really think whoever wrote the Second Amendment should have been shot for the way it was worded, whatever his intent was.

In Scalia's majority opinion on Heller v DC, he broke it down fairly simply. The prefatory clause, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State," states a purpose, but not the only purpose with respect to the operative clause, "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." The operative clause is not contingent upon the prefatory clause. The individual right to possess arms is unconnected to service in the militia.

@DailyFlash, if the right to bear arms is dependent on being part of the militia, then simply eliminate the militia and no one, even cops, can have guns because the constitution plainly says that only members of the militia can bear arms. And since police forces are not the militia, they can't have guns. Easy peasy lemon squeezy.

Next problem.

Yeah it's weird how they wrote that during a time when militias were a standard way to get an army together. Almost like it has zero modern application.

I have no interest in anything like that. I've never had a gun in the house and never will. It's just not my life. ✌️ ☮️

If they break into my house and shoot me, that's fine.
I've been ready to leave this sick world for a long time.

So, whenever it happens, it's been nice knowing you all.
And, Goodbye. ❤️

Both.

States have the right and responsibility to form militias composed of people who keep and bear arms.

The federal government can't undermine the state's right by prohibiting citizens from possessing or in any way infringing on individual rights to keep and bear arms.

Nor can the state infringe on that right.

This issue has been decided on the courts already. Any reader with competent reading comprehension realizes that the militia and people are two different things.

You can try beating this dead horse, but this has already been decided.

I appreciate your perspective. given the size of the U.S. military, an armed militia isn't necessary that's also what the national guard is. Your right to bear arms wouldn't be infringed. Only safety, training, and operation instructions forced to be included, maybe classes. A delay in availability will provide enough time to reduce impulsive follow through. Protecting your right to having a weapon is not conditional based on how long you have to wait; and ensuring safe use of any all weapons while keeping the public safe is personal protection. Thinking of citizens as both investment in and liable property of This great nation,.

As the supreme court has ruled many times...both are protected by the 2A.

In short, the fact that there are people, organizations, governments, etc. that argue that we don't need firearms, a militia, etc. is precisely the reason we do have them...

Their constant hypocrisy, rhetoric and hyperbole to the contrary doesn't discourage us, it only reiterates the need and encourages us to remain ever vigilant...

Well regulated.

Personal protection

It was about defending the young United States against threats from Native Americans, the British, French and Spanish on their frontiers.

Last I heard the US is on good terms with most of Europe (Russia is another matter).

Addressing Mass Shootings And Guns In America: A Time To Take A Deep Breath And A Collective Pause - A Time For Calm And A Time To Analyze All The Factors Which Contribute To Such Tragedies
http://allnewspipeline.com/A_Time_To_Analyze_All_Factors_Which_Contribute_To_Such_Tragedies.php

Neither, it's about not making a change that will make you get unelectable. Also the principle reason for people to hold guns is, 'they like guns'.

What use is a militia in this century anyway? Who do they answer to?

Punctuation matters

Both

Like many with points in the early constitution it is probably deliberately ambiguous

and all the gun fetishists promptly proclaim themselves to each be a "militia" of one 🙄🤦‍♀️

[image deleted]