Does the right to bear arms extend to all Americans or only "A well regulated militia?"

@MethDozer and do you support any limitations?

@MethDozer It actually could be written much more clearly, hence why we had Hamilton and Madison, I think it was, addressing it further in the Federalist Papers.

Plus all the ongoing court cases over the years show quite easily that the exact meaning of what a militia is has radically changed.

@SW-User Yes. I'm an avid shooter, hunter, and collector and see there is a clear and looming problem with the current policies and there needs to be changes.

Yet the amendment is clear as it is written.

@MethDozer what changes would you support? what limitations?

@Pherick It really couldn't be. It clearly states. The right of the people shall not be infringed. It doesn't get much clearer than that.

@MethDozer to form well-regulated militia. I agree, however people opening whatever guns they want, is NOT a well-regulated militia.

@SW-User I'm not even going to get I to that hornets nest. I'm not a policy maker and I don't feel like getting into the arguments about them.
I'm just open to them and see the need .

@Pherick why does the well regulated militia part always seem to go missing

@SW-User it doesn't. It just doesn't state it is a condition of the right.

@MethDozer but you are stating over and over how you support the 2nd amendment, so why not suggest what you think is reasonable?

@MethDozer i have to disagree it sure seems to vanish, and it can be interpreted that it is a condition of the right

@SW-User I wish I knew.

Honestly, this is one of the biggest things I could slap some founders over. We have all these issues, basically because the founders wrote a sentence that isn't 100% clear.

If the bearing arms part was the most important, why wasn't it first? It wasn't, the well-regulated militia piece was, and to me, everything else in the sentence supports the militia, NOT the bear arms part.

@SW-User It doesn't say that or imply that. It clearly extend the right to the people, not the militia.

@MethDozer well we are disagreeing because when i read it they seem to go togehter, but thats why we have a supreme court.

@Pherick No, it says. " the right of the people" not the right of militia. It only gives the militia as the reasoning.

@SW-User Read it. It's pretty clear.

@MethDozer sure seems connected to me

@MethDozer Yes, so without a militia, you have no right to bear arms. Are you part of a "well-regulated" militia?

@SW-User Yes. It is connected in the sense it says that regulates militias being necessary, that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. It is so the people have the ability to form them as needed.


The fact us the founding fathers were concerned and just got done dealing with a completely different set of social problems and threats than we do today. Ones that are alien today. Ours alien to them. They were trying to deal with a threat at the time. Times have changed, there's a different threat. Why things need to be changed a little. They knew they would. They never meant the Constitution to be static and never change.

@MethDozer i agree with you that the constitution is not a static document. I am just curious to know what kind of limits a supporter of the 2nd amendment would support.

@Pherick Nowher does it say or imply the right is dependent on a militia or being a member. It only says the militia is necessary but the right belongs to the people.
You can spin doctor all you want but it isn't supported by the wording.

@MethDozer
To me that first bolded portion is the key, the rest is just explaining it. You even said so your self, the militia is the reason you get to own guns.

You can spin doctor all you want, but it isn't supported by the wording.

@Pherick You're the one spinning and ignoring were the right is stated as belonging to.

I agree though it is faulty in today's climate. Nor do I agree with what many consider an infringement. Wal-Mart saying no guns in their store is not an infringement. Neither is saying one needs a proper way of storing them.

@MethDozer I am not spinning anything, I am reading the 2nd and interpreting it. Perhaps I am adding some common sense to it, which I would like to think the founding fathers had, some even in abundance.

Wal-mart saying no guns in their story is the furthest thing from infringement. Its private property, they can and should do as they like. You can shop there or not, your choice. Is it infringement if I ask you not to carry your guns into my home? If you don't listen and I pull out my gun and shoot you, who is right? Messy huh?

Do you know what right isn't in the Bill of Rights? It's in the actual Constitution, it didn't need to be added in later, the right to LIFE. Even if your perceived right to carry your killing machine with you everywhere was real, my right to living a happy life trumps it. So leaving your assault weapon at home and enjoy your trip to Walmart.

@Pherick I explicitly said that a store banning then.doesn't infringe in the right. Maybe you missed that part as well? I can't stand these retards who think they need or should be able to harass people by bringing a rifle into a store.

Fact is we probably agree on more than we don't but you refuse to see that through jaded eyes.

BTW. The Bill of Rights IS part of the Constitution not a separate document. A part of the Actual Constitution.