What does the Second Amendment mean to you?
- Thread starter SPM
- Start date
- Replies 68
- Views 3,263
12151791
GUNS AND COFFEE
2A Bourbon Hound 2024
2A Bourbon Hound OG
Charter Life Member
Benefactor
Supporting Member
Multi-Factor Enabled
Last edited:
BurnedOutGeek
What's this button do?
Staff member
Charter Life Member
Benefactor
Multi-Factor Enabled
You should meet barret. I mean... Yeah, that's what I meant.
FUDD fear uncertainty doubt and discouragement.
I believe it is the right that protects all other rights.
We first of all have the natural born right to protect ourselves. From both those who would take from us unlawfully, or seek to do physical harm to us or our loved ones. It is also our duty to look out for our fellow man. The Second Ammendment makes that possible with the least amount of risk for the citizen. Could I protect myself with sharp stick? Yes, but for how long?
I have been a student of history for a long time. One thing has always stuck with me. "Those who fail to learn from history, are doomed to repeat it." How many times have we seen a populace disarmed and then stripped of everything?
Take a look at the first 10 amendments on the Bill of Rights. Then ask yourself how many would be possible with out the 2nd.
We first of all have the natural born right to protect ourselves. From both those who would take from us unlawfully, or seek to do physical harm to us or our loved ones. It is also our duty to look out for our fellow man. The Second Ammendment makes that possible with the least amount of risk for the citizen. Could I protect myself with sharp stick? Yes, but for how long?
I have been a student of history for a long time. One thing has always stuck with me. "Those who fail to learn from history, are doomed to repeat it." How many times have we seen a populace disarmed and then stripped of everything?
Take a look at the first 10 amendments on the Bill of Rights. Then ask yourself how many would be possible with out the 2nd.
They tend to shoot bullseye matches,shoot trap, and believe the 1903 Springfield should still be the rifle used by the millitary. I loved the man but my grandfather was a true fudd. As a life long Illinois resident thought a FOID was a wonderful idea and thought Reagan was perfect.
To me The 2nd means that if you can imagine it (plasma rifles in the 40W range anyone??), afford it, afford to feed it / house it, and are peaceable with it to others who do not look to do you harm, you should be able to have it. ANYTHING a private citizen could want should be available to him as long as he is not assaulting others who are not doing him (or others) harm. If a citizen can be trusted to be out in Society, he can have any arms he can afford. Can't be trusted with weapons?? -- You can't be in Society as you are not safe for the rest of us.
Long post...too much time on my hands. I've been home sick from work and this led me to research more...
I am not constitutional scholar or historian. In fact I am fairly ignorant since I have just started really reading this stuff (since civics class when I really didn't care). I have owned firearms for most of my adult life (20+ years), but had not really thought about what the second amendment means until maybe the past few years at which time I became more of a firearms enthusiast. Rather than just going with what my gut thinks it should mean, I tried to do some reading/research.
"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 be infringed."
27 words...
My conclusion on what it "means"
I believe that the second amendment is an awkwardly worded, ambiguous statement that seems to be a "Rorschach test" that is interpreted in light of what your pre-existing opinions on Militia's, Keeping and Bearing Arms and un(in)alienable rights are...
Scalia's Opinion on Heller
Steven's Dissent on Heller
Breyer's Dissent on Heller
I tend to agree with Scalia's opinion because that is the one I like, BUT does that make it the "right" one? We won't know for sure until we have time travel...even then it would be interesting to get the framers opinions before they know where we are now...or where we are at the time time-travel is perfected.
It is interesting that the work Militia occurs in the constitution 6 times that I can find, 4 in the original and twice in amendments.
From article I, Section 8:
"To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repeal Invasions;
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress"
From article II, section 2
"The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States;"
From the amendments
Second Amendment
"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 be infringed."
Fifth Amendment
"No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger;"
I think that as a country we seem to have failed to maintain a well regulated militia. Does anyone truly believe that the state of NC has a well regulated militia? SC seems to be closer than we are with an active South Carolina State Guard.
If we did have a well regulated Militia would you serve? and yes I said serve because it seems the Militia would be regulated by congress, the state and ultimately the president...not exactly worded to support individuals or non-government collectives to rise up against the current .gov
Even though we have failed to maintain a well regulated militia, this does not mean that the right of "the people" to keep and bear arms should be infringed.
The problem we have is that it is not specifically enumerated that the second amendment protects my right to bear arms for self-defense (I'm not even going to touch recreational uses). It really seems like your interpretation of Amendment IX is critical! If you think that the second amendment is hard to interpret, the ninth is a dooozie!
Amendment IX
"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
This thing can seem to mean whatever you want it to.
From the Declaration of Independence
We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness—That to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed, that whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these Ends it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its Foundation on such Principles, and organizing its Powers in such Form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
Jefferson wrote these words, the Virginia Declaration of Rights stated:
That all men are by nature equally free and independent and have certain inherent rights, of which, when they enter into a state of society, they cannot, by any compact, deprive or divest their posterity; namely, the enjoyment of life and liberty, with the means of acquiring and possessing property, and pursuing and obtaining happiness and safety.
The right to self-defense seems like an inalienable right that most people recognize/accept. In today's world firearms seem to be one of the means to achieve this goal.
So after all of this, I'm still not sure what the second amendment REALLY MEANS...BUT it is scary that 9 judges (who I presume are not idiots-even the one's that I don't agree with) on the supreme court can have such wildly varying interpretations...
I think that the OP's question of what does it mean to you is the right one, since I'm pretty sure no one that is alive knows what the heck it was supposed to mean! Great post!
I am not constitutional scholar or historian. In fact I am fairly ignorant since I have just started really reading this stuff (since civics class when I really didn't care). I have owned firearms for most of my adult life (20+ years), but had not really thought about what the second amendment means until maybe the past few years at which time I became more of a firearms enthusiast. Rather than just going with what my gut thinks it should mean, I tried to do some reading/research.
"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 be infringed."
27 words...
My conclusion on what it "means"
I believe that the second amendment is an awkwardly worded, ambiguous statement that seems to be a "Rorschach test" that is interpreted in light of what your pre-existing opinions on Militia's, Keeping and Bearing Arms and un(in)alienable rights are...
Scalia's Opinion on Heller
Steven's Dissent on Heller
Breyer's Dissent on Heller
I tend to agree with Scalia's opinion because that is the one I like, BUT does that make it the "right" one? We won't know for sure until we have time travel...even then it would be interesting to get the framers opinions before they know where we are now...or where we are at the time time-travel is perfected.
It is interesting that the work Militia occurs in the constitution 6 times that I can find, 4 in the original and twice in amendments.
From article I, Section 8:
"To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repeal Invasions;
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress"
From article II, section 2
"The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States;"
From the amendments
Second Amendment
"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 be infringed."
Fifth Amendment
"No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger;"
I think that as a country we seem to have failed to maintain a well regulated militia. Does anyone truly believe that the state of NC has a well regulated militia? SC seems to be closer than we are with an active South Carolina State Guard.
If we did have a well regulated Militia would you serve? and yes I said serve because it seems the Militia would be regulated by congress, the state and ultimately the president...not exactly worded to support individuals or non-government collectives to rise up against the current .gov
Even though we have failed to maintain a well regulated militia, this does not mean that the right of "the people" to keep and bear arms should be infringed.
The problem we have is that it is not specifically enumerated that the second amendment protects my right to bear arms for self-defense (I'm not even going to touch recreational uses). It really seems like your interpretation of Amendment IX is critical! If you think that the second amendment is hard to interpret, the ninth is a dooozie!
Amendment IX
"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
This thing can seem to mean whatever you want it to.
From the Declaration of Independence
We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness—That to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed, that whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these Ends it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its Foundation on such Principles, and organizing its Powers in such Form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
Jefferson wrote these words, the Virginia Declaration of Rights stated:
That all men are by nature equally free and independent and have certain inherent rights, of which, when they enter into a state of society, they cannot, by any compact, deprive or divest their posterity; namely, the enjoyment of life and liberty, with the means of acquiring and possessing property, and pursuing and obtaining happiness and safety.
The right to self-defense seems like an inalienable right that most people recognize/accept. In today's world firearms seem to be one of the means to achieve this goal.
So after all of this, I'm still not sure what the second amendment REALLY MEANS...BUT it is scary that 9 judges (who I presume are not idiots-even the one's that I don't agree with) on the supreme court can have such wildly varying interpretations...
I think that the OP's question of what does it mean to you is the right one, since I'm pretty sure no one that is alive knows what the heck it was supposed to mean! Great post!
Last edited:
OverMountainMan
Cryogenically Hardened Member
I think this is the best part of your response, not that I'm criticizing the rest. Paraphrasing Spooner, It has either created the unhealthy circumstance we currently have, or has been powerless to stop it. Either way, it is unfit for future utility.
In between drinks, I've been writing a new declaration and constitution. We're all gonna have to have something a bit more ...unequivocal, once we get this thing cranked up.
IrishCannon
Fight hard.
Or you can just read the Federalist Papers and the Anti-federalist Papers to see the exact arguments for, against, and the exact thought process behind everything in the Constitution.
It is not a vague or ambiguous document.
Even Madison said what is a militia but We, the People ?
The townsmen were the militia, back when Men trained their children in marksmanship rather than weekend baseball.
Sent from my Moto G (5) Plus using Tapatalk
Last edited:
Interesting, I will look into them. Like I said, I'm pretty ignorant.
Color me jaded though if I don't completely trust 200+ year old documents that the authors apparently didn't actually put their name to. Were they all written under pseudonyms?
OverMountainMan
Cryogenically Hardened Member
Work in Royce's Hologram of Liberty, while you're at it. I don't think you're ignorant. (My mind is subject to change on that last part, hahaha)
to me the second means:
i dont have to worry as much about
-my little girl being able to protect herself when im not around
-my aging mom being able to defend herself when shes home alone (after her home was broken into she appreciated it too)
-me being able to protect any of them when they are with me
or
-this nation being able to protect itself from enemies, foreign OR domestic
the second isnt about hunting - its about preserving every other right guaranteed by the constitution.
i dont have to worry as much about
-my little girl being able to protect herself when im not around
-my aging mom being able to defend herself when shes home alone (after her home was broken into she appreciated it too)
-me being able to protect any of them when they are with me
or
-this nation being able to protect itself from enemies, foreign OR domestic
the second isnt about hunting - its about preserving every other right guaranteed by the constitution.
@vp9c - Your post is scary to me. It is very clear what it says and what it means. The part about the militia is not a prerequisite only one (of several) explanations of the necessity of the explicit right of "the people". It isn't a right of the militia, it's a right of the people. Grammar says that the final clause is independent, logic says that, and the people that wrote it said so repeatedly.
There is no doubt what it meant when it was written. The debate now is only about how free the courts should be to reinterpret things however they like - "the living document" theory. Which is hogwash. There is a process for amending what the constitution says - if you want to change it, follow the process. Period.
What it means to me? "The one(s) that want to take my guns are the reason I need them."
There is no doubt what it meant when it was written. The debate now is only about how free the courts should be to reinterpret things however they like - "the living document" theory. Which is hogwash. There is a process for amending what the constitution says - if you want to change it, follow the process. Period.
What it means to me? "The one(s) that want to take my guns are the reason I need them."
Last edited:
To be honest, the 2nd Amendment is a redundant statement to Natural Law and Freedom. I have the God granted right to bear arms for protection of my Family, Community, State and Nation, both persons and property. Eloquently stated, and continuously debated it has been whittled down to a fulcrum based on "Hunting & Protection" when it used to be the main tool for the preservation of a "Free and Just Society".
No restrictions should have ever been laid on the 2nd Amendment. It was properly instituted in the newly formed Republic by allowing Citizens the right to have Personal Arms, Heavy Arms and yes, even Artillery to be shared in local Armories.
These communities and their Arms were regulated by the elected and community leaders to be used in case their was trouble from (1) Foreign Threats, (which could include the Frontier) and (2) Domestic Uprisings... (Disputes that reached far past debate but strayed over the line of the Fabric laid by the Constitution (both US and State).
Ever since the Civil War, the reunification of the Union has brought about Roads, Technology and more Land. Mass emigration from State to State. Urban areas did not need to rely on arms to fend off ravagers or threats anymore; thus, these Cities instituted Police systems for crime prevention and investigations. Sure, many guns were still prevalent for personal defense; but the need for the heavy stuff was not needed.
Wars got bigger... to include the Whole World. National Standing Armies are needed to keep World Peace. Heavy Arms have been slowly accepted by society to be only handled by the Standing Armies.
This is perfect historical facts of the slippery slope.
I believe that I should be able to Arm my family with all Personal and Mobile Weapons to protect my Life, Limb and Property. I believe that the citizens in my Community have the same rights and together, we would also purchase Heavier Arms that would necessary for Foreign repel and Domestic uprisings. These Heavier Arms would be stored in an Armory, Inventoried, and have plans for when they are to be used. There also would be leadership and citizens that would coordinate with other communities, State and Federal citizens for the proper use of these weapons should that be appropriate.
Looking back, it does not seem that we would have needed these stores (After the Civil War); however, what does the future hold.
I am a citizen in good standing; I am the militia to protect my Home, Community, State and Country should the need arise. My fellow neighbors are the same. Are there any of us on this forum that would not make the same statement?
No restrictions should have ever been laid on the 2nd Amendment. It was properly instituted in the newly formed Republic by allowing Citizens the right to have Personal Arms, Heavy Arms and yes, even Artillery to be shared in local Armories.
These communities and their Arms were regulated by the elected and community leaders to be used in case their was trouble from (1) Foreign Threats, (which could include the Frontier) and (2) Domestic Uprisings... (Disputes that reached far past debate but strayed over the line of the Fabric laid by the Constitution (both US and State).
Ever since the Civil War, the reunification of the Union has brought about Roads, Technology and more Land. Mass emigration from State to State. Urban areas did not need to rely on arms to fend off ravagers or threats anymore; thus, these Cities instituted Police systems for crime prevention and investigations. Sure, many guns were still prevalent for personal defense; but the need for the heavy stuff was not needed.
Wars got bigger... to include the Whole World. National Standing Armies are needed to keep World Peace. Heavy Arms have been slowly accepted by society to be only handled by the Standing Armies.
This is perfect historical facts of the slippery slope.
I believe that I should be able to Arm my family with all Personal and Mobile Weapons to protect my Life, Limb and Property. I believe that the citizens in my Community have the same rights and together, we would also purchase Heavier Arms that would necessary for Foreign repel and Domestic uprisings. These Heavier Arms would be stored in an Armory, Inventoried, and have plans for when they are to be used. There also would be leadership and citizens that would coordinate with other communities, State and Federal citizens for the proper use of these weapons should that be appropriate.
Looking back, it does not seem that we would have needed these stores (After the Civil War); however, what does the future hold.
I am a citizen in good standing; I am the militia to protect my Home, Community, State and Country should the need arise. My fellow neighbors are the same. Are there any of us on this forum that would not make the same statement?
I think that my my personal interpretation is they are independent clauses (at least that's what I think I said in my post) which is why I agree with the Scalia opinion. I was just pointing out that it is interesting that we aren't all in a tizzy because our militia isn't well regulated. If we are so fearful of a tyrannical federal government, why only focus on the second clause?
I'm not sure that I agree that the amendment as it is written is very clear in what it says and what it means. It could have been much more clearly stated with the use of a period instead of a comma (I think that is not really debatable). I am thrilled that the state of NC "lets" me carry a concealed firearm to protect myself and family, but I'm not sure how or if that is covered in the intention of the second amendment. I honestly don't carry every day because I think I will be attacked by a tyrannical government.
Like I said, I am not a historian. To my knowledge the constitution hasn't really been handed down with a "interpretation manual" of "what they meant", so I'm trying to read/interpret it at face value mostly with the other stuff that is actually written in the constitution. So my take on it is that at face value it is not perfectly clear to what it means. This is clearly one of the "flaws" that we are american citizens simply by birthright and don't have any clear indoctrination/education that is consistent.
Like I said, I will try to read on the federalist/anti-federalist papers (hopefully this will bring some clarity/background)...One of my main issues in life is that I am a skeptic by nature. I am not going to believe something just because someone told me that's what it means. I want to dig deeper into the sources. Unfortunately like I said earlier, I will probably be skeptical of some 200+ year old documents that were written under pseudonyms...If anyone can post/quote specifics from these docs to help clarify/educate me that would be cool too.
Don't mean to scare anyone, I am very open to being educated but I'm not a blind believer in things either.
I'm definitely ignorant. To me that just means I haven't learned enough about the subject to really have a solid meaningful opinion.
This thread and some time off have made me try to cure my ignorance.
Personally I think I have libertarian/anachist leanings but I also don't always have faith that people will "do the right thing" so I understand why we have laws and such.
Personally I am for people owning whatever weapons they want for defense of self and country, but I'm not sure that what I "want" and what the second amendment actually means are the same thing...
This seems to go back to the ninth amendment more than the second!
Just more of my intro to my ramblings... is that every sentient being has the right to protect themselves, family and community by any tools necessary.
It was made clear by Washington that the entire body of military aged males in the States made up “the militia”. Therefore we >are< the militia. During the writing of the 2nd, well regulated did not me “under regulations”. It means well armed and equipped. We spend so much time on the “second part” because if it falls then there is no “first part”.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Long_Hunter
Sufficient Speed, Acceptable Drag
2A Bourbon Hound 2024
2A Bourbon Hound OG
Charter Life Member
Benefactor
Supporting Member
It is the stoutest pillar of American Liberty, without which no other amendment in the BoR, nor the very Constitution itself, can survive...and the Republic fades away.
It is my Liberty blanket... that the SCOTUS, our elected representatives, and Federal bureaucratic agencies have been trying to rip away, leaving us all cold and afraid and needing government assistance...When that day comes, my "liberty teeth" shall have their fill as I will not "...go gentle into that good night...", for as the 2A fades like the dying light, so we must rage against this fate and stand our ground
It is my Liberty blanket... that the SCOTUS, our elected representatives, and Federal bureaucratic agencies have been trying to rip away, leaving us all cold and afraid and needing government assistance...When that day comes, my "liberty teeth" shall have their fill as I will not "...go gentle into that good night...", for as the 2A fades like the dying light, so we must rage against this fate and stand our ground
IrishCannon
Fight hard.
I find it interesting that one of the strongest criticisms of the 2A during the Constitutional Convention was that, paraphrasing, only a complete asshole would not assume we had that right as human beings...so much so that many argued it didn't even need to be there because it may make room for government meddling.
I truly wonder where we would be if they took that approach.
I wonder if some of them had a vision and were like"mmmm....we better put it there just in case."
Sent from my Moto G (5) Plus using Tapatalk
I truly wonder where we would be if they took that approach.
I wonder if some of them had a vision and were like"mmmm....we better put it there just in case."
Sent from my Moto G (5) Plus using Tapatalk
Last edited:
Grammatically it was written in a manner commonly used in 18th century legalese. The first statement about a well regulated militia is an explanatory clause used to strengthen the meaning of the second, operative clause. While it seems grammatically odd today, back then it was standard writing style. It is important to analyze historical documents using the language and grammar common to the time period they were written.
Soooo many people don't want to do this, when it makes their argument fall apart...it shines a bright cold light on their speciousness.
Last edited:
Reading the book Unintended Consequences. A quote from page 63 sheds some real light on this topic:
Emphasis is mine. Note that it says prohibiting us from having guns without government permission, referring of course to the gun control enacted by Hitler in Nazi Germany. If you think about what we have today with pistol purchase permits and concealed carry permits, even if they are "shall issue", which is FAR better than "may issue" it STILL amounts to being prohibited without government permission, which is the antithesis of the meaning, wording, and spirit, of the 2nd amendment.
Emphasis is mine. Note that it says prohibiting us from having guns without government permission, referring of course to the gun control enacted by Hitler in Nazi Germany. If you think about what we have today with pistol purchase permits and concealed carry permits, even if they are "shall issue", which is FAR better than "may issue" it STILL amounts to being prohibited without government permission, which is the antithesis of the meaning, wording, and spirit, of the 2nd amendment.
LOL
I don't get around to reading enough modern literature. I am way behind on my historical documents! there's no way for the average person to understand the flavor and context of the style. you either just Believe it's true because somebody told you or you have to dig in and actually experience reading it. hoping that the transcribed information is actually accurate.
thanks for trying to help me understand! I'll get there.
Send me a PM with your email address.
Last year or the year before I used historical sources to definitively prove the Right to Keep and Bear Arms is an individual Right, is meant not for sporting purposes (and that using hunting as an excuse to limit its scope is older than these United States), and that subsequent legislation has been used to infringe upon it repeatedly, especially in the 20th century. It covers the pre-American British tradition all the way through Supreme Court cases into the 2010s.
I need to update it with Peruta and such, but it's only about 20 pages long and will be a good primer before you jump into the sources headlong.
Last edited: