What Does The 2nd Amendment Mean?

Personal Liberty Digest ^ | January 24, 2013 | Bob Livingston

[Resettozero]

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.—Amendment II

Some of the recent attacks on the 2nd Amendment and lawful gun owners by the gun grabbers have focused on the meaning of the words in the Amendment. Particularly, gun grabbers have zeroed in on what the Founding Fathers meant by the words “well regulated Militia.”

So what did the Founders mean when they penned and approved those words? As Thomas Jefferson suggested in a letter to William Johnson, “On every question of construction (of the Constitution) let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed.”

[Kickass Conservative]

I would gladly trade Graham for either one of my two so called Senators.

To tell you how bad it is here, Feinstein ran virtually unopposed in November. I can’t even remember the name of the Republican Woman that ran against her, unlike in 2010 where Carly Fiorini ran against “Call me Senator - Dumb as a Box of Barbara Boxers” Barbara Boxer.

[Slyfox]

You make some very interesting points. As far as The BFLAN lying about it, well we have to concede that he is allergic to virtue.

He prefers to make his actions LOOK virtuous, so as to fool the fools.

I do remember thinking at the time he made that comment as a candidate thinking "why didn't he just use the words 'a well-regulated militia'?

He has no desire to allow us our Constitutional rights.

He wants a group who is well-regulated by him to do us in.

Bill Ayers said that their goal is to destroy the American Republic.

Only savage beasts talk like that.

[Resettozero]

I would gladly trade Graham for either one of my two so called Senators.

Now that you remind me, I guess it could be worse. But I am NOT voting for him again, no matter who or what they run against him. I have been unforgivingly peeved.

[Political Junkie Too]

The “well-regulated militia” thing is solely a STATE function. Wrong. The wording does not imply of that interpretation at all. A militia CAN be a state function but was not so defined at the time.

According to the Constitution, the militia is foremost a state function, because the officers of the militia must come from the states. The president can use the militia in times of emergency, but the officers of the militia are under state control, not federal control.

Article I Section 8:

---

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;

---

Congress regulates the provisioning, organization and discipline of the militia, but they don't control the officers. State control of the officers was a check against federal abuse of the militia.

-PJ

[i_robot73]

Exactly the same as for the first, libel/slander/incite/etc. You are held to account for the damages caused by using your Rights; not for the tools themselves.

Unfort. the GOP couldn’t debate itself out of a web paper bag

[KrisKrinkle]

Unless I missed something, the article is the “same old same old”.

He didn’t address the meaning of the words “the right of the people to keep and bear arms”, or as he put it toward the end, “the right to keep and bear arms”.

As I recall, Heller left that open. If we don’t start addressing the meaning of those words it will be done for us. There can’t be an infringement if what is “infringed” doesn’t fall within the meaning of “the right of the people to keep and bear arms”, whatever that is.