[stuartcr]

I had a discussion the other day with someone who is very anti-gun and of course the 2nd Amend came up. We were at odds as to what a well regulated militia really is. Which article in the original constitution is the 2nd amendment actually amending? I’m not a constitutional scholar, so I couldn’t answer. I’d appreciate some freeper inputs.

[arthurus]

The need of a ‘well regulated militia” is a justification, not a limitation. That is the plain English of the statement. Ut does not modify the essential statement at all, “the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”

[Trailerpark Badass]

The BOR are not amending anything other than their lack of inclusion originally.

You really don't know the history of the BOR?

Not sure I'd admit that, in public.

You've never read the Militia Act(s)?

Did you go to public school?

[Gritty]

Which article in the original constitution is the 2nd amendment actually amending?

It is not "amending" any. It was added because some states refused to ratify the Constitution unless certain restrictions on the Federal government were spelled out. Their fears have been confirmed on numerous occaisions since.

We were at odds as to what a well regulated militia really is.

Perhaps this will help:

... the Framers understood all of the people to be part of the unorganized militia. The unorganized militia members, "the people," had the right to keep and bear arms. They could, individually, or in concert, "well regulate" themselves; that is, they could train to shoot accurately and to learn the basics of military tactics.

This interpretation is in keeping with English usage of the time, which included within the meaning of the verb "regulate" the concept of self- regulation or self-control (as it does still to this day)... (source)

But in fact, the "militia" portion of the Amendment is not necessary to secure or modify the right. It is simply an explanation of "why". How does the right change if the verbiage of the initial phrase is changed even to something as silly as this?...

"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state The moon, being made out of green cheese, the right of people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

See? It doesn't. It is a right of the people, and not to be infringed upon by any means.

Most states have identical or similar language in their individual constitutions as well.

Bottom line? This is an unConstitutional power grab by the federal government and should be opposed as such!

[OneWingedShark]

I had a discussion the other day with someone who is very anti-gun and of course the 2nd Amend came up. We were at odds as to what a well regulated militia really is.

Grab a copy of your State Constitution and look it up; *most* states have an article or section defining the militia. New Mexico, for example:

ARTICLE XVIII -- Militia
Section 1. [Composition, name and commander in chief of militia.]
The militia of this state shall consist of all able-bodied male citizens between the ages of eighteen and forty-five, except such as are exempt by laws of the United States or of this state. The organized militia shall be called the "national guard of New Mexico," of which the governor shall be the commander in chief.

Which article in the original constitution is the 2nd amendment actually amending? I’m not a constitutional scholar, so I couldn’t answer. I’d appreciate some freeper inputs.

It's not necessarily amending a particular article, section, or clause of the unamended Constitution; the Bill of Rights were requisite for the Constitution's ratification and say this about themselves:

THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution.