[The_Pickle]

Amendment II

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.

This is about as unambiguous as one can get when framing a document of governance where the framers are trying to make a clear statement as to the prohibition of acts by the government.

A well-regulated, (governed or directed according to rule)

militia (a body of citizens organized for military service)

being necessary (logically unavoidable)

to the security (freedom from danger)

of a free State (State in this incidence means the States that make up the U.S. as well as the U.S. itself)

The right (the power or privilege to which one is justly entitled)

of the people (the citizens of the United States)

to keep (to retain in one's possession or power)

and bear (to move while holding up and supporting)

arms (a means, as in a weapon, of offense or defense)

shall not (total prohibition against)

be infringed (encroach upon in any way that violates the law or the rights of another).

[Parley Baer]

Good analysis. The commas mean a seperation of thought and are all important. Parley

[2timothy3.16]

That is good! Thanks.

[teeman8r]

what is missing from your analysis is that in 1787 well-regulated did not mean government controlled, but trained and equippied.

[KrisKrinkle]

Any comments on what "power or privilege" "one is justly entitled" to in regard to bearing arms?

I am not interested in the "nuclear backpack" question.

I am interested in the "reasonable restrictions" question.

Some say there are no "reasonable restrictions." If there are no "reasonable restrictions," then the likes of Charles Manson, Timothy McVeigh and the Unibomber would be permitted to bear the arms of their choice while at the defense table during their trials. After all, they are innocent until proven guilty.

Somehow, I don't think that would work out well in regard to insuring domestic Tranquility, promoting the general Welfare, and securing the Blessings of Liberty for the People of the United States and our Posterity.

It could be argued that keeping the likes of those mentioned from bearing arms in the circumstance given is a reasonable restriction. If so, the basis for the restriction must lie in the answere to the question: what exactly is covered by "the power or privelege to which one is justly entitled" in regard to the bearing of arms?

[2nd_Amendment_Defender]

The Second Amendment can be put in even more understandable terms.

“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.”

A well-regulated militia means a well-maintained and armed body of men composed of the common people. George Mason said, "I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials." This Amendment emphasizes that such militias are necessary to secure the freedoms of the people. A free state was considered one in which citizens had inalienable rights, government derived its power from the governed, and the people had the right to alter or abolish the government if it became tyrannical. The right of citizens to keep and bear arms is the guarantee of that free state.

The Founding Fathers of the Constitution knew of the potential evils of having standing armies in times of peace. In free states, the defense of the realm was considered best left to citizens who took up arms only when necessary and who returned to their communities and occupations when the danger passed. They observed that professional soldiers endangered liberty. Standing armies were viewed as instruments of fear. A main danger to a free republic was tyrannical government and the ultimate check on tyrannical government was an armed population.

From the above information we can see how the Third Amendment ties in with the Second Amendment.

"No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law."

[supercat]

arms (a means, as in a weapon, of offense or defense)

But does the term include any and all such objects as might be used for such purpose? If so, on what items is the government allowed to place taxes or any other restriction?

IMHO, and the Court in Miller seemed to take this view, the prefatory phrase of the Second Amendment serves to clarify that the "Arms" protected thereby are those artifacts which could be used effectively as weapons in the context of a well-functioning citizen army.

M-16 clearly included. Glock 19 clearly included. Cane gun, perhaps not.