Perhaps, MR before you spend too much time researching the minutiae of case law, we should just get back to the original question: Given the phrase at the beginning of the Second Amendment, what does the Amendment really mean?

I started out asking why that clause was there at all if the amendment was intented to address an individual right to bear arms. Can you give me a simple answer to that? Or perhaps it would be easier to simply tell me what you feel the amendment does or does not cover - I think there may be an extent to which we are debating at cross-purposes.

Or, easier again, let me state as plainly as possible what I feel the amendment means. Foremost, I think the Second Amendment says that the federal government - Congress - does not have the right to ban arms outright. But I do not think that the amendment is saying that, within these United States, no laws shall ever be passed on any level which restrict the use of arms in any way. On the basis of my reading, it would be well within the rights of the various states to legislate any restrictions of firearms - or any other weaponry - which they saw fit. It would also, by my reading, be within the rights of the federal government to pass legislation relating to armaments so long as that legislation in no way restricted the states' ability to organize a militia from their armed citizenry.

Now, with what in the above so you disagree?

I've been "researching" this topic for 25 years; the research is done and the conclusions have been solidified. It is not research to just depend upon a tortured reading of the Court's opinion with no understanding or worse, no acceptance of the principles on which the Constitution rests. Just the basic understandings of the differences between Locke (who the framers embraced) and Bodin, Filmer or Hobbes (who the framers dismissed) would extinguish the interpretation you are promoting. I can not "make" you read the political philosophy treatises which the framers utilized as a guideline for the Constitution, I just take heart that the Supreme Court Justices have read them and have deemed them "approved commentators."

As I said before, I avoid speculation; that the framers felt it necessary to explain why the right of the people shall not be infringed, I just accept as that, an explanation of why the right is guaranteed. Academics have studied contemporaneous provisions and the 2nd is not as strange as you think. I would reccomend an article for perspective on the declaritive clause. It is The Commonplace Second Amendment by Prof. Eugene Volokh, UCLA Law School.

All I can say for sure is that in understanding the principle of pre-existing rights and the principle of equality of rights, the framers had no intent of restricting or qualifying the right secured by the 2nd Amendment. As Jefferson said:

"In America, no other distinction between man and man had ever been known but that of persons in office exercising powers by authority of the laws, and private individuals. Among these last, the poorest laborer stood on equal ground with the wealthiest millionaire, and generally on a more favored one whenever their rights seem to jar." --Thomas Jefferson: Answers to de Meusnier Questions, 1786. ME 17:8

The framers were quite aware of the restrictions and qualifications on the right to arms forced on British subjects. The founders held them in contempt. To argue that they would then (with the collusion of the state legislatures) write and ratify amendment that somehow, (after all, we are still debating the vauge, non-descript "meaning" of the provision), in some way, allow government, any government, to infringe on the right is ludicrous. To argue also that the amendment can be read to only protect those persons formally recognized by the government as arms bearers, and then only in the collective entity recognized and supported by the government and that all other citizens are exposed to whatever proscriptions the legislature wishes to enact, is even more ludicrous. Such an offensive interpretation is worse than the condition of British subjects the framers decried.

That interpretation violates so many ideals the framers held dear. A basic principle of this nation is drawn from Locke. Locke's concept of government power and its limitations was based on the inherent rights of man. Government can not legitimately be arbitrary over the lives and fortunes of the people because government's power is only the sum of that limited amount of power each member of the society surrenders to the legislative assembly. The power vested in the assembly can be no greater than that which the people had before they entered into that society. No person can transfer to another, more power than he possesses himself, and nobody has an absolute arbitrary power over any other, to destroy, or take away, the life or property of another. This is plainly evident in this Jefferson comment to Madison:

"What is true of every member of the society, individually, is true of them all collectively; since the rights of the whole can be no more than the sum of the rights of the individuals." --Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, 1789.

To say that the 2nd Amendment allows government action that would violate the equal rights of citizens or that holds a certain class of citizens as the "special protected class" above and at the expense of others, can not be supported.

The first "wrong" thing that jumps out is that of terminology. It may seem petty and just arguing semantics but governments do not have rights. Governments, federal, state, local only exercise powers. Those powers are either legitimate or illegitimate. There does exist a power that is inherent in the federal government that is not formally described or explained. It is an inferred power to act to ensure that Republican principles are adhered to. This is called the prerogative of the federal government. I bring this up because Republican principles forbid disarming the citizenry. An armed citizenry is a hallmark of a classical Republic.

This theory is explained in Presser:

"It is undoubtedly true that all citizens capable of bearing arms constitute the reserved military force or reserve militia of the United States as well as of the states,[1] and, in view of this prerogative of the general government, as well as of its general powers, the states cannot, even laying the constitutional provision in question out of view, prohibit the people from keeping and bearing arms,[2] so as to deprive the United States of their rightful resource for maintaining the public security, and disable the people from performing their duty to the general government.[3] But, as already stated, we think  it clear that the sections under consideration do not have this effect.[4]"

[1] All citizens capable of bearing arms are the reserve militia.
[2] Regardless of Constitutional provision, as I said yesterday, even if the Bill of Rights did not exist, the states are powerless to prohibit the people from keeping and bearing arms. SCOTUS says the power to enforce this principle (the mandate against states disarming citizens) exists on two planes. It exists in the general powers and in the prerogative of the federal government. Again, that word, prerogative, describes a underlying principle of a Constitutional Republic. Powers residing in the prerogative of the federal government are granted by inference for use in the continuance of the founding principles. A Republican government has as one of its most basic elements, an armed citizenry. Because the Constitution promises to all the states a Republican form of government, the federal government can not allow any one state to act in a non-Republican fashion, such as, disarming the citizenry.
[3] This sentence explains a mingled dependence, in the reverse of what is called states rights nowadays. The states are barred from disarming the people because those armed people are also the resource upon which the security of the federal government depends.
[4] A state law requiring permission for private armed marches or musters does not injure either the intent of the 2nd Amendment or the fundamental right to keep and bear arms enjoyed without regard of constitutional provision.

This seems un-ambiguous to me, the federal government, adhering to Republican principles can not allow a state to prohibit the people from keeping and bearing arms.

It is clear from this passage that the right protected by the 2nd Amendment is owned exclusively by, "all citizens capable of bearing arms."

The right protected by the 2nd Amendment does not belong to the states and their militia regulation power. If it did, the Court would apply the Amendment's scope and restriction on the inferred federal power to bind the states, not the states power to require a permit for an armed march by citizens.

Your interpretation fails.

--------------------


I like to pose a question to those who think they have well regulated all figured out.

What is the definition of ill-regulated?

Just like well regulated, ill-regulated is a term that has been used in reference to the military and militia for centuries.  

• "For this reason I shall examine, by what has passed of late years in these nations, whether experience have convinced us, that officers bred in foreign wars, be so far preferable to others who have been under no other discipline than that of an ordinary and ill-regulated militia..." -- Fletcher, Andrew, A DISCOURSE OF GOVERNMENT With relation to MILITIA'S, Edinburgh, 1698.

Surprisingly, it is still in usage today;

• Acute viral hepatitis and cholera were the two major diseases that Russian medical personnel had to contend with. Both are endemic to squalid living conditions and confined living space found in ill-regulated field camps and deployment areas. -- Viral Hepatitis and the Russian War in Chechnya, United States Army Medical Journal, May/June 1997

The definition of ill-regulated is unchallenged. It is a characterization given to troops not equipped properly, that demonstrate substandard military discipline and when general conditions render them not fit for battle. 

That definition of ill-regulated and my definition of well regulated are antonyms.

I think that makes perfect sense.

What evidence do you have that it means well controlled by legislative authority?
I have researched this quite extensively and can offer many other examples of usage that dispell your interpretation.

Point taken. Barring any sources which may exist which demonstrate something to the contrary (of which I am unaware), I accept your interpretation.

What it seems can be implied from your understanding of the second amendment, and which does frighten me, admittedly, is that you are implying any regulation of arms held by citizens is unconstitutional.

So, moving away from the parsing of the amendment, and into a broader arena, are laws which prevent me from owning nuclear weapons unconstitutional? Should I be allowed to own a tank? An RPG? Can I set up a SAM battery on my front lawn? Should I be able to buy an M-16 at the 7-11, completely anonymously?

Yeah, but John Adams was an anti-Federalist too. He was opposed to the individual right to bear arms because he was afraid of what he termed "mob rule". Supposedly, the preamble to the 2nd amendment was included specifically because of his concerns.

The federalists papers were created to lobby for the ratification of the Constitution. They were not the basis as some people would assume. People talk as if what was in the federalist papers is what was inferred in the Constitution and that's not true. Although very valuable insight is included in the Federalist papers, regardless of how you feel about this subject, they were only opinions by a select few. A militia during that time was all able-bodied males between the ages of 18 and 45 because nobody wanted a standing army. "Well regulated" meant that these eligible members of the militia need to train periodically and carry a certain type of guns and gear.

Joe Bob sitting in his trailer park sucking down Pabst Blue Ribbon while watching Oprah is not a member of the militia by default just because he owns a gun. Additionally, if a person attempted to use this literal meaning, women would not have the individual right to bear arms. Neither would I. I'm male, but over 45.

It's not some grand conspiracy that every Federal and Supreme Court ruling (with the exception of Emerson) has upheld the 1929 Miller ruling (collective right). We've had liberal benches and we've had conservative benches that have ruled it is not an individual right. The Supreme Court we have now didn't take the Emerson case on appeal because this case was closed long ago and they can't spend their time re-ruling and re-hearing cases over and over because somebody is disagreeing.

The second amendment protected the state's right to defend itself. It's that simple. If Ohio governor Bob Taft decides he needs all of us to be armed with rocket launchers to defend Ohio from enemy attacks, the feds can't stop him. THAT is what the second amendment actually does.

Overall. I'm inclined to agree with DaytonRocker. I would have to add, though, that according to my reading of the Second Amendment, if Ohio governor Bob Taft (or the state congress) decides that a militia is superfluous (given that we now have a standing army, a National Guard, and an armed police force) and decides to outlaw the possession of all firearms, the feds still couldn't stop him. That, too, insofar as the "infringement" in the Bill of Rights refers only to the federal government and the US Congress, is what the second amendment actually does.

I suppose much of the question boils down to what is meant, not by militia, but by "infringed". Does "infringement" include legislation which states that guns must be registered? Does it include background checks? Does it include restricting the rights of convicted felons to bear arms? Does it include the interstate transport of certain types of weapons? Does it include limiting the size of knife one can carry on the street? Does it include the home manufacture of biological weapons?

I have already stated that I don't believe, on the basis of the Second Amendment, that the federal government can ban armaments outright. I have also stated that it would appear that the federal government can pass any or all legislation restricting the right to keep and bear arms, so long as it doesn't inetrefere with states' militias. And I have said that the individual states couldm if they so desired pass any type of legislation up to and including the banning of certain types of arms. I have seen no court decision which contradicts any of those beliefs - and have seen no arguments here which conclusively demonstrate otherwise. If you feel any of the above is unconstitutional on the grounds of the Second Amendment, the courts and I are not convinced.

That was too easy.


Not at all, there inherent limits to nearly every right. The only rights that I would consider absolute would be life and personal liberty. Any action undertaken when these rights are threatened is legitimate.

The right to arms does spring from the right to self defense but it is not absolute. In this society, as this government has been established, the right to arms is protected primarily as a defense against tyranny. Laws that seek to restrict the right to arms and the class of weapons available to the citizens must be judged by that criteria. There is plenty of opportunity to control access and types of firearms in private hands. There even exists a way to have firearm registration, nationwide, with nearly complete compliance mandated upon the citizenry.


The reason the right to arms was secured is to ensure the viability of the militia as force to protect the nation, the state and the citizen. It must be interpreted with that in mind. Laws that seek to restrict the availability of certain weapons must pass muster, held up to the intent of the Amendment. US v. Miller has established a guideline for deciding the status of a weapon and whether it is immune from federal oversight. The Court has said the weapons protected are of the type that are usually employed in civilized warfare, and that constitute the ordinary military equipment. Indiscriminate weapons like bombs are not weapons of the militia and as such, are not protected by the 2nd. They are considered the weapons of open warfare which is the sole domain of the federal government.

As far as tanks go and RPGs and bazookas and flamethrowers and 20 mm cannon; all these things are available for purchase. Certain weapons fall under the National Firearms Act of 1934 as firearms and destructive devices. Full Auto machine guns, anti-aircraft guns, mini-guns, flamethrowers and bazookas all require a Class III stamp showing the transfer tax has been paid. AFAIK, tanks do not require any special permits, I'm sure the cannon or other armaments would have NFA-'34 restrictions but as far as the vehicle goes you can pick up a Patton for about $100,000.00, armored personnel carriers can be had for $25,000. Eastern Bloc armor is usually half that.


I personally think that background checks are a necessary measure to try to stop those disabled from owning a firearm from acquiring one. As far as the firearm being full -auto, I think the measures in place are worthwhile and should remain in effect. However, a literal reading of Miller though would declare such a weapon immune from federal control.

The Second Amendment states "and the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed". This means that the people (citizens of the United States) get to keep and bear arms. Any law that prohibits a citizen from owning any type of weapon is unConstitutional.

Fluteplayer, in the post above, you state:

But in a thread that was closed, as it was a duplicate, you stated:

I guess I'm just a little confused as to your position on the 2nd Amendment.

I support prohibiting individuals from having assault weapons, grenades, and nukes. That doesn't mean I don't disagree with the statement that any law that prohibits a citizen from owning any type of weapon is unConstitutional. Basically, I believe that the Second Amendment should be modified so it does not permit people to own assault and excessively destructive weapons. Thus laws that would prohibit citizens from owning assault & excessively destructive weapons (like nukes) would not be unConstitutional).

I think guns are like cars: both can be used for good or for evil, depending on the person who's using it.

So, like cars, guns should require registration, usage tests on a periodic basis, licensing that includes the person's current address and location, etc. Seems fair.

amf, There are differences between guns and cars - guns shoot very far & very fast and thus they have a good chance of hitting someone; cars are not so fast. Bullets fired from guns are not very wide but cars are much wider and have a good chance of hitting someone. I do agree that a person should be registered - the person should have to undergo safety & morality exams.

I understand your point of view amf, but I disagree with it on a basic constitutional level. I don't think that the registering of vehicles and the licensing of drivers has an impact on the number of DUI's, speeding and accidents. Just as I don't think registering firearms would have an impact on the number of shooting related deaths or injuries.
Criminals are not going to register, and just because law abiding citizens do would not deter crimes of passion or someone who became mentally unbalanced or under the influence of some narcotic from shooting someone.
I firmly believe that the drive for registering and licensing is a two pronged attack. There are those that would simply feel better if we enacted the above. They would think that they are somehow safer because of the additional legislation passed, plus registration and licenses would cost money, so more money in government coffers right?
Then there are, I believe, those who ultimately wish to eventually ban all private ownership of firearms. The first step would be obvious. Then after the additional laws were passed, and gun related deaths did not measurably decrease (because criminals were still shooting people), they could garner public support for banning them outright. And we would already know all of the law abiding citizens that owned guns, too easy. Just ask the brits.
So in the end, to quote a cliche, only the criminals and law breakers would have guns. And there is really no practical, feasible solution for ridding the entire country of every gun in existence, especially from the hands of the bad guys.
I will have lost the right to defend my family and myself with a firearm. And I don't relish taking a baseball bat to a gunfight.

You misunderstand my point, DTOM.

My whole point in relating it to cars is to ensure that users of guns have proper instruction and safety training BEFORE they can purchase and use a gun.

No, it's not going to keep unlicensed/uninsured/unregistered people from stealing or using cars, just the same way as it won't for guns. But it ensures that the VAST bulk of people who have cars have had that training and are insured and have registered their car in case it gets stolen and to prove it's really their car and not stolen from someone else. The same logic applies to guns.

I don't want to take guns away from anyone. I want to make sure that people who have them have been trained and tested and understand safety and the law as it relates to their guns.

And none of that is unconstitutional by any reasonable reading of it.

amf, it was certainly not my intention to misrepresent your post. I started off responding to it, and then the words just kept flowing out like water, and I digressed.

I'm more than a bit leery of entrusting or, even worse, creating another government entity to oversee registration and training of firearms. The DMV's in ALL states I have lived in are less than impressive for their efficiency.

And at least part of my post is still relevant to your position. Once the government gets a list of everyone who owns a firearm, you're one step closer to confiscation, whether you think it would happen or not. Cases in point Britain and Canada.


That is, of course, depending on one's personal view of reasonable.

I didn't think you misrepresented me, just that you might have misunderstood where I was coming from.

As for creating another entity to register and oversee training for gun owners, I don't fear that at all. I think it'll cut down on other problems that have a higher cost to our society. Like idiots who leave their gun loaded and unlocked for their kids to find and play with and.....

As for confiscation: I'm not that paranoid. The current Administration is happy to lock people up without access to an attorney for an indefinite period of time and without ever filing a single charge against them. You think my owning a gun could keep them from doing it to me? Nope. They out-gun me no matter how many guns I have. So, I don't get paranoid about confiscation. I get more paranoid about idiots in my neighborhood who have guns and no training on how not to be an idiot with their guns.

One must remember that in the Miller case, NO decision was made. It was remanded back to the lower court for re-trial. Also, the reason that this statement...
... was used was that the defence PRESENTED NO EVIDENCE! Their clients, one was dead and the other was on the lam, were no shows so why show up for the court procedings to make a case?

Only because the 2nd has not been incorporated onto the stated through the 14th ammendment. With the right case before the SCOTUS, the 2nd could very well be applied to the states as well as to all of the lesser govts!

One does NOT need to have a licence or register an automobile as long as it is used on private property!

The Constitution was ratified in what, 1787? That was 217 years ago. So as time marches on and more and more things are created that the Constitution is not clear on we must, shall I say, update it. What is the real reaon those who claim the 2nd Amendment does not guarantee right to bear arms? Are they trying to prevent gun deaths? A laudable goal? Are they trying to make America safer? Again laudable. Or are they more interested in huge government, Big Brother watching over everyone, cradle to grave government coddling? I don't know. But I do know that obesity causes more death each year than gun violence. Smoking and drinking excessive alcohol cause more death than gun violence. SO those who claim to want safer streets, thus their zeal for grabbing guns, should be clammering for outlawing twinkies, ding dongs, truffles, cheese doodles, beer, whiskey, so on. Common sense sees that many Americans enjoy shooting sports, they support the industry greatly. Many Americans are employed in the firearms industries, it is an honorable or at least honest living. THose of you who clamor for end to individual ownership of arms, face it, time and technology march on, soone there will be weapons that fire laser that are hand held, and beyond and beyond. If you live your life according to civil law, you really have nothing to worry about. Although if you arm yourself you are proven to have a better chance at avoiding being a victim of violence yourself

That is a very interesting analysis. I never really understood the parts of speech that much. Also, I would like to say that this is a very timely forum.

Known collectively as the Bill of Rights, the first 10 Amendments were presented all at once in a single lump. What this means is that the language used in higher numbered amendments within the Bill of Rights would have been scrutinized for their meaning at the same time the lower numbered amendments were considered. Therefore, since the Tenth Amendment distinguishes between rights of the people and rights of the states, it must be understood that the Second Amendment confers the right to keep and bear arms upon the people, rather than exclusively upon the states or the nation, and that this right is not to be infringed upon.

In the language of the Constitution, the military is referred to in the Fifth Amendment as the "land or naval forces"; flight had not been invented and so there was no air force at the time. The militia, on the other hand, consisted of the independent members of the public; it was these members who organized to fight the American Revolution. The distinction between the militia and the people is that the militia refers collectively to people who keep and bear arms and who are able to provide for the security of a free state according to their abilities and consciences, or who are able to provide other services for the common defense. However, only when members of the militia become consigned for actual service with the government does the Fifth Amendment state that they fall under the same jurisdiction as the military. Apart from such consignment, the militia remains independent, and the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Obesity, smoking, and drinking?

Completely bogus comparison.

If you want to smoke a carton of Camel lights while eating a box of Hostess Twinkies, and chase it down with a 5th of Jack Daniels, that's your right. If you want to die early doing the things like that you enjoy, more power to you.

But guns used by irresponsible idiots kill someone who has no control of his/her own life at that point. People dying by the examples you provide can control their own destiny. Someone getting shot in the head by an 18 year old gang banger did not create or control the situation that ended a life.

Really?? Is this true in EVERY state? Is it possible to have a car that's never been registered ANYWHERE? Is it possible to get by in this country without ever having gotten a driver's license and learned how to drive? Is that true for the 200+ million guns out there? How do you get to take it from the dealer home if you don't have it registered? If you have to tow it because it doesn't work, then similarly the gun should be broken the same way, right?

You really need to provide more information than just a one-liner.

I learned to drive when I was 13. I am now 52. In those days in South Carolina, 'Farm Pursuit' allowed farmers to run vehicles on the road in order to go from the farm to the field and from the field back to the farm. Similar laws existed and still to some extent in most states. The farmer that I worked for had this 1960 VW that he had removed all seats except the drivers seat. For a small job, we would load up that VW with tools or feed or whatever and I would drive the VW to the farm job site. This VW had NO registration, insurance, OR auto tags and I had NO license.
If you have a number of acres of land and can afford a new Jeep to just drive around, you do not have to register OR tag it... AND you do not need a license to drive it as long as you do not LEAVE your land. Now, you might have a problem convincing the tax office of the usage of this vehicle, but that problem is solvable.
Any of you listeners race cars? I don't think that you have to license or register these vehicles.

This shows a lack of understanding about people's behavior and have it affects others. Fat, obese, portly, whatever you call them, people visit the hospital much more, miss more work, cause health insurance rates to be higher. Second hand smoke has been shown to be damaging to nonsmokers, thus people who don't smoke but live with smokers who have developed lung disease, same as if the smoker shot them in the head. And I would stake the farm that licensed gun owners among the most responsbile people alive. They took the time to register, take safety courses, ensure safety in their homes. The majority of homicides inflicted by guns involve hard criminals who would committ crimes with any type of weapon. Accidental deaths, like hunting accidents, fooling around(ex-basketball player Jayson Williams) are usually caused by stupid people. Life is hard, it is harder if you are stupid.

There is no doubt as to what was intended by the 2nd Amendment, an armed and ready Citizen Soldier as part of a Militia to insure a Free State, and I do believe it meant Freedom from Tyrany and well as Foreign Invasion.

The Constitution also states we shall not provide for or maintain a Standing Army for a period longer than 2 years. Since we now have a standing Army in perpetuation ,the question arises do we need a Militia as well.

Regardless of the wording, it seems clear the only reason given for bearing arms is a Militia, no militia no arms. At least as to the Constitutional Right.

Now think about Hunting Laws, the existance of laws regulating "Hunting" can only be construed to assume the citizen has the right to own a gun by the State.

Certain type guns are also regulated by the State as to which part of a State a certain gun can be used or Fired, which implies a variety of guns are approved by the State for ownership.

For the Grammar coach here, think this one out. What does the word "bear" mean as in "bear arms" . In my limited knowledge of the English language that does not mean to Own Guns, it means to "Carry" it, a gun on your person" .

You are forgetting one thing. That would be that the founding father believed it to be not our right, but our DUTY to rise up in arms agains OUR government if we are subjected to tyranny and usurpations. That is a fact. It has always been my understanding that we are ALL part of a militia, though an inactive one. Kind of how a person, once out of the military, is in inactive reserve for so many years. Not serving, but CAN be called on in a time of emergency. The point, is that if our government suddenly becomes tyrannical, we then have an OBLIGATION to form actual militia units, and fight. How do you propose this is done without the members of said militia having weapons? One would think that at the point of the government getting this way, there wouldn't be a way to purchase guns. Do you honestly believe that a tyrannic government would allow the very people it oppresses to arm themselves?

This is also why I consider it completely WRONG when people say "we have the national guard, aren't those the militias?" No. Not the kind we would need at the time. In that scenario, we would need a non-government affiliated militia.

Hence, the wording of the 2nd Amendment.

That is by far, one of the most absurd postings I have ever seen on the 2nd amendment. Does anybody here actually study the subject matter anymore or do you just post to see your name?

First, the founding fathers did not protect our right to violently overthrow our government. Of course, we were to fight against tyranny, but not against our own government. You would be suggesting that the founding fathers created a new republic with elected leaders, but figured it would fail, so let's riot. That's too ridiculous for words.

The Federalists papers were written to lobby the states for ratification of the Consitution. They get all the press. But the anti-Federalists had an equal say. John Adams was an anti-Federalist. He was opposed to "mob rule" - as your premise suggests. So, the 2nd amendment was specifically changed to include the militia preamble because of anti-federalist concerns. That is a fact - look it up.

Furthermore, it gets back to the argument of what we could be armed with. If your premise were true, we should be allowed to own tanks, jets, and nukes. We would have a right to firepower able to overthrow the government.

The founding fathers were more concerned with the British and any other invading army. There was no standing army. The only thing they had was each state's ability to muster a fighting force to repel attack. So, the 2nd amendment protected the rights of the states to defend themselves without the feds being able to interfere. It's that simple.

What's simple is that the Continental Congress established the United States Army on 14 June 1775. Mnay years before the US Constitution.

Does that change any of the premise of your post?

You are correct. There was a small standing army created by the Continental Congress and led by George Washington - the Continental Army.

What I should have said, is that the founding fathers were opposed to a standing army. But it does not change my premise one iota.

White able-bodied free males between the ages of 18 and 45 were required by law to belong to the miliita by the statute law of the colony. It was compulsory service. Whether or not they actually served in militia units is another question. Because they could not rely on them (even though we could not have won the war without them), they needed to create an army to defend strategic areas immediately.

DaytonRocker: You are totally wrong , nearly every amendment to the Constitution is protection against our own Government Tyranny, and the right to bear arms is intended to protect us from our own government as well as an invasion. The Bill of Rights is our protection from our own Government.

The restriction of not permitting a standing army for more than two years is also a protection against an Army led government dictatorship, which we seem to be working our way to more everyday.

In so far as a Militia to overthrow what may become a Dictatorship, it is now an absurd idea that it could be done .

I am not an anti gun advocate, I believe we have a right to own a gun or guns in a reponsible manner like anything else we want to own, but I do question the manner the 2nd Admendment is interpreted by many ,who see it as a absolute right to gun ownership without regard to participation in a Militia. Fact is I think anyone purchasing a gun should first be required to join a Militia, and from there we get some control over who owns a gun. Had the Framers of the Constitution wanted guns to be owned by anyone wanting one, it would have been simple enough to provide for it and not even mention a Militia, but they did and those words are ever bit as potent as anything else stated in the Amendment.

Really? They didn't? So if the government turns into a dictatorship, we would be required to.....democratically elect a new dictator?



I'm not suggesting they figured it would fail. I'm saying they did think of the possibility that it might someday become tyrannical.








Which one of us hasn't read anything? I think these quotes support EXACTLY what I was saying.



A nuke is a nonconventional weapon. It is not part of standard military equipment. In fact, it's not even legal for countries to use them. Tanks and jets? If you can afford one, more power to you.

I doubt even for this discussion that anyone would argue with the constitutions guarantee to life and liberty. Well with these rights obviously there comes a right to defend ones life and liberty against any who would unlawfully take them using any means nessacary. This pretty much settles the right to keep and bear arms issue right there even with out the second amendment. However we do have a very clear right guaranteed by the second amendment to own and bear arms of whatever type we deem nessacary to defend our other rights, either from individuals, other governments, or yes our own government is it becomes a tyranical government ignoring the limits placed on its power by the constitution. Its all very clear.