What do YOU think the 2nd amendment means?

**Redleg** · 09-29-2005, 13:23

Originally Posted by Tribesman

Back to topic ..What do YOU think the 2nd amendment means?
It means that they got it wrong the first time .

Unofficial Militia's were not the intent of the founding fathers. There intent is clearly written in the second amendment. A well Regulated Militia
So that answer by Red shows that these strange "militias" that are in existance and which Ceasar is having trouble finding one to join that isn't composed of "crazies" and "racists" are not covered under the amendment .
Furthermore the use of the word "Regulated" means regulations=laws , so that means there must be laws which regulate armed bodies , which means laws that regulate the one thing that makes a body armed = Weapons .

So it is all in the second amendment that there should be laws regulating the ownership of weaponry . Now that means gun control , but of course some people go off into a rant as soon as they hear those words , "they want to ban guns" , which is a complete fallacy .
Gun control does not = banning guns .

Very good Tribesman. You actually got the meaning of my simple statement very well. Soon you will be converted to the dark side,

**Redleg** · 09-29-2005, 13:30

You know Aurelian that any link that doesn't show that the founding fathers wanted us to own any type of weapon is completely hogwash - unless its support by the NRA and others. Edit: Forgot the sarcasm on and off buttons.

The author and I agree completely with this point

I do not state whether or not I believe that Americans should have a personal right to keep and bear arms, or whether or not current gun control laws are Constitutional, or even whether or not there should be gun control. My experience has been that people have already made up their minds on these issues and would not be persuaded by what I have to say on the matter, even were I inclined to state it.

**scooter_the_shooter** · 09-29-2005, 13:39

This is not in response to any thing, just thought some might like to see it.

There is some educational political info (gun related) At the firing line library.

http://thefiringline.com/library/

I like reading "gun control quotes" and some of the essays there.

**scooter_the_shooter** · 09-29-2005, 14:31

How many new (regular) tavern goers are here sense the last gun control thread? If there are alot I might start a new one.

**English assassin** · 09-29-2005, 14:54

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.

Apart from the fact that I have to respect how this sentence has, apparently, been applied in the States , as a piece of English text it seems to me to have only one possible reading. That is the one put forward by Redleg and others.

The purpose to be achieved is a "well regulated militia". The reason this is needed is the security of the state (not, I note in passing, security from the state). The way this will be acheived is by not infringing the rights of the people to bear arms.

Two points occur. The right to bear arms for any other purpose than a well regulated militia is not dealt with at all. And, whilst those who wish the constitution meant "what the founding fathers said it meant" will be stuck with having to join a militia (and a well regulated one at that) before they can own a gun, I think it is reasonable to read militia as meaning a well regulated citizen body, and security of the state could be read to include things like self defence.

Don't see anyway on earth any English speaker can argue their way around "well regulated" though. Which means gun control is clearly part of the 2nd amendment.

Just my view.

**Xiahou** · 09-29-2005, 15:01

Originally Posted by English assassin

Two points occur. The right to bear arms for any other purpose than a well regulated militia is not dealt with at all. And, whilst those who wish the constitution meant "what the founding fathers said it meant" will be stuck with having to join a militia (and a well regulated one at that) before they can own a gun, I think it is reasonable to read militia as meaning a well regulated citizen body, and security of the state could be read to include things like self defence.

Don't see anyway on earth any English speaker can argue their way around "well regulated" though. Which means gun control is clearly part of the 2nd amendment.

I totally disagree. It, indeed says a well-regulated militia is necessary- that's clear. And because of this, the right to bear arms shall not be infringed. It doesn't say 'the right to bear arms within a militia'- it says 'the right to bear arms' period.

People dont like it, or think it's outdated- fine. Go ahead and change it, good luck with that. But there are clear mechanisms for changing the Constitution and just saying it doesn't apply anymore or is outdated isnt part of it. That sort of philosophy gets back to the judicial activism that so many of us rail against.

**scooter_the_shooter** · 09-29-2005, 15:10

It seems most of you are forgetting

the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

That means If I want I should be allowed to own a tank ,f16, rpg etc. I don't mind if my neighbors have them(I dont understand why antis bring the neighbor thing up all the time I dont care if jeff down the road has an ak47)

**Xiahou** · 09-29-2005, 15:15

Originally Posted by ceasar010

That means If I want I should be allowed to own a tank ,f16, rpg etc. I don't mind if my neighbors have them(I dont understand why antis bring the neighbor thing up all the time I dont care if jeff down the road has an ak47)

Personally, I don't think it's really a good idea for any shlub to be able to own tanks, bombers and WMDs. However, even with that- I'm not going to try to manufacture support for my view where it doesn't exists, the Constitution.