The exact wording from the 2nd Amendment. How do you define it?

[demtenjeep]

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.

[demtenjeep]

1. seems the well regulated Militia is always left out of the rest. Most just say right of the people

to keep and bear arms

[BlueJazz]

2. The second and third words speak volumes.

[moobu2]

3. I think it means you have the right to bear a musket.

[Chorophyll]

4. I define it as a sensible idea for a brand new country, vulnerable to being reabsorbed by

the British Empire, having very little infrastructure and only muskets for protection.

In other words, obsolete and ready for a massive re-think.

[demtenjeep]

5. yes, that was the direction I hoped this would go. I posted amendment 3 and pointed out it was very

obsolete.

These were all responses of the oppressive actions of the king we were fighting to cut bonds with

[Chorophyll]

6. I think a lot of us have been forced to do a lot of quick thinking about these things

in the last few days. Thanks for being one of them.

[RagAss]

7. Keep a musket in the closet and 3 cannon balls behind the shithouse !

[sarisataka]

8. It doesn't matter how I define it

what is important is how SCOTUS defines it

[demtenjeep]

10. how do you think the framers of the constitution defined it?

we had no true organized military at the time the "militia" was to protect the states after meetings to agree on how to proceede

[sarisataka]

13. My belief is that

SCOTUS was pretty much on with the idea of the 2A. Individuals have a right, though not unlimited, to keep and bear arms. The arms would be the typical individual weapon(s) of the infantry.

While I believe the militia clause is the subordinate, like every clause in the BOR there is a purpose. In this case I can see that while the arms are not regulated, the militia can be. As the militia is defined as all adult males (and presumably females, given the recognition of equality), the people can be regulated. To me it fits both the 18th century definition and the modern that those who bear arms can be required to be 'regulated' i.e. vetted in such fashion as to assure they are able to fulfill their militia duties if called. I have had a very recent change of heart as not many days ago I would have disputed the notion. Some good discussions here gave me a new angle to consider the letter and spirit of the 2A.

Reading some texts, I wonder why no one has questioned the Constitutionality of the army...

[Loudly]

9. A free State was supposed to be reassured by that.

States were being appeased with the implication that they could revoke the compact, throw off the Federal government, and secede from the Union.

It was a way of courting States so they would ratify the Constitution.

This, of course, was rendered quite entirely moot by the Civil War.

The Appomattox covenant is that armed rebellion is never legitimate in this country.

Modern claims of some right of access to convenient mass murder are therefore fraudulent. Spoken by liars and traitors.

[Mel Content]

11. "a well regulated militia" is a rationale, NOT a condition.

it does not require active membership in a militia to own firearms. nor does it require the militia.

[X_Digger]

12. Here's a couple of modern analogs..

"Because pizza is necessary for late-night study sessions, the right to grow and harvest tomatoes is protected." -- are tomatoes only used in tomato paste?

"I'm out of soda, I'm going to the store." -- Do stores only sell soda? Am I obligated to only buy soda?

[moondust]

14. It lays the groundwork for inevitable murder and mayhem if...

you choose to believe it gives individuals the right to keep and bear unspecified/unlimited "arms" (artillery? really?) If that's what they were trying to constitutionally guarantee then there was no reason to mention anything about a "well-regulated militia."

The framers were not sociopaths guaranteeing murder and mayhem in their "more perfect union." IMO it's about ensuring the common defense in the absence of a standing army.

[sanatanadharma]

15. "security of a free State"...

...not personal defense, but rather the needs of society is the sole reason for the 2nd amendment.
Today's society needs more "well regulated" security.

[ComplimentarySwine]

21. Security of a free state vs. security of a police state n/t

[ecstatic]

16. it sounds like they meant each state should have a well regulated

army. Of course, there's no way gun owners will accept a change of interpretation, at this point.

[kestrel91316]

17. Well-regulated militia = the National Guard, IMHO.

So I just do a big WTF about this whole gun thing.

[ComplimentarySwine]

19. When did the National Guard come into being? n/t

[ComplimentarySwine]

18. I'm really only interested in the last 14 words.

The first 13 really only server as an explanation, but not as a restriction of the last 14. I imagine that if enough people don't like it, though, we can get it changed or repealed.

[Zoeisright]

20. You can own as many muskets as you want, as long as you

join a militia and have to spend months training in it.

The Framers would be simply appalled if they knew about what happened with that Amendment.

[demtenjeep]

24. I agree

!

[jody]

22. Congress has all the authority it needs for the militia in Article I, Section 8, clauses 15 & 16. nt

[Dems to Win]

23. Gun lovers private arsenals are more important than other's freedoms and lives

Children are expected to wear body armor in the park if they don't want to get shot, go to school in armed fortresses, and never ever go to a movie in a theater. Just because other people love to stockpile and shoot and sometimes lose and sometimes have stolen indescribably lethal weaponry. Sounds fair, right?

I've had enough. Repeal the Second Amendment Now.