I just read the 2nd Amendment, and I have more questions than answers

Constitutional scholars/legal minds, please help! "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." How do concepts and terms from the 1700s apply to today? What is "a Militia"? Is it the National Guard in each state? What is "well regulated"? A registered nonprofit of some sort, with memberships rolls, dues, and a Ladies' Auxiliary? Who does the regulating? What are "Arms"? Muskets? Bullets? Machine guns? Thermonuclear weapons? What is "infringed"? Showing proof of age before purchase? Requiring gun insurance? Can you regulate without infringing? Are gun buybacks infringement? And . . . where did this concept come from? What were the Founding Fathers thinking? Were weapons a right that had been denied in England or France?

• It means that now that Obama and Bush are newly entitled to the lifetime protection of a squadron of armed guards, then they have no moral authority to tell anyone else that they can't enjoy the protection afforded by firearms. If you are willing to die in the cause of taking away everyone else's guns then by all means provide your name and address online so that every gun owner in the USA knows who you are and where you live and that you are dedicated to taking away their guns. Got it?

• r1, you're a little unhinged, sweetie.

• It means if yo want to own a gun, you should be required to join the National Guard or the military.

  Just%20my%202%20cents

• OP--The introductory phrase used to be interpreted to allow the government pretty wide latitude to control weapons on the grounds that a well-regulated militia means the National Guard in today's society. Now, the conservatives are pretty much ready to read it out entirely.

• Good questions OP.

• Actually r4 it was the US Supreme Court that interpreted the introductory phrase as not being limited to the National Guard. Limiting the 2d Amendment to states' National Guards would have been the more rational interpretation since the National Guard are a state's de facto militia.

• Supreme Court already ruled on this. Case closed.

• I think it was also to give Governors independent powers of self-defense -- i.e. the Southern States against slave uprisings and all states against civil unrest. Lexington/Concord occurred because the Brits were trying to seize the local Mass militia's arms, so the Founding Father's decided to enshrine militas' rights in the 2nd Amendment.

• OP- Look at Germany in the 1930s, or Russia, or China...the second amendment is to protect the right of the people to shoot despots and their satraps if necessary. And by the way things are going, it looks like Tommy Jeff knew what would eventually happen.

• You can certainly regulate without infringing, whether it's the 1st Amendment or the 2d. There are limits to constitutional protections. The assault weapons ban, now expired, was clearly constitutitonal.

• Fuck Bush for letting that assault weapons ban expire. Another reason to loathe him.

• How can there be any doubt that the founding fathers wanted us all to have the ability to buy and possess assault weapons with high capacity ammo clips. Anybody who don't think that is un-American.

  Rudy Redneck

• [quote]What are "Arms"? Muskets? Bullets? Machine guns? Thermonuclear weapons? Exactly, OP. Just where in the constitution does it say the word GUN? What if my arms of choice were, in fact, thermonuclear weapons? And how does 'being necessary to the security' translate to a constitutional right to COLLECT guns, or to go HUNTING?

• [quote]The assault weapons ban, now expired, was clearly constitutitonal. I never understood why they set it up so it could expire. That never made any sense to me.

• OP, the second amendment is one of the "states' rights" provisions of the Constitution, and you can only understand it if you realize that the Constitution established a union of free and independent states. Each of these states were guaranteed the right to have a well-regulated militia to protect the soveignity of that state. The outcome of the war during the 1860s established a superstate in Washington DC, and each of the individual states lost their soveignity, and were taken over by the superstate, and the Constitution is now just a pretense. The NRA has just re-purposed the second amendment to further their goals.

• The NRA and gun lobbyists, r14. They are very powerful. We also have quite a large population of absolute wingnuts in this country who are paranoid beyond belief and think the UN's black helicopters are going to take over any second. They think we "need" every kind of assault weapon for the coming apocalypse or whatever the fuck they think is right around the corner.

• I have a question: Where in the Amendment does it lay out my right to be protected against trogs roving the streets and neighboring yards with massive firepower when they can't even spell "velocity"? Arm the teachers to corral all the idiot "homeskooled" and "coupon kidz" into improved, upgraded, comprehensive and congenial schools. Just a fantasy...

• Thank you R15!

• [quote]Supreme Court already ruled on this. Case closed. Riiight. Court rulings are NEVER revisited and/or overturned.

  Roe%20vs%20Wade

• Guns are to protect us from a despotic government. Our government is despotic. Ergo, we will soon need those guns. Anyone who disagrees just needs to read "They Thought They Were Free", a history of Germany from the late 30s through WW2. When the president can kill any citizen, with no court oversight, and no repercussion, then you live in a dictatorship. Obama's NDAA (just like Bu$h) gives him that power, and he has already used it.