Just what is this 'Right to bear arms?'

[QUOTE]

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hopyard

I personally have absolutely no idea what 2a means; or what it meant, and to whom, back then, or today.
It needs amending for clarity, badly.

---

IMO, it is specific in saying that citizens have the right to have and carry a gun, with no infringement. If Congress wishes to change this they need to amend the 2nd amendment. Allowing states to usurp this right from the citizens is unconstitutional.

Aside from certain protection to the citizen concerning requirements for carry, I have no problem with your control opinion and how many states currently regulate guns, yet there needs to be a proper amendment to the 2nd amendment to keep Congress and the states in check.

This country is in its current poor position due to lack of proper adherence to the Constitution.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tally XD

I surely understand why you could think this way but how can we, as a supposedly free society, preclude anyone from carrying outside the home who doesn't have training? In all likelihood, any criminal who would possibly attack an innocent citizen, would have no training. I think this is all part of living in a free country. There are prices to pay. If one is free all should be free.

I am definitely an advocate for training. But I am also an advocate that all should be free to exercise their 2a right with the exception of those that have been absolutely committed for psychological reasons, criminals who have misused and abused their right to carry a weapon and non criminals who have abused their rights to carry.

Other than that, why should we refuse that right to anyone else?

---

I'm coming at this, as everyone does, from the experiences they have. I live in Texas. We presently have a mixed bag of legal unlicensed car carry and licensed carry. Licensed carry has a minimum training requirement.

As for the argument that folks will still carry unlawfully, of course they face consequences when they do so. I'm not in favor of saying the constitution allows 14 year old hoodlums to carry because I can't stop them from doing so. Nor am I in favor of throwing out a training requirement for a full CHL because some will do what they will anyway.

I actually totally like our Texas system. The only change I would make to it would be that
DPS should offer either a no-fee or very low fee on-line way to get the "classroom" training. It would guarantee uniformity of the training and make the license available to some less fortunate folks who can't come up with the bucks for the class.

I think it means exactly what it says, and if this Congress or Judiciary starts trying to define it or amend it, then it will surely no longer mean anything like it was intended to mean when written.

I'm guessing this isn't what you mean......

Attachment 54675

Please! Please! Please! Do not ask today's politicians to "clarify" the cosntitution's second amendment or we won't have a second amendment.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KenMac

I think it means exactly what it says

---

The problem being that it was written in a vague kinda way with an introductory clause that would seem to make the "right" contingent on certain constructs. I think in their eloquence and nearsightedness, the founding fathers confused this issue more than necessary. Wish they had been a degree more explicit.

I agree with you though that any attempt by the congress of today to clarify the second amendment would likely result in less freedom and more restriction; maybe we should be satisfied with the amendment we have.

To bear arms is to carry them with you anywhere you go. Shall not be infringed means they can not be limited. It's the only right in the constitution that has the word infringed. Lots of liberals (actually today's liberals are actually socialist) argue that they can set limits such as restrict arms from Post Offices. Even some conservatives will even sign on to limit them. Only libertarians sign up for shall not be infringed. At the time of the writing of the US Constitution they cansidered arms to be 'Military Grade' arms that in today's standards would include fully auto and many more. So if hold the literal standard we would all be flying F-16s (assuming we could afford one) and have batteries of SAMs. I'm not arguing for or against F-16s for everyone I just interpolating to today's standards.

Quote:

---

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 - armed and drilled common folks. This is not a standing army (which is constitutionally prohibited) or a national guard/reserve that is armed by the government. If the founders had meant this, they would have not needed the 2A as the arms would be provided by the government to the forces.

being necessary to the security of a free state - attacks on the free state can come from a variety of fronts. They can be external or internal. The founders had the foresight to allow the citizens to arm themselves to ward off these attacks. Many foreign foes have eschewed attacking the US on its own soil because they, rightly, assumed that there would be a citizen with a gun behind every tree. We have not had many attacks on our soil as a result of this, and other, strategies. If the attacks to the government come from internal sources, an armed citizenry has the ability to hold the government in check - it would be bloody, but it still could be done.

the right of the people - The people, we the people, includes citizens and can arguably be inferred to include legal aliens in our midst. This is elsewhere acknowledged as a fundamental right that comes from our Creator, not the government. The 2A is in the Constitution to make it clear that the founders knew that neither they or the government were creating a right, but simply making sure that future generations understood the right and that to change it, would have to go through the amendment process which requires significant efforts.

to keep and bear arms - Keeping arms is the process of procuring, maintaining and storing them. Bearing arms includes transporting, wearing and using arms to protect oneself (self defense) or the country (war or insurrection). Arms include weapons and the ammunition to operate them. While the common perception of arms is that they are small arms, some would say they have to have a sporting or SD purpose, the Constitution does not limit the arms the populace has the right to keep and bear. If the founders had meant to define arms to be small arms, they would have ruled out cannon, ships and other artilery types of weapons that were available at the time. That they did not limit the categories of arms that the populace can keep and bear means that, if you could afford one, owing a fully armed F-15 would be constitutional.

shall not be infringed - The 2A is a limitation on government, not the people. Shall not be infringed means that the government cannot put any infringements on the rights enumerated in the 2A. This is the part that the Feds violate more than the rest. Your right to bear arms on almost any federal property (except parks) has been eliminated, removed - infringed. Prohibitions for carry at federal courts, office buildings, schools, etc. - all are infringements on the 2A.

So, in a nutshell, the 2A acknowledges the natural right of citizens and legal aliens to buy, store, maintain, transport, wear and deploy arms in defense of self and/or country. This right comes from our Creator and is simply affirmed, not created by the Constitution. The government, federal, state or local, cannot make laws that keep citizens or legal aliens from exercising these rights.

Hitler and Stalin, just to name two of our more distinguished citizens of the world, made sure the populace was void of firearms and we know what wonderful gardens of eden they led their countries to. Here in the US the mathematics are with the people. There are thousands of times more guns in citizen's hands than there are troops or "citizen defense forces" (catch phrase for a portion of the healthcare bill that no one decided to read) or acorn or seiu or union thugs (brownshirts as far as I am concerned) ready to do the bidding of the moslem king with no clothes. We lock and load, they lose. We can't lock and load, they win.

ksholder, a very well written post and I agree. +1

The thing is the same people who don't know the meaning of IS, are trying to tell us what is all means. And it is not that most don't understand the meaning of the 2A it's just that it doesn't meet their wants and agenda.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kelcarry

Hitler and Stalin, just to name two of our more distinguished citizens of the world, made sure the populace was void of firearms and we know what wonderful gardens of eden they led their countries to. Here in the US the mathematics are with the people. There are thousands of times more guns in citizen's hands than there are troops or "citizen defense forces" (catch phrase for a portion of the healthcare bill that no one decided to read) or acorn or seiu or union thugs (brownshirts as far as I am concerned) ready to do the bidding of the moslem king with no clothes. We lock and load, they lose. We can't lock and load, they win.

---

Except for two problems, since the Civil War the idea that "the union" is sacred and must be preserved has been drilled into everyone and the majority of people have bought into it. Second, an AR-15 against a F-16 loses every time. If we had listened to the founders and not allowed a standing army to be created, things would be different.

Now, if the Government ever got to be truly tyrannical, I would be crazy enough to volunteer to fight even though I know I would probably die. There could be strategies employed that give us a better chance, but not much of one.

ksholder, Excellent explanation!

+1000

The 2A was and is not vague. The only problem our Founders missed was how devious people have changed the meanings of the words they used. Regulated did not mean controlled, it meant made regular or common across the states. Militia did not mean a military force but as Utah's Constitution still declares, "all able-bodied male inhabitants of the State, between the ages of eighteen and forty-five years." Article XV, Section 1

Our Founders understood that freedom would only last as long as the people were the last voice when ultimate power was used. The ability to vote is not ultimate power. The Soviets could vote but were far from free. Ultimate power is the ability to defend or promote ones ideas when lives are at stake. Who do you want to control that kind of power?

In the Soviet Union and the Third Reich, the government had it exclusively. In NYC, Chitcago, and LA the police and criminals are contesting it while the law-abiding residents get caught in the crossfire and exist only as victims. Read Jefferson's Tree of Liberty letter. After reading his remarks, how could you think that arms meant anything other than all weapons that provided the opportunity for open revolt and that the power belonged in the hands of the common people.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JoJoGunn

I believe the 2nd amendment is just as relevant today as it was in the 1700's. The Founding Fathers put into place the right of every citizen, the right to keep (own, posses,acquire) and to bear (hold, and yes point & shoot if necessary) arms. They were quite specific about it and took lessons from British rule that restricted Her citizens in the possession of them.

They knew that a well armed citizenery would be free from Governmental tyranny and that having the right to possess and bear them would guarantee that right. I believe they would be astounded at the types of firearms we have, and also that the freedom to do what they put in writing still applies today.

---

Exactly.

I have always believed the Second Amendment to be clear, concise and self-explanatory when read in the context of the time in which it was written. The Founders understood the necessity of an armed citizenry to protect against a tyrannical government and an uncivil criminal class.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Thunder71

I'll go with what RoardRunner71 said. :)

---

Ah, no ya don't. :nono:

You don't get off that easy.
I want YOUR opinion, not someone else's

:wink: :rolleyes: :slap: