Literal meaning of 2nd amendment

[tuft]

Hey everyone, first time poster but long time reader.

I read the full text of the 2nd amendment and nowhere does it state that we have the right to privately buy, own, and possess guns at our homes for an indefinite period of time. It says we have the right to keep and bear arms. Couldn't that mean that all the guns could be kept in a central location in every town and people could have access to them during war or tyrannical govt takeover? It talks about a militia bearing arms, but it doesn't actually state that everyone has the right to buy a gun and privately keep it in their home forever.

I don't want to start a flame war but I think this is interesting.

[DefensiveCarry.com]

[Mike1956]

Hey everyone, first time poster but long time reader.

I read the full text of the 2nd amendment and nowhere does it state that we have the right to privately buy, own, and possess guns at our homes for an indefinite period of time. It says we have the right to keep and bear arms. Couldn't that mean that all the guns could be kept in a central location in every town and people could have access to them during war or tyrannical govt takeover? It talks about a militia bearing arms, but it doesn't actually state that everyone has the right to buy a gun and privately keep it in their home forever.

I don't want to start a flame war but I think this is interesting.

Fantastic first post, and welcome to the board.

[Ksgunner]

I'm not convinced that "bear arms" means to lock them up down town some place?

[cayman_shen]

I have heard many well reasoned arguments that the second amendment has little to do with private ownership and everything to do wih state militias. Fear of a central standing army was one of the founders' prime concerns. I have heard arguments contrary to that belief as well. Frankly, my belief in my right to defend myself and my property has nothing to do with the constitution any more than I look to the government to enshrine my right to eat or breathe. So to me the second amendment is almost irrelevant.

[Brad426]

Well, the Supreme Court ruled in DC v. Heller that the Second Amendment is an individual right, so that's the most recent interpretation (2008). Even Joe Biden acknowledged that in his charming fireside internet chat last week.

[Gliderguy]

all the other nine amendments speak to personal rights and protection FROM governmental overbearance. Do you really believe the second amendment is really about a lower level of bureaucracy? I think the whole bill of rights are all about PERSONAL freedoms

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I997 using Tapatalk 2

[lordofwyr]

Read the history and statements of the Founding Fathers.

Every Free Man was to be armed and "ready in a minute" to fight. Where in all of that would you have time to run to an armory to get those guns. No, he was to be armed at home, on the go, wherever and whenever.

The Armory was where you kept the heavy cannons, swords, spears, bayonets and large supplies and stockpiles of powder and ball for war. Remember, storing large amounts of Black Powder in those days could be a very dangerous thing, and the colonists knew to keep it in a strongly built building separate from possible fires and explosion.

Again, read the statements of the Founding Fathers and you will be able to refute this straw man argument easily, but without knowledge it is hard to stand up against stupid people and those types of ignorant arguments.

[mbguy29577]

I am not given the right to protect myself (from criminals) by any amendment. I am able to think and act for myself. It only makes sense that I side with my own preservation. 2nd A or not, we need to stop acting like a herd of sheep. It was set up as a safeguard to keep out of control tyrannical governments from taking too much control. Self defense is a natural behavior. The right to buy guns and conceal them is simply something we have allowed our government to seize control of "for our own good".

[OD*]

Hey everyone, first time poster but long time reader.

I read the full text of the 2nd amendment and nowhere does it state that we have the right to privately buy, own, and possess guns at our homes for an indefinite period of time. It says we have the right to keep and bear arms. Couldn't that mean that all the guns could be kept in a central location in every town and people could have access to them during war or tyrannical govt takeover? It talks about a militia bearing arms, but it doesn't actually state that everyone has the right to buy a gun and privately keep it in their home forever.

I don't want to start a flame war but I think this is interesting.

Find a copy of;

97th Congress
2d Session COMMITTEE PRINT

The Right to Keep and Bear Arms:
Report of the Subcommittee on the Constitution of the Committee on the Judiciary, United States Senate, Ninety-Seventh Congress, Second Session

You'll find the 2ND Amendment means exactly what 99% of American gun owners believe it means.



Or read it here.

[Exacto]

How long would the second amenment have had to be to list every do and don't in it's context. Back in the day, there was a context in which it was written, and all understood ,and didn't find it necessary to be that detailed. They never dreamed that it would be picked apart by every screwloose in the country. It was common knowledge that the private militia would keep their private weapons in their private homes. Back in that time many built their own guns or knew a gunsmith. It was a trade dominated society, everyone had their trade and many traded for what they needed.Back in that day, if they didn't trade for it, or build it,or pay a smith for it , where would they get it. Wait for king George to give it to them to kick his butt. Maybe aliens would beam some down to them.People are very good at making something very simple and straight forward very complicated. Personally, I am suspect of someone with your thought process There are anti gun people on this site like any other, and I will not let the seeds of anti 2A be planted in the minds of people on this or any other site. I don't want to start a flame war either,but I know liberal propaganda when I see it.

[chuckusaret]

I have heard many well reasoned arguments that the second amendment has little to do with private ownership and everything to do wih state militias. Fear of a central standing army was one of the founders' prime concerns. I have heard arguments contrary to that belief as well. Frankly, my belief in my right to defend myself and my property has nothing to do with the constitution any more than I look to the government to enshrine my right to eat or breathe. So to me the second amendment is almost irrelevant.

Do we not have the "Fear of a central standing army was one of the founders' prime concerns." today? What is the NDAA and the International Arms Treaty all about and the administrations private armies, the present buildup of the existing departments such as Homeland Security. Why did Homeland Security place a purchase order with ATK for 450 million rounds of JHP ammo and 175 million rounds of 5.56 ammo? Surely not for target practice.

[yz9890]

2A doesn't grant a right. it protects one the founders believed we were born with. it states that the right "shall not be infringed". the absence of this right was at the core of pretty much every oppressive government at the time and they wanted to nip that in the bud as they created a new government. so restricting access to these weapons in any way would be an infringement of this right. a right not granted by the government but by God (or science, Allah, Oprah, L Ron Hubbard, whoever). a right the founders tried to prevent the government from denying because they felt it necessary to our ability preserve any attempt at life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

to "bear arms" is a very old phrase. much older than the US constitution. it's a reference to any implement of war or even just the intent or ability to rise up and fight. it's not a phrase specifically about guns but also rocks, spears, trebuchets, guns, shoulder fired rockets, tanks whatever the current battlefield weapons are. that's where the debate should be. what are today's "arms" and how much firepower equates to the citizens ability to stand up a militia and still be determined to be "a well regulated militia"? does "well regulated" mean well lead or limited in size or limited scope or limited in equipment? or all of that? obviously one side would want practically no firepower available to the people while some on the other would like to be able to purchase F18's.

it seems like our current state is already a lopsided compromise interpretation in favor of the left. I'm sure they'd say the opposite though.

[Snub44]

...molon labe...

[DaGunny]

Hey everyone, first time poster but long time reader.

I read the full text of the 2nd amendment and nowhere does it state that we have the right to privately buy, own, and possess guns at our homes for an indefinite period of time. It says we have the right to keep and bear arms. Couldn't that mean that all the guns could be kept in a central location in every town and people could have access to them during war or tyrannical govt takeover? It talks about a militia bearing arms, but it doesn't actually state that everyone has the right to buy a gun and privately keep it in their home forever.

I don't want to start a flame war but I think this is interesting.

In your scenario, the the town would be keeping the weapons, not the individual. Your town has apparently set criteria in order for you to get your weapon. So, when I need to protect my family from a home invasion I would have to contact a town official...he/she would schedule a town counsel meeting at which I would present my case for drawing my weapon from the town armory...they would then vote...if approved, I would then have to wait for normal business hours at the armory...fill out the prerequisite forms...get issued my weapon...go to the store & buy ammunition (if they have it in stock)...rush home & load my weapon (can't carry a loaded weapon within the town limits)...and THEN protect my family.

Might I suggest looking up the definition of: "keep"?...Just Sayin'

[MJK]

There are no well-reasoned arguments that the second amendment has little to do with private ownership of firearms. Similarly, there are no well-reasoned arguments that the first amendment has little to do with private communications.

There are, however, many arguments which attempt to mislead and obfuscate the truth; just listen to some of our elected officials for recent examples.