View Full Version : actual purpose of the 2nd ammendment

April 16, 2011, 10:01 PM
i believe the second ammendment was put into the constitution to allow the people to protect themselves from the government, there for the government should not be able to outlaw firearms that are available to the government, where am i wrong

April 16, 2011, 11:45 PM
That is certainly part of the reason. About half of the original 13 colonies had constitutions that predate the US constitution. Most of them had right to keep and bear arms clauses. Look for the writings of Stephen P. Halbrook, he's researched this very well and all the info you could want is in his books and articles.


April 17, 2011, 12:13 AM
Up into the middle of the 20th century, the 2nd was seen as protecting the right to keep and bear arms, but specifically as protecting the right to keep and bear military style weapons. The short-barreled shotgun became restricted in the middle 1930s because it was argued that it had no military utility/wasn't used by the military (a false assertion, by the way) and therefore the 2nd didn't guarantee the right to own it.

It wasn't until after the Kennedy assassination that it began to be more common for people to suggest that guns should have a "sporting use" in order for them to be suitable for private ownership. That point of view clearly didn't come from anything in the constitution, nor from the founding fathers, nor even from previous rulings in U.S. court cases. It was, as far as I can tell, imported from Great Britain.

April 17, 2011, 01:08 AM
I believe the second has to do with the rights of the states to rebel.
That it includes individual rights is just a happy accident.

Most if not all the states were fine with state government oppressing their citizens. Shay's Revolution anyone?

It was the power elites in the individual states that felt threatened by federal power.
It's the same reason slaves were counted as fractional people.

April 17, 2011, 01:12 AM
In fact, some members of Congress specifically said that automatic weapons were "particularly suited" for militia use.

April 17, 2011, 11:25 AM
see im not the only second ammendment advocating gun nut.

April 17, 2011, 01:05 PM
see im not the only second ammendment advocating gun nut.

Gun owners who don't think "assault weapons" or military style guns should be allowed are often called [Elmer] Fudds...

Bartholomew Roberts
April 18, 2011, 08:53 AM
That it includes individual rights is just a happy accident.

I think that the position argued by the Heller majority shows that rather than an accident, it was reflective of common law customs going back to England, with the only real innovation being to strip the English restrictions on class and religion and give the same rights equally to all free citizens.

April 18, 2011, 09:33 AM
When I studied criminal law (as a cop, not a lawyer) it was stressed, to understand the law, you had to not just read the law, but the writings and thoughts of the authors of that law.

To understand the 2nd Amendment (or any other law) you should read the founders and their thoughts as they were writing the constitution. I have tons of quotes from our founders on the subject, I won't bore you or fill the topic with the quotes, they are easy to find.

There are few writings on self defense, but quite a bit on the need for the ability of the citizens to keep the government in check. I haven't found many writings on the need to keep arms from the citizens, guess they were quiet or something.

The problem is US, we don't take the Constitution (and writings supporting the Constitution) into account when we vote and that is why the "infringement" of the right to bear arms is with us today. Look up the definition of "infringed" then ask you candidates what it means to them and how would they see any current gun law does not "commit a breach or infraction of; violate or transgress" on our rights, and vote accordingly.

April 18, 2011, 09:43 AM
Here are the correct dictionary definitions of the words and phrases , as used by the founding fathers at the time of the adoption of the "Bill of Rights".

A well ___________(successful or effective)
regulated ________(accurate and properly functioning)
Militia______( Every able bodied man between the ages of 17 and 60 who has not been adjudicated mentally ill or convicted of a capital or infamous crime, who has at least 2 front teeth and a trigger finger.)

being necessary_____( Vital and indispensable)
to the security_____(Freedom from risk or danger; safety)
of a free____( Not imprisoned or enslaved; being at liberty. Not controlled by obligation or the will of another
State,____(the condition or circumstances of a person or thing, a sovereign political power or community, the territory of such a community)

the right _____(a freedom or power that is morally or legally due to a citizen. God Given. Not a privilege which can be revoked, but a condition that can not be lawfully taken away for any reason by another, and can only be surrendered by the holder for the cause of free will, as a sacrifice. A citizen can be deprived of rights criminally by act of infringement by another citizens or official, which would not constitute a waver of rights, but such acts are the very essence of base vulgarity and crime. The state of liberty therefore can be surrendered, the citizen stepping out from under the protection of law, and in fact giving the rights up, but the act of attempting to deprive another of a right or set of rights is unlawful in every instance. )

of the people____( the body politic of the nation. Individual person. All the common men women and children ,all and in singular. The same context as used in the 1st, 2nd, 4th 5th 9th and 10th amendments and implied in the 6th 7th and 8th)*

to keep ____(To retain personal possession, have a supply of, or to maintain for use or service.)
and bear __(To carry from one place to another; transport at will, unrestrained .)
Arms____(weapons that can be man packed by 4 men or fewer. Any instrument or instrumentality used in fighting in a military action.
shall not be infringed.____(To transgress, violate, defeat, invalidate or encroach on someone or something in any way shape form or manor.

Hugh Damright
April 20, 2011, 08:54 PM
I think it regards the principle that, in a free State, power flows from the people, but power can also flow from the barrel of a gun. If the defensive force is a select group (standing army), or if only a minority are armed, then if power were to flow from the barrel of a gun, it would be flowing from a select group or a minority. But if the defensive force is composed of the people (militia), then even if power was to flow from the barrel of a gun, it would still flow from the people, securing free government.