Wasn't the the 2nd amendment more about the right to form malitas rather than individual gun ownership?

Question

Like muskets back then weren't really that dangerous by themselves so safety regulation or fear of misuse weren't really a big part of discussion. So the focus was more on peoples right to form malitas that are regulated by local governments 

Answer 1

Militias are made up of individuals. And when the 2A was enshrined into our Bill of Rights muskets were military style rifles.

Answer 2

The word you're looking for is militia. Learn how to spell, you idiotic imbecile 

Answer 3

IF AND WHEN THE DEMOCRATS GET COMPLETE CONTROL OF THE WHITE HOUSE AND A LIBERAL MAJORITY ON THE SUPREME COURT, THEY WILL GET THE SUPREME COURT TO CHANGE THE MEANING OF THE 2ND AMENDMENT WHICH WILL ALLOW THE DEMOCRATS TO MAKE GUN OWNERSHIP ILLEGAL

Answer 4

Tell the thousands of people killed by musket fire that "muskets back then weren't really that dangerous by themselves".  Explain why the Second Amendment contains the phrase "right of the people" if "right of the militia" was intended.  read the extensive writings of our Founders on the subject.  The right to keep and bear arms, self defense, was considered an INDIVIDUAL right.



"No freeman shall be debarred the use of arms..."  Thomas Jefferson

"[T]he people are not to be disarmed of their weapons. They are left in full possession of them."  Zacharia Johnson

Answer 5

"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."





Notice the comma after "State"? It means people have the right to keep and bear arms as well as having a well- regulated militia.

Answer 6

Yes of course it was about that. But the Supreme Court which has been stacked with Conservative justices like Scalia, etc,  has made sure the original intent was not honored

Answer 7

The Supreme Court ruled in  District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008) - that membership in a militia is not required to own a gun. 





It said:  "The Second Amendment guarantees an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home."



Remember, in 1789 we did not choose to have a standing army, so all able bodied citizens would form militias whenever an army was required.

Answer 8

"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." The Second Amendment provided for two things: 1st, a well regulated militia was authorized to protect the new free state, and 2nd, the right of the citizens to keep, and the bear arms shall not be infringed. Both subjects were established due to the formidable influence of Great Britain in the Colonies. The militia could not be everywhere at all times, so the people were authorized to keep and bear arms to protect themselves, and their communities from outsiders, political opportunists, and thieves and robbers. A new country was a magnet for political take-overs, and for the more unsavory personalities of the criminal variety. The formation of an armed militia was not to be infringed, and the right of the people to keep and bear arms was also not to be infringed. 

Answer 9

Nope.... the notion of "militias" as organized forces was covered in the Articles...



The first 10 Amendments are collectively called the Bill of RIGHTS for a reason.....Why would the 2nd Amendment be part of it if it only had to do with State authority?



Read this sentence:  "Robust commerce, being necessary for a thriving and sustainable economy, the right of the people to access roads and waterways shall not be infringed."



Now, from a legal or grammatical perspective, would you say this sentence A) Says roads and waterways are for commercial use ONLY.... or B) Identifies a RIGHT and specifies why protecting that Right is in the national interest?



One of the lasting images of the "Rodney King" Riots in Los Angeles was that of the Asian shopkeepers standing on their roofs or in front of their stores with rifles and hand guns.....and the stories of some shopkeepers sending armed family members to protects neighboring shops belonging to friends..... and how those shops were undamaged even as their streets burned.



THAT was the essence of the "militia" in action in the context of the 2nd Amendment... armed citizens coming to the defense of their families, their homes and their properties even as the government-backed order crumbled around them.

Answer 10

I wish anti-gun nuts would all buy guns and then shoot themselves in the head. Tell me though, why do you think peasants in the middle ages were disarmed by their government? 

Answer 11

Yes the 2nd amendment was more about the right to form malitas. They were very necessary to fight off indian raids and put down salve revolts.

Answer 12

At the time it was written, there was no military or local police. there were no phones, much less 911 and if you lived on a farm, your closest neighbor might be miles away.

As soon as local police offices started showing up, that amendment should have been modified. Instead, now we have a bunch of ammo-sexuals running around, blabbing about their 'second amendment rights', which is not what it says but since there were enough conservative activist judges in SCOTUS at the time, this is what were stuck with... for now.

Answer 13

When the 2nd amendment was written, America was a very different place. Civilian muskets were just as good as the ones in the army. All known weapons at the time were legal for the citizens. That changed w/ the evolution of weapons. 

Gov wanted an armed citizenry to prevent a tyrannical overthrow and in case a militia was needed in a moments notice. Today, the US army is the most sophisticated in the world which significantly compensates for fewer men/guns in military service. The country had a vast frontier and guns would be needed to tame it. The frontier is pretty much settled now. Guns were needed to help put food on the table ... now we have supermarkets. Hunting is basically a sport, not a necessity.

The founding fathers built flexibility into the Constitution. The 2nd amendment isn't absolute.

Answer 14

"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."

Answer 15

i really does depend on if your part of the United States of America. and I quote "At the precinct, I again informed people I was a journalist, and asked to call my lawyer, my editor and the British embassy. I asked them to contact my local congresswoman". end quote. congresswoman? woman naturally.



in other words the United States of America 1st amendment and bill of rights really doesnt apply to foriegn jpurnalists prying into amerivan affairs.

Answer 16

Back then the USA didn't really have a permanent army. It relied on armed volunteers to serve when called upon to do so. Of course times have changed. The USA isn't the rural wild west anymore and it has a long-standing army. The second amendment therefore is no longer needed. You have to look at the historical context of it.

Answer 17

Yes, it was a product of its time based on the fears of an overly centralized national government and the rights of states to stop that occurrence. The Founders saw the biggest threat as a powerful central government which would "abuse" the states and that the individual states, or in combination with other states, should have the right to form militias to protect themselves from that centralized power. They saw power as residing in the hands of local populations (white men with sufficient property) and did not want to see a repeat of their experiences with the British Crown. 



Somehow, that has become the right of every citizen, with few exceptions, to own weapons. I am waiting for those in the gun lobbies to argue that having a hunting rifle or a handgun is behind the times and that every citizen should have weapons comparable to the threat that a national government could pose. So where's my RPG, Howitzer and other artillery, Thermonuclear missiles, automatic weaponry, planes and military drones etc. and the right to stockpile as many as I can secure? After all, when the Federal tanks come rolling down the streets and the aircraft is buzzing above, I need "comparable weaponry" to address the threat.  

Answer 18

This also had to do with keeping STATES rights. So that no overreaching federal government would develope. 



BUt you're right. Too. This was also a way of guaranteeing commoners right to own guns. In  Britain, the nobility had guns to stop poaching by the "peassnts".

Answer 19

it's VERY odd that no one thought of that before.  Maybe you could  get that to the Supreme Court. 

Answer 20

This is the question of someone who doesn't understand the 2nd amendment and isn't aware of SCOTUS rulings. Some research will answer your questions. This is high school level stuff.

Answer 21

Yes, the Second Amendment was about forming miltias.  It wasn't about self defense from crime, which was relatively rare, and certainly not, as some right wingers suggest today, about being able to overthrow the government if it got tyrannical. 



The purpose of the Second Amendment was to protect the government without the need of a standing army.   Anglo-American political thought was skeptical of standing armies, which in the 18th century were used as much to discipline a ruler's own populations as they were to defend against invaders.  Standing armies were seen as a tool of potential tyranny.  But the Founding Fathers recognized that the state had legitimate national security needs.  The solution was to use militias.  These would be made up of citizens and could be called up to duty when needed but then would demobilize back into the population.  The Second Amendment was thus meant to protect freedom by preventing a large standing army from existing which could be used to impose tyranny. 



At the time, Americans owned quite a few guns, but most of them were small bore pieces used for hunting birds and other small game.  The large bore muskets used for the military were more expensive and rarer in civilian hands.  For  various reasons, including their relative inaccuracy and long reload times, guns were infrequently used in crime.  Most murders in 18th century America were committed with edged weapons like knives, daggers, axes, etc. 

Answer 22

At the time of the Bill of Rights militias were important. In southern states they included groups at the county level who did regular inspections of slave quarters on plantations to assure that weapons were not being stockpiled for slave revolts.  The second amendment assured that those militia members, who were civilians, would be able to keep their guns. It countermands Article1, Section 8 of the Constitution, which was intended to give the federal government the authority to organize and regulate militias.  Madison wrote the second amendment to placate the delegations of Virginia and Carolinas, who might not have suported ratificaton without it.

Answer 23

“Well regulated” militias. 



lol... I love the sh— storm of comments that follows a verbatim quote of the 2A. 

Answer 24

The words in the Second Amendment of "a well-regulated militia" are all too often ignored by gung-ho (tiny penises for which they overcompensate with "big guns") NRA fanatics bent upon not having ANY regulations at all, anonymous. The Constitution must be taken IN CONTEXT, and in its entirety, while simultaneously considering the conditions at the time this founding document was forged---what the Supreme Court is supposed to do.  You are correct.

Answer 25

That has been debated in the Supreme Court. They came down on the side of individual gun rights.

Answer 26

It's about whatever you want it to be.

Answer 27

it specifically says ‘the right of the people to keep and bear arms’

did you even read it?

Answer 28

It was about defending one's nation and defending one's self.  Both are still valid reasons today.

Answer 29

Militias are important and the training the members of the militia get is important also. But never forget: "the Right to Bear Arms shall not be infringed".

Answer 30

Impossible to take you seeryusly when you talk about  malitas.

Answer 31

You’ve must have had democrap teachers. NASA is looking for some more rocket scientists like you.

Answer 32

Not at all it is absolutely about individual gun ownership and not starting a militia. Also you claim that they weren't really that dangerous is completely idiotic while they lacked accuracy they were very dangerous. Still as dangerous as a gun can be today. If it goes off the musket ball goes through multiple people causing disease which is what kills the person. So you should probably educate yourself on things like this before talking about it. Also it literally says in the 2nd Amendment the right to bear arms, meaning individuals can own guns. So you are completely mistaken by what it actually means and how dangerous they were. I support the 2nd Amendment fully and people saying stuff like this just shows how ignorant people are they are so narrow minded that they purposely misinterpret what was meant just to try and make a statement that is completely wrong!

Answer 33

This has been debated since written. The framers left it open to interpretation.

Answer 34

I'd like to see you democrats go ahead and try to take my guns! I'm not very well endowed down there so my guns and oversized pickup truck make up for it! Taking my guns is like taking my manhood!

Answer 35

I've always thought that, and I have opposed the sale of assault rifles to individuals. But the past few weeks have forced me to consider that with the assault on the police and the burning, looting, and rioting of BLM and it's associates, it may come to the point that people will need weapons to protect their property and their own lives and those of their families.

Answer 36

It was intended to protect democracy from tyrants such as the one we had just ejected.  The innate right of self defense is more of a natural law than a man-made one and the actual instrument of self defense is irrelevant.

Answer 37

No  It was about hunting and  being  safe

Answer 38

So if we are all "one people" how does that translate into every single person?

Answer 39

Exactly, since there is no longer any need for a well regulated militia to defend this country, the second amendment can be interpreted so that people can be disarmed. That is why places like New York City and Chicago are able to ban guns. The second amendment says nothing about any people having an inalienable right to bear arms. Gun ownership is not a god given right similar to freedom of religion, free speech or life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

Answer 40

Without an individual right just who forms your militia?

So, no.

In today's verbiage the Second would sound like this:

"Since a well-trained militia is necessary to a free state, the right of the individual to keep and bear arms shall not be touched."

Answer 41

The big problem with the 2nd Amendment is the difference in fire arms when it was written and the ones we have today. You couldn't walk into a school and spray bullets with a muzzle loader or musket back then when the Constitution was written. The 2nd Amendment is antiquated and needs updated to modern times and modern time situations. Who in this modern world still use a muzzle loader?

Answer 42

Nope, it was about both.  I'm not even American and I know that, because the wording is very uncomplicated.



And you're wrong, because muskets were extremely dangerous by themselves.  That's why they were used in war, in fact.  They didn't have the range or the accuracy of a rifle, but they were just as dangerous.

Answer 43

what IS a 'militia' ???   A group of citizen soldiers who grab a gun and a box of bullets & can head-out-the-door on a moments notice.

Answer 44

Edit:  If there was a question about citizens being able to possess semi-automatic rifles with high capacity magazines the current chaos and violence by the Democrats has answered that question. 



No, and absolutely not.  The 2nd Amendment guarantees that individual citizens have the right "to keep and bear arms". 



At the time, the "militia" was the population.  Specifically the adult male pat of the population. 



At the time, "well regulated" meant "well equipped". 



The 2nd Amendment is NOT about the 18th century version of the National Guard. 



Finally, if you think a musket is not dangerous than I suggest you shoot yourself with one. 

Answer 45

The bill of rights which includes the Second Amendment were to guarantee INDIVIDUAL rights and liberties, not collective rights and liberties. Of course Democrats want to ignore this because they've embraced collectivism and communism. They hate the bill of rights because they oppose individualism. But a cursory educate in American history will reveal that the bill of rights was proposed to protect and guarantee the individual's rights and liberties. 



Be aware that Democrats tried getting rid of the 2nd amendment in the District of Columbia v Heller Supreme Court case in which all liberal judges supported ending the 2nd Amendment as an individual liberty. Luckily we had more conservative judges on the Supreme Court to follow the Constitution and to keep the 2nd amendment from being thrown out. But it was close. 

Answer 46

Yes, but try to make that understandable to single digits IQ idiots who compensate for their sub-miniature penis size by having large guns.

Answer 47

Read the amendment carefully. One is necessary to...a free STATE. The next is "the right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms". 

One: The State

Two: The PEOPLE. 

.

Answer 48

It was about citizens having to right to keep armories with guns when needed by the militia. That's what ignited the Revolution, the British went to Lexington and Concord to confiscate the weapons the colonists had stashed. But the Second Amendment is obsolete now, we have a large army, navy, air force etc. to protect us, we no longer need a militia.

Answer 49

It was about both. It was an answer to Britain's prohibition of both. 



Regarding guns, commoners couldn't own guns in Great Britain, only noble land owners could. That was a lot about preventing poaching by commoners from the estates of the landed gentry. The Second Amendment, in part, was an answer to that. The breaking down of monarchy, aristocracy, feudalism, and giving heretofore commoners the same rights as anybody. 

Answer 50

Yes it was about militias as a form of defense against foreign invasion.  Also back then guns were simply a tool people had, not like today where it's more about a show of manhood 

Answer 51

The intent was that people could own firearms, and that would aid creating militias if militias were needed to protect the Nation.  People have to have the guns first, or that does not work.  Better gun control is needed, not gun confiscation. 

Answer 52

well first musket were really dangerous back then, we used muskets to fight off the British they are guns.

the thing is now people think militia means the National guard, but they meant the people like you and I grabbing our muskets to fight, just like they did.

they were British they grabbed their guns and fought their own government, they could not have done that if the common man was denied the right to own a gun,

both the British Army and the colonist had the same gun - the musket

Answer 53

The 2nd Amendment guarantees that Americans can own and keep weapons so we can grab them and bear them in service of the militia when needed.



The purpose was so that Americans could fight against tyranny or insurrection, but the Right to keep and bear arms clearly belongs to the People.  Not the state, not the militia.  The People!  "The right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Answer 54

They didn't consult with me. So you want to defund the police, but support local militias? look up militia before that's what you're seeking. Our country is safer killing convicted felons that are resisting arrest than having armed militias.

Answer 55

The fact that the Second amendment is still in place hundreds of years later is proof that the USA has never developed and become civilized when they feel the need to be armed against each other.

Answer 56

The Supreme Court did not agree, but the amendment was not written very clearly. 



Why mention militias at all if they were not relevant? If militias are not needed today, one  could argue that the right to bear arms is also not needed. But that is not how the a Supreme Court saw it...



The Supreme Court is inherently political - the justices are appointed by the President and approved by the House and Senate. That is its biggest failing. Technically, the justices don’t even need to have law degrees.

Answer 57

Where do you think militias come from? They come from the people. Therefore it makes sense for common citizens to have guns, so that if a militia was ever called, they would already have arms at the ready.



That and since America I just got out of a huge war with England, which at that time was the strongest nation in the world, and the fact that I had turned tyrannical, our founding fathers knew that such things could happen again, regardless of their best intentions to keep it from happening, and that's why they put the Second Amendment in place, because they were aware that all men are imperfect, and that all men can become corrupt if given too much power.



They wanted for American citizens to be able to protect themselves if ever the government should become like England, or any other country that does not acknowledge human rights like ours does.



Think what would've happened if in Nazi Germany they had had the 2nd Amendment? Those people back then could've protected themselves, and one of the worst genocides in human history might never have occurred. Millions of lives could've been saved. 

Answer 58

Would it be great if it were next to impossible for anyone outside the police or military to get their hands on a gun? People would just stab each other with knives, or beat them with bats. The benefits of nationwide gun ownership far outweigh the hypothetical benefits of no gun ownership. Plus: It is next to impossible to undo this, and taking back 200 million guns and a Trillion rounds of ammo is also impossible because local law enforcement would be asked to carry it out, and they are mostly pro-gun ownership, they wouldn't do it. 

Answer 59

The second amendment was about keeping the government in check. 



Just like the government was elected by the people for the people. 



It wasn't about democrats controlling everybody. 



And a piece of the Declaration of Independence that the government has forgotten about: 



We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government... 



Have any of you internet politicians ever read it?

Answer 60

Why any of you anti gun people would want to give up our guns knowing in the future another Stalin or Hitler could come into power.  Don’t say it can’t happen because anything is possible.  We don’t know who are future will be.  Stalin was not so post to come into power.  Lenin didn’t trust him.  Guess what he did!  Hitler never should had came into power but guess what he did.  Germany and Russian citizens had no at to defend them self’s.

Answer 61

No.



The second amendment has to do with the DEFENSE of this country and local state and municipal governments.  And remember that the word "GUN" is not used in the Second Amendment even though they had them at the time.

Answer 62

It was PROVEN in 1939 that the 2nd amendment has NOTHING to do with gun ownership.

Answer 63

When the Second Amendment was written, muskets were state of the art, that is true. The intent was for the People (not the Militia) be ready and armed with the same weapons a hostile force (foreign or domestic) would possesses in order to preserve our freedoms by forming militias. That is why there were to be no infringements on the right to keep and bear arms.

Answer 64

You ignorant fools really do like to make up idiotic ideas about what the framers of the constitution meant. Sorry, but don’t get to determine the meaning. The framers actually accurately predicted that your kind would crawl out of the pit under the necessary. They built into the constitution the entity that had the right to determine the meaning, and it wasn’t you.

Answer 65

Clearly, it was, but the Supreme Court ruled fairly recently that it protects the rights of individuals to own guns. 

Answer 66

Nope.    The right of the people to keep and bear arms is the right to serve in a well regulated official militia or to overthrow tyranny if needed.  Not to mention the right of self defense.The first thing a tyranny, (or those who desire to impose tyranny), will do is disarm the populace.  That's the reason the 2nd is so important.



By the way, muskets are indeed dangerous.  Ask the millions of humans and animals who were killed with one.

Answer 67

It was passed during a time when people were encouraged to prepare for a second war with the British who, they feared, might try to regain control over their American colonies.  It gave Americans the right to protect American land and property with primitive rifles.  It is only by an insane expansion of that right that Americans could claim the right to own weapons of mass destruction such as automatic rifles which can kill dozens of people in 10 seconds.

Uncontrolled ownership of automatic weapons isn't a right, it's a danger.

Answer 68

So you support the democrats' push to eliminate the Second Amendment as individual rights?

Answer 69

Yes it was, that is true.

Answer 70

Yes. But someone told the Republicans they can do whatever they want with the second amendment.

Answer 71

Demand for A2 was in response to abuses suffered by the former colonists under British rule. In colonial days even low ranking officers of The Crown could and did seize ALL the weapons in a town or village. The officer didn't need to get permission from or even inform his superiors. Those whose weapons were seized had no way to appeal and were never compensated for their loss of property. 



Those who seized the weapons often sold them and pocketed the money.

Often they "clinched the sale" by including the information that thus&so town was currently without weapons and could be safely attacked by the pirates, outlaws, or Indians to whom the guns were sold.

Sometimes the soldiers would attack the town themselves, disguised as pirates, outlaws, or Indians, looting, murdering, raping, burning the town. And THEN sell the guns to pirates, outlaws, or Indians. 



This inspired the former colonists to demand certain guarantees from their new United States government, including but not limited to:

People will be justly compensated when government seizes their property.

There must be due process and an appeal process for government seizure of private property; government official can't confiscate your stuff and assume personal ownership. 

Towns and villages have the right to maintain arsenals and other defenses against attacks by pirates, outlaws, Indians, etc. 



Keep in mind that those days when "ammo" meant lead for shot and kegs of gunpowder, it was very much PUBLIC business how and where powder was stored. The idea of some individual "right" to keep powder in a way that significantly increased risk to public safety would have inspired amazed laughter. 

Answer 72

NOPE, and it is MILITIA'S.  The second amendment laid out the right to bear arms so that invading militias would not have the upper hand on the farmer. It was a real problem at the time.  Read it closer.

Answer 73

The firearms of that day were the state of the art arms of the military. The words "the people" are defined as the citizenry , not the government. The term Regulated in those days meant organized. The second amendment stands as it is currently defined, the Supreme Court has already ruled.