The Second Amendment (Amendment II) to the United States Constitution protects the right to keep and bear arms. It was ratified on December 15, 1791, along with nine other articles of the Bill of Rights.
On May 8, 1792, Congress passes the second portion of the Militia Act, requiring that every free able-bodied white male citizen of the respective States, resident therein, who is or shall be of age eighteen years, and under the age of forty-five years be enrolled in the militia.
The Militia Act was tested shortly after its passage, when farmers in western Pennsylvania, angered by a federal excise tax on whiskey, attacked the home of a tax collector and then, with their ranks swollen to 6,000 camped outside Pittsburgh, threatened to march on the town. In response, President Washington, under the auspices of the Militia Act, assembled 15,000 men from the surrounding states and eastern Pennsylvania as a federal militia commanded by Virginia’s Henry Lee to march upon the Pittsburgh encampment. Upon its arrival, the federal militia found none of the rebels willing to fight. The mere threat of federal force had quelled the rebellion and established the supremacy of the federal government.
The History Channel
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.2nd Amendment
Both the 2nd Amendment and the Militia Act were attempts to avoid a federal standing army – not to provide an easier time of it should an American decide to kill as many men, women and children as they can in ten minutes.
“Once again I ask Congress to send me a bill banning assault weapons and high-capacity magazines. Enacting universal background checks. Requiring safe storage. Ending immunity for gun manufacturers,” he said. “I will sign it immediately.”President Biden the WSJ 5-8-23
I will agree that there is no reason for the average citizen to own a weapon. I lived in Europe for decades and got along fine without any.
But with almost 400,000,000 weapons in the hands of private citizens in the US, and hardly any of them being used for actual murder, when are we going to admit that guns aren’t the real problem? We must – MUST – deal with the much more difficult problem of helping people who think that mass murder is an option. Do that and the issue of owning a firearm is a moot point.
Ah, banning guns is easier; just ensure you also figure out which elements of society are still going to have guns once law-abiding citizens turn them in (or, which will be more likely the case, we’ll create millions of “criminals” who won’t turn them in, knowing it would make them sitting ducks for the REAL murderers).
Fix the people, not the guns.
Either that or also ban motor vehicles; after all, one was used in Brownsville recently to kill people! Or hey, I heard somebody was choked to death, so let’s also ban hands while we’re at it! And people drown so let’s also ban water!
FIX THE PEOPLE. That is the only solution that will stop senseless murder, assault, etc.
You are correct in pointing out that the primary problem is the people who choose to kill, and who will use any weapon available. Since fixing this primary problem, namely those who kill others, seems so difficult, many focus instead on things they can do. But whether such actions will really help is questionable. I think many on each side of the issue raise valid concerns. I would like to see more discussion about the observation you made, by both advocates and opponents of new gun restrictions.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I know of no one suggesting banning all guns or confiscating guns, but merely limited access to some guns, enhanced checks, etc. of course it is people who kill, disturbed people, but identifying them in advance and being able to do something about it is very, very difficult so next best thing is trying to limit access to weapons designed only for one purpose, to kill other people. Hunt, target shoot or whatever. I own a rifle I obtained when I was fourteen, but don’t think I need it for protection from others or my government.
A couple of thoughts, the number of guns in the US is not out of line with the population. There are in excess of 300 million people here and many hunters own more than 1 or 2 rifles or shotguns as well as a pistol. Gun collectors have many more than that.
As far as the citizens not trusting each other or the government, I think that’s obvious and I wish it were not this way but it seems like the whole culture is going through change and turmoil.
I prefer gun ownership until a new day dawns.
I own a hunting rifle, kept in a locked safe. I have no concerns over my fellow citizens owning guns, provided they are responsible. The least often quoted words of the second amendment are “WELL REGULATED”. I can live with restrictions on owning certain types of firearms. In my state, Nebraska, a new law was recently signed by the Governor, which allows any adult to carry a concealed firearm. This replaced the formerly required “Concealed Carry Permit” which one needed to earn via attending a few classes and passing a written and practical exam. I have two words for those who see no problem dispensing with the minimal safety training formerly required to pack a concealed gun in our state: Road Rage.
“I ask, who is the militia? they consist now of the whole people, except for a few public officers.” George Mason, in his address to the Virginia ratifying convention, June 4, 1788. It is his explanation of who the militia as defined in the 2nd amendment. The answer in modern English is all citizens are the militia.
The answer is the National Guard organized and regulated by the states. All citizens are not “well regulated” or regulated at all. Again, the world of 1788 is not the world of the 21st century – unless you live where an attack from local Indians is imminent, or there is no police force or standing army.
You need to read the second amendment and the full SCOTUS decisions. The Bill of Rights has no time restricts.
The Constitution Center.org has a good simple explanation of the Heller decision. And what the “the people” means.
But I suggest that you read the actual decision for yourself. You don’t have to agree to it and you can propose to repeal the 2nd amendment if you want. But 26 states have now passed and a 27th in the process of passing a form of constitutional carry so I doubt a repeal will happen.
DC v Heller also defines who the “people “are.
And gun rights will be argued for decades just like abortion will be argued for another 50 years.
As we know, the decisions of the Supreme Court reflect the views and ideology of whomever is on the court at the time. Do you think the same result would occur at other times? What about well regulated militia in the 2nd amendment. But forget all that. The essence of the matter is why Americans uniquely believe that freedom to own a weapon is essential? Many apparently have no confidence in their own society.
Have you actually read what the constitution says about militia regulation? It is very limited, which is what the framers intended. Guns are not about hunting, they are about preventing tyranny.
If only there was another example of a country that enacted gun control laws and saw an immediate reduction in gun violence and mass shootings. Oh, wait, there is…Australia.
There is something very sad about a society that believes it needs hundreds of millions of weapons to protect itself from itself – it’s fellow citizens with guns – and it’s own government. Doesn’t say much for the good old USA or the ideals on which it was formed.
“ here is something very sad about a society that believes it needs hundreds of millions of weapons to protect itself from itself – it’s fellow citizens with guns – and it’s own government. ”
Tell that to the Korean storekeepers in LA during the King riots. Their stores weren’t burned to the ground because they were armed. There is a criminal element in this country that necessitates being armed if you don’t want your life’s work, your loved ones or your own life destroyed.
So shopkeepers can just shoot rioters without consequences and how would rioters know in advance who is armed?
The second amendment is part of the Bill of Rights to the individual, not the government. That has been argued many times in court. As to the militia issue, see the comment by Dwayne.
The idea that we can pass just one more law and end this madness is bogus. I don’t know why there are mass shootings and no one else does. That is why there is always clamoring for more gun laws every time a shooting occurs. The people doing the shooting don’t care about laws or human life either. Guns won’t just magically disappear from the land if they are banned, only the law abiding would turn in their guns.
We need some mental health laws and law enforcement in inner city neighborhoods where every disagreement ends in gunfire. Biden signing another gun law won’t make you one bit safer.
You are so right that another gun law won’t make up safer.
Someone just used an SUV’s in Texas to a kill mass amount of people. Why didn’t they just use a gun? After all they were in Texas.
Suicides and gang murders are the bulk of US gun violence and what are we doing to stop that? Nothing. Both the mentally ill and gang members are returned to the street often without any bail.
I think mass media and the internet has amplified the mass killings causing them to happen with more frequency. Some outlets have stop publishing their names so as to take away some of the fame of the murders. Within the last week there was a school shooting in Serbia. Russia has gun control so how did that happen?
If you have a subscription to Newspapers.com through Ancestry.com, you can find mass shootings going back a century and a half.
If you’re asking whether I think looter and arsonists should be shot by their potential victims, a hearty yes would be my answer. IRT whether the criminals know whether their victim is armed, ambiguity is a good thing.
Ah, yes and then the shooter would end up in jail. Sounds like anarchy to me.
The shooter will end up in jail in New Jersey because you have a “duty to flee”. In other words, I am not making this up, if an arm robber breaks into your house, you must run away. Other states have a castle defense, where you can defend your family and your home. Other states have stand your ground laws which mean out in public you can defend yourself if threaten with deadly force. SCOTUS has ruled in Heller and in McDonald that you have a right to self defense but many states including NJ and democratic city with George Soros funded DA, will arrest you first if you show a gun in your own home. You probably won’t get bail either. The person who broke in will probably be let free without bail. Welcome bail reform in NJ.
If this sounds like anarchy to you rdquinn, then you are willing to be a victim. SCOTUS has ruled that the police do not have a duty to protect. That was Los Angeles slogan that they placed on their police cars 60-70 years ago.
Also, gun free zones have failed to stop mass school shooting.
“2ND AMENDMENT REALLY MEANS A WELL REGULATED MILITIA” is a false statement and SCOTUS has ruled in the Heller case (2008) and in the McDonald case (2010) that gun ownership is meant for “the people”. The statement that it is for militia is propaganda being pushed by anti-gunners and the media just like people push that the government stole from Social Security fund.
Under Bruen (2020) the SCOTUS ruled that law-abiding citizens can carry firearms in public. Also in the Bruen decision, the High Court created a new framework to test the constitutionality of gun control laws by requiring them to be “consistent with the Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation” at the time of passage of the Bill of Rights. In 1777, the State of New Jersey required men to own firearms. NJ anti-gun laws are working there way back through the court system again.
Under the Heller decision, the U.S. Supreme Court held that the Second Amendment protects “arms ‘in common use at the time’ for lawful purposes like self-defense” and arms that are “typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes.” Such arms are “chosen by American society,” not the government. There are more AR and AK platform rifles than F150 pickup trucks thus making them common use. In another non-related case, SCOTUS ruled that over 2000 cans of pepper spray made them common use thus could no longer be banned.
And there is no such thing as an assault rifle, that is a politician made up term for the media. AR stands for Armalite Rifle company, the inventor of the AR-15 model. They designed 23 different models.
Under the McDonald decision, SCOTUS ruled that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment extends the Second Amendment’s right to keep and bear arms to the states, at least for traditional, lawful purposes such as self-defense. Thus you are allow to protect yourself with a firearm and the 2nd Amendment allows you to own a firearm.
Several anti gun cities and states have angered the court and several cases are working their way back to the Court due to activist judges. The 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals has been warned to process their cases quickly by Justice Sonia Sotomayor and this week we may see a very rare emergency injunction by Justice Amy Coney Barrett over the 7th Circuit Court of Appeal.
Do you have to pay for permits, have background checks, or restricted in such a way for any of the other Rights in the Bill of Rights? Do you need to apply for a permit to go to church every Sunday?
Gun control is not about safety but control by government. No safety is gain by gun control. More people die by automobiles than guns. Are we banning cars? More than 106,000 persons in the U.S. died from drug-involved overdose in 2021, including illicit drugs and prescription opioids which is a result of the FDA approving OxyContin in 1995 as non-addictive. The same FDA that approved Covid shots that didn’t work. 54% of all gun-related deaths in the U.S. (2021) were suicides (26,328) so we have a mental health crisis that the media just ignores in the gun debate.
And this is unreasonable? Go ask the Ukrainians where they had gun control until the government realized that they were about to be invaded and then allowed anybody who want a gun to own one. Freedom is not free.
LikeLiked by 1 person
The 2nd amendment was written in a different time, there was no standing army, protection was up to individuals and the states and the intent of the amendment was exactly as it states, to support a well regulated (organized) militia- substitute for a standing army. The words in the Constitution make that very clear, the SCOTUS notwithstanding. That’s why it is written as it is. If that was not the case and it was intended as you believe there would have been no purpose in using the words “well regulated militia” This is not the 18th century. No country in the world has such an obsession for guns.
Because the 1st Amendment was written in a different time, now we should not be allow to criticize our government and our school boards too over parental rights or covid restrictions?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Where did you get that idea? Nothing to do with the topic.
It is you who are implying that our Bill of Rights is outdate and reflects a different time. If the 2nd Amendment is outdated then the 1st Amendment and all the other 8 amendments of the Bill of Rights must be outdated.
Is this why the FBI felt it could investigate “the people” who criticized the government over covid, school boards over parental rights, or Catholics hearing mass in Latin as domestic terrorist? Is it because the 1st amendment was written for a different time just as you claim that the 2nd amendment was written for a different time?
This is the topic that you brought up today.
The 2nd Amendment is still valid today as it was in 1791. And the contains the cause “the right of the people to keep and bear arms”. The “people” is in the Declaration of Independence 11 times, in the US Constitution twice, and 7 times in the Amendments, one of which is in the 2nd Amendment. SCOTUS made clear in Heller that “people” in the historical text was all citizens, not just militia.
Just because someone doesn’t like doesn’t an Amendment it doesn’t make it invalid or outdated.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Using that logic, the 1st Amendment would not apply to Radio, TV, Internet, or Telephone. The meaning of the 2nd amendment has been interpreted by the Supreme Court Constitutionally, not by whether one likes or dislikes guns.