What Does The Second Amendment Mean To You?

Discussion in 'Legal and Activism' started by AR10, Feb 25, 2013.

  1. AR10

    AR10 New Member

    2,264
    0
    0
    :

    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.

    I see two harmonious aspects to this simple and straight forward paragraph.

    Before the comma, we have a militia, or military or governing force.

    After the comma, we see the people of this land.

    I don't think the founding fathers were calling the people the militia, though in many or even most cases, they were. I think the founding fathers were implementing a procedure where the people were to be equal with the government to keep government from becoming tyrannical.
     
  2. kbd512

    kbd512 Well-Known Member Lifetime Supporter

    2,732
    88
    48
    Of course the founding fathers were calling the people the militia. We weren't fighting our battles against the British with what passed for a standing army and winning. The people of this nation, and a minority of the people of this nation at that, used guerrilla warfare against the British and won because they were willing to shoot and run away to live to fight another day.

    Our tactics were a lot like the Taliban in Afghanistan, except no Apaches, JDAM's, or .50 caliber machine guns. QRF was called cavalry- and they actually rode horses. The Taliban have been keeping our military busy for more than 10 years now. Must be something to hit and run tactics.

    The Continental Army wasn't an army to speak of in comparison to the British Army. We didn't win through force of arms, just better tactics.
     

  3. Donn

    Donn Active Member

    1,246
    13
    38
    Attrition played a big part too. The Brits were fighting France at the time, as well as trying to keep a lid on the rest of the Empire. They were stretched way too thin and were pretty much out of money. Sound familiar?
     
  4. AR10

    AR10 New Member

    2,264
    0
    0
    It sure does.
     
  5. locutus

    locutus Well-Known Member Supporter

    16,582
    683
    113
    The 2A is comprised of two clauses, the "prefatory" clause and the "operative" clause.

    The operative clause defines the action, the prefatory clause simply explains the operative clause, it cannot modify the operative clause.

    The militia clause simply tells us why the "rights" clause is needed.
     
  6. chloeshooter

    chloeshooter New Member

    2,565
    0
    0
    To me it means there is a power balance (at least an attempt at one) between the people and their government. Other than the voting booth. It doesn't say anything about our right to self-defense, per Se. It doesn't have to, that's a natural law for most of us.
     
  7. JimRau

    JimRau Well-Known Member Supporter

    5,044
    95
    48
    We already covered this. Read the other thread!!!!;)

    "2nd amendment right to bear arms"
     
    Last edited: Feb 25, 2013
  8. Garadex

    Garadex New Member

    1,267
    0
    0
    I see my right to do whatever I want with my guns as long as it doesn't harm anyone or put them in danger.
     
  9. JohnnyRingo

    JohnnyRingo New Member

    21
    0
    0
    To truly grasp the meaning of the 2a and the constitution as a whole, one must look further than the words and examine the character of the men that wrote them. For the most part it is a simple document to read and understand. The men who wrote it on the other hand were not simple men just jotting down some words, they were extraordinary. Reading the words is easy but to understand why they were written and to realize the passion behind the words requires knowing our history. If we are going to win the long term battle of preserving our rights then we must start teaching our children American history again. They need to know and understand the massive sacrifices that were made to ensure and protect their rights and freedoms.
     
  10. orangello

    orangello New Member

    19,156
    0
    0
    It is a decent attempt to spell out the natural born right of every human to an armed self-defense. I don't see where it limits what it recognizes as things we can defend against or things we can defend with.
     
  11. FullautoUSA

    FullautoUSA Welcoming Committee/ Resident Pellet Gunner Lifetime Supporter

    2,627
    1
    0
    What does the second mean to me? It's the written form of my God given right to own the military arms necessary for me to defend my life, liberty and pursuit of happiness, against anyone who would deny me my right to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness.
     
  12. hudsonvalley

    hudsonvalley New Member

    9
    0
    0
    Agree with the natural law part...what them in are in charge fail to remember is that THE PEOPLE are the government...how the founders meant it to be...The Constitution is not the peoples rights...but the limits of those in charge (at the moment). Without the 2nd , you could just throw out the rest of the Bill of Rights...If the Founding Fathers lost the revolution, they would have been hung as traitors...they are legitimatizing their actions (of which we all agree, were correct) and letting us know that if it needs to happen again, it's up to us...
     
    Last edited: Feb 26, 2013