I do not believe it was the intention of the founding fathers that weapons should be freely available to all and sundry to carry on their person as and when they choose without let or hindrance!
Actually, I'm sure that's the way it was in the days of our Founding Fathers, so I think that's probably what they intended. I'm pretty sure there was no, "OMG, there's someone with a firearm out on the street! Make him put it away!"
Kenny, in the 1770s the men who in 1787 would be America's founders surely knew that most normal everyday colonials owned guns. How could they not have intended that weapons be freely available to all and sundry . . . ? But then I'm an NRA Life Member so what do I know?
The Supreme Court (of the US) has held otherwise. My reading of the amendment, and what do I know, would seem to say that the right to bear arms is a necessity for maintaning a "well-regulated Militia". However there was no standing army at the time the Constitution was written, so ordinary citizens were expected to bear arms if an "army" was needed.
Yes because it first says 'to keep' the arms. That implies to me that the arms would be kept in your house and could be 'beared' in times of need - Which is to secure your state against outside forces or forces from within your state.
It also implies to me that citizens should be highly encouraged to receive training in firearms usage so they learn to handle and respect the arms that they are keeping.
Not the arms that they are bearing on the streets - Which I believe shouldn't happen. They should be kept in your home (perhaps your car), but not on you. Unless of course needed.
It also seems blatantly obvious that 'the people+ Arms' = militia. That's what a militia is, a group of citizens who can form into an army in times of need.
I'm going to have to disagree. There is nothing in that statement requiring militia membership (though if you check the definition under Federal law most male citizens, and some non-citizens, as well as a number of females are already national militia members). The preamble of the 2nd is often confusing to people as it is a statement of political belief and philosophy, but it has no legal language; it simply existed to justify the existence of the legally operational part. Lay people often assume that parts of a public statute have a legal function and try use the rhetorical parts to define the overall meaning. Understandable but misguided.
It is an old questioned. What is it about "shall not be infringed" you do not understand. The intention is in the Federalist Papers. What you do not believe is exactly the intention. Up until machine guns were regulated in the 1930s there was no regulation of gun ownership. AND there was no call for it. After there was a call for it the 2nd Amendment suddenly meant something different than people had read it to mean since 1790. How is this possible?
I agree. I think that the original intention was for members of a civilian militia, however multiple court rulings have allowed the general population the right to carry guns. As a hunter, I am in favor of responsible possession of guns, but I do not mind thoughtful gun control such as banning assault and fully automatic rifles which have no practical purpose in general society.
Totally agree with that! Proper hunting weapons should be available with proper licensing for hunters as long as they are held and kept safely and responsibly.
@ Carl Brown:
Carl, a 'civilian militia' IS the 'general population'.
The 2nd Amendment does not address hunting or any form of gun activity, it only address the Right of the People to be able to form a militia when necessary for the defense of their Free State.
You say you are for banning certain types of arms, tell me then how will the militia you will be a part of prevail against an opposing group armed with modern firearms? My guess is that you will die with your hunting rifle grasp in your cold dead hands.
I respect your opinion, in return I demand you respect my Constitution Rights, if you wish to take away or restrict my Rights then have your elected officials write a new Amendment that removes my Right to keep and bear arms, and have it properly ratified.
The first clause is a justification for the primary clause. If one does not have weapons, how can they take them up to defend, not just against enemies of the State, but the State itself if it should become the enemy.
So, you're not one of those anti-tax people who feels that someday the people may need to rise up and use their arms to overthrow our corrupt and exploitative overlords.
Whether it's possible or not, no attempt can even be made if the people don't have the right to keep and bear arms, can it?