YOU ARE OVER SIMPLIFYING IT ☹️☹️☹️👎👎👎👎 !!!!!! While it has some measure of that intent to it , a GOOD SENSE/FACT BASED analysis indicates that it ALSO still has ties to the other elements of the Constitution AND IS NOT (!!!!!!) a provision which should be given a status of prominence which means that it irrevocably supersedes or worse yet nullifies those other standards/elements!!!! AND it was not only a matter of protecting against tyranny from a domestic government but also from a foreign power !!! IN ADDITION to satisfy the requirement of honoring the other Constitutional provisions THERE IS ABSOLUTE CAUSE TO BALANCE THE BASIC INTENTIONS OF THIS ONE AMENDMENT IN RELATION TO THE OTHER OBJECTIVES SET FORTH IN THE CONSTITUTION TO DETERMINE WHAT PARAMETERS DO AND DON'T MEET WITH THE GENERATION , EXISTENCE AND MAINTENANCE OF "A WELL REGULATED MILITIA" !!!! IF PEOPLE ON A FAIRLY TO THOROUGHLY EXTENSIVE SCALE WOULD RECOGNIZE AND FORM AGREEMENT AROUND A MORE FUNCTIONABLE , PRACTICAL VIEW OF INTENT AND BETTER PURPOSE OF WHAT WAS BEING EXPRESSED ; WE MAY WELL HAVE A BETTER CHANCE AND BETTER OUTCOMES THAN THE PROBLEMATIC PLAGUEING OF THE NATION WHICH OCCURS WHEN PEOPLE CONTINUE TO REACH TOWARD (OR TO) EXTREMES WHICH ARE COMMONLY DERIVED ☹️☹️☹️☹️😖😖😖😖🤬🤬🤬🤬
I think most people try to over complicate the 2a , it says what it says, not open to interpretation of any kind. It addresses citizen militas. People's rights , and infringement.
Did? It still does. Militia in the 18th century was defined as all citizens, all of the people (males). Amendments 1-8 in Bill of Rights protect individual rights. Including the 2nd Amendment.
The second clause is the independent clause, and stands alone. It does not need the first clause, grammatically speaking. The Second Amendment could just as easily have read: "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed". And, that would be grammatically complete.
@@claiborneeastjr4129 well, there's grammar and then there's intent. Obviously the first clause has something to do with the last clause, otherwise why put them in the same amendment? They are to be read and interpreted together. The first clause explains one reason why the right exists; to have an organized citizen defense force. The other reason, self-defense, is implied in the right to keep personal weapons. Also implied in the relationship between the two clauses is govt's responsibility to regulate the militia. And who are the militia? They are made up of the People.
Two things: 1, Why would the framers place a "group's right" provision in a bill that established restrictions for the government and protected individual rights? 2, the passage of the Militia Act just after the Bill of Rights required individual able bodied males to procure their own firearms, ammunition, and accessories. The prefatory clause just lays out why the operative clause is important. The use of "the people' in the 2nd is no different than it is in the 4th etc.
The operative clause, being an independent clause, is the main idea and subject. The prefatory clause, being a dependint clause, simply adds supporting ideas to the main clause. The primary subject and main idea of the operative clause is "....the Right of the People to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed". The prefatory clause, "A well regulated militia, being necessary to a free State..." is a dependent clause that cannot stand on its own as an idea, so it simply modifies the operative clause, by noting that the idea of the people being armed with their own weapons, automatically provides the State with a ready militia. Ain't any more complicated than that. Tyrannical politicians and governments will always twist meanings in an attempt to rob and enslave the general population.
In my opinion the 2nd can be read as: "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed [because] a well regulated militia [is] necessary to the security of a free state". This makes sense because the Founders needed a defense force, but wanted to avoid the creation of a standing army. Their goal was for each state to have a "well regulated militia" consisting of armed, trained citizens who would, when needed, be under the authority of their governor or the President. In peacetime they would be expected to show up for training and drill as determined by their governor, a little like today's National Guard but under state authority. The rest of the time they were free to use their weapons for hunting and self-defense. So the 2nd is not simply a personal right, nor only a group right. It is both. However as time marched on, the function of the militia was superseded by police forces and the professional army. The states let their responsibility for regulating lapse, in favor of the National Guard, which is actually a federal army reserve force. Since the Army Reserve and National Guard don't accept just anybody, they infringe on the right of the [whole] people to bear arms. And since the states have left it up to the police and courts to enforce a patchwork of gun regulations, the country no longer has a "well regulated militia". What remains is an unregulated, often poorly trained or untrained mob of gun owners left to their own devices. Those devices include decisively UN-regulated militias who answer only to themselves or to various fringe political movements. Again, in my opinion we would be better off adopting something similar to the Swiss system; mandatory military training for all adults, regulated gun ownership with periodic referesher training, exclusion of the small minorty of individuals found mentally unfit to bear arms. This approach would still fit within the intent of the 2nd. But the great majority of gun owners seem to prefer anarchy to reasonable regulation. Thanks for listening.
Properly spoken, your title should read, "What does the Second Amendment say?" It is unchanged and still in effect. The RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.!!!!!
You are totally wrong, and you didn’t actually elucidate anything! The second amendment comes directly from Article VI Clause 4 of the Articles of Confederation: [No vessels of war shall be kept up in time of peace, by any state, except such number only, as shall be deemed necessary by the united states, in congress assembled, for the defence of such state, or its trade; nor shall any body of forces be kept up, by any state, in time of peace, except such number only as, in the judgment of the united states, in congress assembled, shall be deemed requisite to garrison the forts necessary for the defence of such state; but every state shall always keep up a well regulated and disciplined militia, sufficiently armed and accoutred, and shall provide and constantly have ready for use, in public stores, a due number of field pieces and tents, and a proper quantity of arms, ammunition, and camp equipage.] Notice this clause concerns “military equipment and military readiness”, and does not include weapons for personal protection and hunting, which everyone had as a necessity at that time, and also notice the the united States, in congress assembled, determined all the equipment that in that category of military arms and equipment. So when we look at the second amendment, there isn’t any change in that clause from the Articles of Confederation, they only paraphrased and condensed it, but still retained the pertinent provisions which required each State to maintain a well regulated militia and a state of readiness that included a store of arms, ammunition, and other military equipment for when the State’s militia was called into actual service by the united States, in congress assembled, the Union and the Established Government Authority! [Amendment II 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.] Another thing to notice is that “the people” refers to “The People in their Collective Capacity” assembled as the Most Numerous Legislative Branch of each State’s own Legislature, not people as individuals. There are no individual rights established by the Constitution of the United States, only State’s Rights, which is the people of each State collectively, and as a citizen of your State, your State is responsible for you, and you draw your individual rights from your State’s Rights. The Constitution of the United States is a participation versus compliance agreement between the States to establish the benefits, privileges, rights of participation in decision making and cost of membership in the Union, which determines each State’s Rights as members of the Union!
Total misunderstanding of Founder's intent. For there to be collective Rights, they follow out of individual Rights. The Founders envisioned a volunteer army, yes. But everyone was entitled to own, maintain, train, and utilize ALL weapons of war. The Civil War was supported by numerous volunteer groups armed with the latest weaponry owned. It wasn't until after Wilson, a Democrat, became President and started the whole Deep State, that various weapons were denied Americans.
Have always been amused by those who accept the stream of individual rights for individuals until they get to one they don't like and now it's not an individual right.
At the start of our nation not everyone was allowed to keep a gun. Even though they were citizens. This so called personal right or the idea that anyone can own a gun is simply incorrect or wrong. After 1776 and the forming of our government & the Bill of Rights some Americans still weren't allowed to vote or own a gun or exercise their 1st amendment rights as well as other so called rights that property owners freely and equally enjoyed. In fact some American citizens were property. Their rights were CLEARLY "infringed" making the case that "the people" implied those (the people, a collective) who voted in their respective states. This argument that any American has the right to own a gun is dismissed by the simple fact that those enslaved could not own a gun (for obvious reasons) or indentured servants as well as others that were not as equal. Yet, they were in fact Americans and counted as such in the census laid out in the Constitution.
You are incorrect. They ( slaves, indentured servants) weren't citizens, they were either a "living investment" or they were _Property._ They were Not considered citizens.
@@RANDOMNATION907 They were counted as such in accordance with the constitution. They weren't property owners so they did not enjoy equality. Yet they were most certainly American Citizens. BTW women fall into this category also.
@@barrybarlowe5640 That's why we had to fight a civil war and pass an extra amendment to ensure some of their other rights weren't infringed like voting and being counted as a whole person rather than 4/5ths. Rights were NOT granted to women, slaves or indentured servant and anyone else who wasn't a property owner. But they were counted as citizens and were represented by those elected. If all rights were enjoyed by all these things would NOT have been as bloody as history shows.
The people were the militia and the militia were the people and it is that way still. the second amendment is still the law and still means the same thing, That the right of the people to keep and bear arms and arms means any weapons, shall not be infringed and infringed means to hinder prevent restrict delay eliminate.
Shall Not be infringed" is where it ends for this man...
It says that a/the militia is totally dependent on THE (already existing) citizen right to keep and bear arms. Not the other way around.
In those days soldiers supplied their own weapons. This amendment is to keep the government in check and avoid tyranny
YOU ARE OVER SIMPLIFYING IT ☹️☹️☹️👎👎👎👎 !!!!!! While it has some measure of that intent to it , a GOOD SENSE/FACT BASED analysis indicates that it ALSO still has ties to the other elements of the Constitution AND IS NOT (!!!!!!) a provision which should be given a status of prominence which means that it irrevocably supersedes or worse yet nullifies those other standards/elements!!!! AND it was not only a matter of protecting against tyranny from a domestic government but also from a foreign power !!! IN ADDITION to satisfy the requirement of honoring the other Constitutional provisions THERE IS ABSOLUTE CAUSE TO BALANCE THE BASIC INTENTIONS OF THIS ONE AMENDMENT IN RELATION TO THE OTHER OBJECTIVES SET FORTH IN THE CONSTITUTION TO DETERMINE WHAT PARAMETERS DO AND DON'T MEET WITH THE GENERATION , EXISTENCE AND MAINTENANCE OF "A WELL REGULATED MILITIA" !!!! IF PEOPLE ON A FAIRLY TO THOROUGHLY EXTENSIVE SCALE WOULD RECOGNIZE AND FORM AGREEMENT AROUND A MORE FUNCTIONABLE , PRACTICAL VIEW OF INTENT AND BETTER PURPOSE OF WHAT WAS BEING EXPRESSED ; WE MAY WELL HAVE A BETTER CHANCE AND BETTER OUTCOMES THAN THE PROBLEMATIC PLAGUEING OF THE NATION WHICH OCCURS WHEN PEOPLE CONTINUE TO REACH TOWARD (OR TO) EXTREMES WHICH ARE COMMONLY DERIVED ☹️☹️☹️☹️😖😖😖😖🤬🤬🤬🤬
I think most people try to over complicate the 2a , it says what it says, not open to interpretation of any kind. It addresses citizen militas. People's rights , and infringement.
Enjoyed it
Thank you
Did?
It still does.
Militia in the 18th century was defined as all citizens, all of the people (males).
Amendments 1-8 in Bill of Rights protect individual rights.
Including the 2nd Amendment.
The second clause is the independent clause, and stands alone. It does not need the first clause, grammatically speaking. The Second Amendment could just as easily have read: "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed". And, that would be grammatically complete.
@@claiborneeastjr4129 well, there's grammar and then there's intent. Obviously the first clause has something to do with the last clause, otherwise why put them in the same amendment? They are to be read and interpreted together. The first clause explains one reason why the right exists; to have an organized citizen defense force. The other reason, self-defense, is implied in the right to keep personal weapons. Also implied in the relationship between the two clauses is govt's responsibility to regulate the militia. And who are the militia? They are made up of the People.
Why is it so difficult to accept the fact that you have the 2a ?
Two things: 1, Why would the framers place a "group's right" provision in a bill that established restrictions for the government and protected individual rights? 2, the passage of the Militia Act just after the Bill of Rights required individual able bodied males to procure their own firearms, ammunition, and accessories. The prefatory clause just lays out why the operative clause is important. The use of "the people' in the 2nd is no different than it is in the 4th etc.
The operative clause, being an independent clause, is the main idea and subject. The prefatory clause, being a dependint clause, simply adds supporting ideas to the main clause.
The primary subject and main idea of the operative clause is "....the Right of the People to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed". The prefatory clause, "A well regulated militia, being necessary to a free State..." is a dependent clause that cannot stand on its own as an idea, so it simply modifies the operative clause, by noting that the idea of the people being armed with their own weapons, automatically provides the State with a ready militia.
Ain't any more complicated than that. Tyrannical politicians and governments will always twist meanings in an attempt to rob and enslave the general population.
"every terrible impliment of the soldier" this guy reads it and the other doccuments to include everything.
In my opinion the 2nd can be read as:
"The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed [because] a well regulated militia [is] necessary to the security of a free state". This makes sense because the Founders needed a defense force, but wanted to avoid the creation of a standing army.
Their goal was for each state to have a "well regulated militia" consisting of armed, trained citizens who would, when needed, be under the authority of their governor or the President.
In peacetime they would be expected to show up for training and drill as determined by their governor, a little like today's National Guard but under state authority. The rest of the time they were free to use their weapons for hunting and self-defense.
So the 2nd is not simply a personal right, nor only a group right. It is both.
However as time marched on, the function of the militia was superseded by police forces and the professional army. The states let their responsibility for regulating lapse, in favor of the National Guard, which is actually a federal army reserve force.
Since the Army Reserve and National Guard don't accept just anybody, they infringe on the right of the [whole] people to bear arms. And since the states have left it up to the police and courts to enforce a patchwork of gun regulations, the country no longer has a "well regulated militia".
What remains is an unregulated, often poorly trained or untrained mob of gun owners left to their own devices. Those devices include decisively UN-regulated militias who answer only to themselves or to various fringe political movements.
Again, in my opinion we would be better off adopting something similar to the Swiss system; mandatory military training for all adults, regulated gun ownership with periodic referesher training, exclusion of the small minorty of individuals found mentally unfit to bear arms. This approach would still fit within the intent of the 2nd. But the great majority of gun owners seem to prefer anarchy to reasonable regulation. Thanks for listening.
does say...
Properly spoken, your title should read, "What does the Second Amendment say?" It is unchanged and still in effect.
The RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.!!!!!
They make it all up, according to who is paying for the current vacation.
So... shall we apply your comment to ignorance of the United States Constitution? Or just ignorance?
You are totally wrong, and you didn’t actually elucidate anything!
The second amendment comes directly from Article VI Clause 4 of the Articles of Confederation:
[No vessels of war shall be kept up in time of peace, by any state, except such number only, as shall be deemed necessary by the united states, in congress assembled, for the defence of such state, or its trade; nor shall any body of forces be kept up, by any state, in time of peace, except such number only as, in the judgment of the united states, in congress assembled, shall be deemed requisite to garrison the forts necessary for the defence of such state; but every state shall always keep up a well regulated and disciplined militia, sufficiently armed and accoutred, and shall provide and constantly have ready for use, in public stores, a due number of field pieces and tents, and a proper quantity of arms, ammunition, and camp equipage.]
Notice this clause concerns “military equipment and military readiness”, and does not include weapons for personal protection and hunting, which everyone had as a necessity at that time, and also notice the the united States, in congress assembled, determined all the equipment that in that category of military arms and equipment.
So when we look at the second amendment, there isn’t any change in that clause from the Articles of Confederation, they only paraphrased and condensed it, but still retained the pertinent provisions which required each State to maintain a well regulated militia and a state of readiness that included a store of arms, ammunition, and other military equipment for when the State’s militia was called into actual service by the united States, in congress assembled, the Union and the Established Government Authority!
[Amendment II
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.]
Another thing to notice is that “the people” refers to “The People in their Collective Capacity” assembled as the Most Numerous Legislative Branch of each State’s own Legislature, not people as individuals. There are no individual rights established by the Constitution of the United States, only State’s Rights, which is the people of each State collectively, and as a citizen of your State, your State is responsible for you, and you draw your individual rights from your State’s Rights.
The Constitution of the United States is a participation versus compliance agreement between the States to establish the benefits, privileges, rights of participation in decision making and cost of membership in the Union, which determines each State’s Rights as members of the Union!
Total misunderstanding of Founder's intent. For there to be collective Rights, they follow out of individual Rights. The Founders envisioned a volunteer army, yes. But everyone was entitled to own, maintain, train, and utilize ALL weapons of war.
The Civil War was supported by numerous volunteer groups armed with the latest weaponry owned. It wasn't until after Wilson, a Democrat, became President and started the whole Deep State, that various weapons were denied Americans.
Have always been amused by those who accept the stream of individual rights for individuals until they get to one they don't like and now it's not an individual right.
No standing army . Thank goodness this has never been a democracy.
That Luigi Mangione was exercising his 2a rights.
At the start of our nation not everyone was allowed to keep a gun. Even though they were citizens. This so called personal right or the idea that anyone can own a gun is simply incorrect or wrong.
After 1776 and the forming of our government & the Bill of Rights some Americans still weren't allowed to vote or own a gun or exercise their 1st amendment rights as well as other so called rights that property owners freely and equally enjoyed.
In fact some American citizens were property.
Their rights were CLEARLY "infringed" making the case that "the people" implied those (the people, a collective) who voted in their respective states.
This argument that any American has the right to own a gun is dismissed by the simple fact that those enslaved could not own a gun (for obvious reasons) or indentured servants as well as others that were not as equal. Yet, they were in fact Americans and counted as such in the census laid out in the Constitution.
You are incorrect. They ( slaves, indentured servants) weren't citizens, they were either a "living investment" or they were _Property._ They were Not considered citizens.
@@RANDOMNATION907 They were counted as such in accordance with the constitution. They weren't property owners so they did not enjoy equality. Yet they were most certainly American Citizens.
BTW women fall into this category also.
Except for criminals held for punishment, or enemy combatants, NO One was denied the right to bear arms.
@@barrybarlowe5640 That's why we had to fight a civil war and pass an extra amendment to ensure some of their other rights weren't infringed like voting and being counted as a whole person rather than 4/5ths.
Rights were NOT granted to women, slaves or indentured servant and anyone else who wasn't a property owner. But they were counted as citizens and were represented by those elected.
If all rights were enjoyed by all these things would NOT have been as bloody as history shows.
@@ErsatzMcGuffin ... I don't know who deleted my response but it's obvious it struck a nerve. So Childish.
The people were the militia and the militia were the people and it is that way still. the second amendment is still the law and still means the same thing, That the right of the people to keep and bear arms and arms means any weapons, shall not be infringed and infringed means to hinder prevent restrict delay eliminate.