Right to Keep and Bear, what does it really mean?

[Johnny_Come_Lately]

What do the following 27 words mean to you?

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.

Put in the context of the times in which those words were penned, do we as a people have the un-infringed right to keep and bear arms so that if called upon we can field a well-regulated militia to stand against tyranny and oppression on our home soil?

Was it because such a people were able to arm themselves and confront what at the time was a considered an army of a tyrannical government that we have the freedoms we enjoy as a people today.

Does this mean that “assault” weapons should be banned?

Does mean that “high capacity” magazines should be banned?

Does this mean that full auto weapons should be banned?

How much clearer can the words shall not be infringed be?

 

[NavyLCDR]

What it means is that the citizen must be armed in order to ensure that their state (or nation) remains free. The citizen may be called to defend the free state against foreign enemies... or, the most extreme of circumstances, may be called upon to overthrow a government by force that has become oppressive, no longer allowing the state to be free.

Taken into account that the citizen may be required, may even have the DUTY to defend the freedom of the state from it's own government, it would therefore stand to reason that the right of the citizen to bear arms would be up to and including the arms available to the government to suppress the freedom of the citizen.

 

[WhistlinDixie]

What it means is that the citizen must be armed in order to ensure that their state (or nation) remains free. The citizen may be called to defend the free state against foreign enemies... or, the most extreme of circumstances, may be called upon to overthrow a government by force that has become oppressive, no longer allowing the state to be free.

Taken into account that the citizen may be required, may even have the DUTY to defend the freedom of the state from it's own government, it would therefore stand to reason that the right of the citizen to bear arms would be up to and including the arms available to the government to suppress the freedom of the citizen.

I can't say it any better than that

 

[Apuuli]

One thing that often gets ignored is the "free state" phrase. The framers of the constitution were very explicit (for the most part) and "state" means state, New York, Virginia, etc., not federal government. The founders were in fact quite paranoid about the power of the federal government and the power it would have with a standing army.

These taken together mean to me that the right to keep and bear arms is largely meant as a safeguard against an uppity federal government. Therefore, it certainly covers arms that are effective against those carried by the standing army of the federal government.

Personally, the rights to bear arms in self defense and hunting are more pressing for me at the moment and hopefully will remain so in the future. However, that is not the justification given in the constitution.

 

[NavyLCDR]

Even the oath that military members take is to "support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign AND DOMESTIC". The problem is that the oath then goes on to say "To obey the orders of the President of the United States". We have a serious problem when those two terms of the oath begin to oppose each other.

 

[pitsmile]

I think it means that as a requirement of freedom, we have to protect (or have the ability to protect) our land and our beliefs in the form of an organized militia; originally the national guard, presently all branches of the military. Furthermore, every citizen has the right to keep and bear arms; the right to protect their family, their home and their country. Nobody has the right to take that away.

Assault weapons should not be banned. High capacity magazines should not be banned. Full-auto rifles should not be banned. Everyone should have the right to protect themselves and their family, equally, with the same weapons they might come to face. It is not a result of these weapons causing crime and casualty. No matter what items get banned or restricted, criminals will find a way to get them because it is their will to commit illegal activity. A responsible owner, the majority, should not be penalized for someone else's actions. In any situation there will always be 'the bad apple' and/or a small percentage of people that will never deviate from social delinquency. 'When there's a will, there's a way.' Banning certain weapons/accessories has not proven to solve anything - it is just taking these items out of the hands of responsible citizens, which puts them (us) at a disadvantage. It's so idealistic, and ignorant, to think banning an item will make it disappear; we, as a society, need to be realistic.

From my understanding, the ban and restrictions on assault weapons was a result of inaccurate interpretation of BATFE tracing data. In short, during the time period anti-gunners said so many crimes were being committed using assault weapons; the BATFE was only, or mostly, tracing assault weapons. First of all, tracing weapons only shows the history of legal transfers of a particular weapon. This means the weapon had to be recovered for the serial number to be traced. I am making an educated guess that most weapons used in crimes were NOT recovered. So now we understand that only a small percentage of weapons are being traced. Of this already small percentage, the BATFE was ONLY (or mostly) tracing assault weapons; no wonder tracing data showed the majority of weapons being used were assault weapons - IT'S ALL THEY WERE TRACING. Moreover, they specifically state that tracing data should not be used as statistical backing. Why should anti-gunners listen to them, though? It is falsely showing what they want the public to believe. (Info previously read in various publications - summarized based on memory)

If anything should be restricted in this country - it's the privilege to obtain a driver's license. I believe more deaths occur a year as a result of driving than guns. (Just a guess.)

Thanks.

 

[gbw]

Lots of high falutin talk, all meaningless. Lawyers might say it means exactly what 9 old geezers and geezerettes say it means. Also nonsense.

Argue the theory of original intent all you want.

It means exactly what the local powers-that-be say it means. They are elected to their jobs and their ultimate goal to stay elected. So it means exactly what the majority of the local electorate wants it to mean. The pols will happily ignore both the constitution and the Supremes if it will keep them in office.

 

[captain awesome]

Infringed. To me the meaning of the word is very clear. Lets say you want everyone to stay off your lawn. Your rule is no one shall set foot on your lawn, the borders of your lawn are not to be infringed. Pretty clear to me, STAY OF THE DARN LAWN. Then some one comes along and cuts a corner, walking on a portion of your lawn. Is that not infringing on the borders of your lawn? I see no difference with fire arms restrictions save the consequences of fire arms restrictions may someday be severe. And it seems as though someone has driven an off road vehicle on your lawn and done donuts everywhere.

 

[merlinfire]

Keep and Bear:

Just what it says. I have the right to keep any small or crew-served arm (comparable to the rifle and cannon) and carry them in times or places where I feel they are necessary. And they cannot be taken away from me for just any reason.


Shall not be infringed:

Just what it says. The above rights being mine, government shall make no laws or regulations that prevent those rights from being enjoyed to the utmost. Laws that restrict ownership, modes of transportation, certain weapon features, weapon modifications, or ammunition are all infringements.

In short: the laws and regulations as they currently exist are a clear infringement on my rights under the Constitution. It seems odd to me that, after the Supreme Court has affirmed the 2a to be an individual right, that it doesn't jump right out and bite everyone that if that is the case, that virtually all gun laws are now considered infringements.

 

[1911Tuner]

The rifle...called the "Queen of Smallarms" by the late Col. Cooper...is by definition an instrument that is primarily used to attack. Therefore, all rifles are essentially "assault" rifles.

In 1873, the trapdoor Springfield was an assault rifle. In 1896, the Mauser bolt-action filled that role. 40 years later, John C. Garand delivered up "The greatest battle implement ever devised." And so it goes.

The right to keep and bear arms wasn't put in place so that we could hunt ducks and knock beer cans off fence posts on lazy Sunday afternoons.

 

[vito]

Its been said before but is worth repeating: it does not matter what we think the 2nd Amendment means, only what the Supreme Court says it means. As of now we have a SC that says it is an individual right, but not an unlimited right (despite the "shall not be infringed" language). Where the line is drawn is anyone's guess. The attempts by the anti-gun believers never stops, and enough of the Federal judiciary supports gun control to keep those efforts alive until they finally reach the Supreme Court if we are lucky. It does not help us that the rest of the world is still moving in an anti-gun ownership direction since this gives encouragement to those in the USA who want to strip us of our guns. Even places like Israel, where there is clearly a societal need for its citizens to be armed, there are stringent controls on concealed weapons. And now Switzerland is considering changing the law that required those in the Army Reserve to keep their automatic weapon at home, with a minimum amount of ammo, to a more restrictive law because of a few gun crimes. As America continues down the path of an increasingly nanny state mentality, our gun rights are likely to be under more rather than less pressure. I'm old enough that I will probably pass on with my guns intact and my rights relatively intact, but I doubt that any of my grandchildren will reach their old age with the right to even own a handgun. I pray that I am wrong.

 

[MaterDei]

Even the oath that military members take is to "support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign AND DOMESTIC". The problem is that the oath then goes on to say "To obey the orders of the President of the United States". We have a serious problem when those two terms of the oath begin to oppose each other.

This is not entirely true.

1. Only enlisted personnel take an oath to obey the orders of the POTUS and the officers appointed over them. The officer's oath contains no such language.
2. All military personnel are taught that they have a duty NOT to obey an illegal order.

 

[Mousegun]

One of the arguments that antis always give me is that when the Constitution was written, so called assault rifles, semi-autos and automatics weren't around as of then. They say, as a result, the 2nd is outdated and therefore invalid.

My response is, "when the first was written, telephones, television, internet, Facebook and Twitter, and newspapers that could be printed overnight and distributed to millions of people were not around either but let one person try to curtail the first amendment in any way, the media will go to the ends of the earth to defend it. The same media that is instrumental in attempting to destroy the second amendment.

 

[Fleet]

pitsmile said:

I think it means that as a requirement of freedom, we have to protect (or have the ability to protect) our land and our beliefs in the form of an organized militia; originally the national guard, presently all branches of the military.

One of things that I would guess that the vast majority don't understand is that the militia, as the term is used in the Constitution, has nothing whatever to do with the National Guard, as this body didn't exist until the early 20th century. As it's currently codified in our laws, the Guard is still only part of the equation. Every able bodied male in the U.S., who is a citizen or intends to become a citizen, between the ages of 17 and 45 is part of the unorganized militia, which is the militia the Constitution refers to. See
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/10/311.html

 

[sansone]

I like what NavyLT said in post #2.. I would like to ad the govt sees the constitution as an obstacle to overcome IMO

 

[danprkr]

Freedom.

 

[merlinfire]

The rifle...called the "Queen of Smallarms" by the late Col. Cooper...is by definition an instrument that is primarily used to attack. Therefore, all rifles are essentially "assault" rifles.

In 1873, the trapdoor Springfield was an assault rifle. In 1896, the Mauser bolt-action filled that role. 40 years later, John C. Garand delivered up "The greatest battle implement ever devised." And so it goes.

The right to keep and bear arms wasn't put in place so that we could hunt ducks and knock beer cans off fence posts on lazy Sunday afternoons.

Well said! It has NOTHING AT ALL to do with "sporting purposes", and everything to do with:

Freedom.

Though, you have to imagine that in a scottish accent and with exclamation points.

 

[henschman]

Getting away from written law like the 2A, it is worth remembering that these documents are not what give us our rights, and we do not need such a document to tell us we have these rights.

I am of the belief that everyone has a right to act in accordance with his own free will to the maximum possible extent that everyone can do so equally.

As long as one is not infringing on the equal liberty of others, than anything goes. The right to bear arms is just one part of this rightful liberty. It is very difficult for me to see how the mere possession of ANYTHING, certainly any type of small arm, is actually a threat to the liberty of others. Quite the opposite... the proliferation of arms in society actually increases the likelihood of society remaining free.

Ultimately, liberty is just an idea... for it to be realized, it has to be protected and defended. It is irrational and naieve to think that liberty could continue to exist without each individual having the ability to personally protect his own liberty. To rely solely on the government to protect liberty is to let the fox guard the henhouse, being that government is the chief threat to liberty.

The fact is that an armed people is much less likely to be tyrannized than an unarmed people. Look at what is happening in Egypt. What do you think would happen if that large of a segment of OUR population believed our government to be illegitimate and oppressive? Do you think that dictator would still be in power? Do you think people would just be marching in the streets, protesting and throwing rocks? How many of his tyrannical acts do you think he would have been able to get away with? Do you think they would have put up with him for 30 years? Nope... he would have gone the way of Nicolae Ceaucescu a long time ago. That's the difference between an armed people and an unarmed people.

One of the great things about being armed is that you do not have to use your weapons for them to be effective... they have a strong deterrent effect, as well. Liberty has been eroded a lot in this country, but I am convinced that it would have been eroded a lot faster if we did not have an armed populace. Politicians only try to take away as much liberty as they can without causing a violent uprising.

 

[browneu]

Look at what is happening in Egypt. What do you think would happen if that large of a segment of OUR population believed our government to be illegitimate and oppressive? Do you think that dictator would still be in power? Do you think people would just be marching in the streets, protesting and throwing rocks? How many of his tyrannical acts do you think he would have been able to get away with? Do you think they would have put up with him for 30 years? Nope... he would have gone the way of Nicolae Ceaucescu a long time ago. That's the difference between an armed people and an unarmed people.

That's a great point. Being armed is what makes our society free.

We have to remember that we're still in a war against terrorism and we cannot expect our government to protect us should the enemy bring the war to our soil again. We have to be able to protect ourselves against terrorism and limiting our ability to own firearms in anyway hurts that ability.

 

[CraigC]

...it does not matter what we think the 2nd Amendment means, only what the Supreme Court says it means.

Spoken like a true subject.

Hogwash! The 2nd Amendment was written as a guarantee that "We the people..." should have the ability to defend our homeland or free ourselves from a tyrannical government, should the need arise. It was written as a safeguard for all our other freedoms. The perception and/or opinion of supreme court judges and elected officials is irrelevant.

States rights is another matter entirely. They no longer exist, thank honest Abe for that.

 

[merlinfire]

Odd that it took the SCOTUS so long to rule that the 2nd Amendment was an individual right. Funny how that among the first ten amendments, the "bill of rights", only the 2nd would ever be held to be considered to protect the government's rights. How absurd is that?

 

[1911Tuner]

it does not matter what we think the 2nd Amendment means, only what the Supreme Court says it means.

I have to disagree. The 2nd Amendment...along with the other articles in the Bill of Rights...is clear and not open to debate. "Shall Not Be Infringed" makes no provision for interpretation by the SCOTUS or anyone else...not even Martin Sheen.

Neither does the 2nd Amendment "grant" us the right to keep and bear arms. Priveleges are granted. Rights are inalienable. 2A recognizes the right and guarantees it.

 

[Owen Sparks]

Unfortunatly it means whatever the group in power says it means.
The Constitution may say that the federal government may not do X, but it does X anyway because it has a monopoly on the use of force and can get away with it.

 

[Vern Humphrey]

Tenche Cox said it best in the Federalist-Anti Federalist debates.

The power of the sword, say the minority..., is in the hands of Congress. My friends and countrymen, it is not so, for The powers of the sword are in the hands of the yeomanry of America from sixteen to sixty. The militia of these free commonwealths, entitled and accustomed to their arms, when compared with any possible army, must be tremendous and irresistible. Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man against his own bosom. Congress has no power to disarm the militia. Their swords and every terrible implement of the soldier are the birthright of Americans. The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments but where, I trust in God, it will always remain, in the hands of the people.

The Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788.

 

[1911Tuner]

The power of the sword, say the minority..., is in the hands of Congress. My friends and countrymen, it is not so, for The powers of the sword are in the hands of the yeomanry of America from sixteen to sixty. The militia of these free commonwealths, entitled and accustomed to their arms, when compared with any possible army, must be tremendous and irresistible. Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man against his own bosom. Congress has no power to disarm the militia. Their swords and every terrible implement of the soldier are the birthright of Americans. The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments but where, I trust in God, it will always remain, in the hands of the people.

Amen.