What does the 2A mean too you?

[A5BLASTER]

Like the title says gents. What does the 2A mean too you.

Simple straight answer and no going back and forth with other members if their idea of what the 2A means is diffrent then yours.

And NO history are arguments on what the founding fathers or any politication alive today thinks it means.

Let's here what the horde members personal feelings of what the 2A means to them.

[GREYBUFF]

To me it means that 'IF' we truly applied the constitution I should have the right to own any weapon that the the government has in their arsenal. And the purpose is to protect ourselves from the government that we seem to be approaching. Our country has alot of people that are coming up with some strange ideas about what they want this country to be, and I don't think they are very good ideas.

[A5BLASTER]

To me it means that 'IF' we truly applied the constitution I should have the right to own any weapon that the the government has in their arsenal. And the purpose is to protect ourselves from the government that we seem to be approaching. Our country has alot of people that are coming up with some strange ideas about what they want this country to be, and I don't think they are very good ideas.

Thank you for your reply sir.

[grayfox]

I've been doing some thinking, how to put this into words... so I will try here.
As a part of the Bill of Rights, the 2A is first of all, a statement on the limitation of the federal government, ie, the government, the State if you will, shall not infringe on this already-existing right. It is NOT, as the left likes to say, a right that the government gives to the people. The BoR consistently proscribes (ie, forbids) certain government actions, towards rights that the framers constantly maintained were already God-given.

Because it states this right is "of the People" this stands in contrast to "rights" or powers granted to the federal government, or to the individual states. This right is possessed by individuals.

And as to the "arms" for me personally, the most natural and original terms leads me to conclude that it pertains to keeping and bearing those types of arms that a private individual/citizen-soldier could and should be able to commonly bring to a militia-like assembly if and when called upon to do so. For whatever rightful purpose that such a call-up is rightfully justified in handling. The clearest similarity that demonstrates this concept is that of the colonial "minutemen", who could muster up their rifle, pistol and ammo and be out the door ready to fight at a minute's notice. I don't think it supports a right to personally own M1A1 tanks, or F-18 fighters, or rocket launchers, and am doubtful that it supports much more than some automatic weapons... I think some automatic weapons could be allowed under some sort of registration as done today. I'll say more about that in a minute.

Typical infantry-like weapons were what the framers had in mind IMO, ala the "minutemen" above. And certainly there is a precedent for some auto's in "today's" infantry in that WWII had some soldiers carrying Thompsons... but not all of them did. that being said I do think the primary intent was to enable ownership of specifically "AR-style" weapons since that is the weapon most similar to standard issue rifle of today (and I personally don't believe that auto fire is so essential in general, so I exclude it for the most part), that is, a militia-like call-up of "minutemen" would expect that individual soldiers would show up with more or less common infantry weaponry. So, that plus a 9mm/45 cal of similar semi-auto pistol. Plus the ammo that they would use.

The 2A was not written to "allow" hunting "purposes." it was written to limit what the govt could do in regards to the people's right to keep and bear, with the idea in mind that a "militia-like" call-up might be necessary for a locality or a region. Self-defense is doubtless included in that "call-up" feature.

And finally, by "bearing," this necessarily goes beyond simple possession of said weapon in the home. Bearing means to carry about. I do think that "bearing" in some cases might not be good policy or might not be right for all locations, but in general some sort of carry in public cannot be totally forbidden.

The key to regulating any potential violence with weapons, as the key is with any type of violence, is rightful prompt restraint and prosecution, and Defense against if need be, perpetrators of said wrongs.

I think this covers pretty much what I believe it to be.

I guess I would say in closing that a People Who are fearless in exercising their BoR rights, speech, assembly, religion, keep/bear arms, etc., and fearless in defending those rights, are pretty much unconquerable and are the essential-fear of/ existential threat to, any tyrant or foreign (or domestic) totalitarian power who would desire to overtake them.

[A5BLASTER]

I've been doing some thinking, how to put this into words... so I will try here.
As a part of the Bill of Rights, the 2A is first of all, a statement on the limitation of the federal government, ie, the government, the State if you will, shall not infringe on this already-existing right. It is NOT, as the left likes to say, a right that the government gives to the people. The BoR consistently proscribes (ie, forbids) certain government actions, towards rights that the framers constantly maintained were already God-given.

Because it states this right is "of the People" this stands in contrast to "rights" or powers granted to the federal government, or to the individual states. This right is possessed by individuals.

And as to the "arms" for me personally, the most natural and original terms leads me to conclude that it pertains to keeping and bearing those types of arms that a private individual/citizen-soldier could and should be able to commonly bring to a militia-like assembly if and when called upon to do so. For whatever rightful purpose that such a call-up is rightfully justified in handling. The clearest similarity that demonstrates this concept is that of the colonial "minutemen", who could muster up their rifle, pistol and ammo and be out the door ready to fight at a minute's notice. I don't think it supports a right to personally own M1A1 tanks, or F-18 fighters, or rocket launchers, and am doubtful that it supports much more than some automatic weapons... I think some automatic weapons could be allowed under some sort of registration as done today. I'll say more about that in a minute.

Typical infantry-like weapons were what the framers had in mind IMO, ala the "minutemen" above. And certainly there is a precedent for some auto's in "today's" infantry in that WWII had some soldiers carrying Thompsons... but not all of them did. that being said I do think the primary intent was to enable ownership of specifically "AR-style" weapons since that is the weapon most similar to standard issue rifle of today (and I personally don't believe that auto fire is so essential in general, so I exclude it for the most part), that is, a militia-like call-up of "minutemen" would expect that individual soldiers would show up with more or less common infantry weaponry. So, that plus a 9mm/45 cal of similar semi-auto pistol. Plus the ammo that they would use.

The 2A was not written to "allow" hunting "purposes." it was written to limit what the govt could do in regards to the people's right to keep and bear, with the idea in mind that a "militia-like" call-up might be necessary for a locality or a region. Self-defense is doubtless included in that "call-up" feature.

And finally, by "bearing," this necessarily goes beyond simple possession of said weapon in the home. Bearing means to carry about. I do think that "bearing" in some cases might not be good policy or might not be right for all locations, but in general some sort of carry in public cannot be totally forbidden.

The key to regulating any potential violence with weapons, as the key is with any type of violence, is rightful prompt restraint and prosecution, and Defense against if need be, perpetrators of said wrongs.

I think this covers pretty much what I believe it to be.

I guess I would say in closing that a People Who are fearless in exercising their BoR rights, speech, assembly, religion, keep/bear arms, etc., and fearless in defending those rights, are pretty much unconquerable and are the essential-fear of/ existential threat to, any tyrant or foreign (or domestic) totalitarian power who would desire to overtake them.

Well written and thought out grayfox. Thank you for your reply.

[mdmfxstsb]

"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."

To me, the 2nd is an "if...then" statement; the prefatory clause "a well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state" representing the if and "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" representing the then.

The then clause tells me that my right to keep/bear arms should not be infringed/encroached upon for any reason until enough citizens of the United States decide that the if/prefatory clause no longer holds true and successfully repeal a cornerstone of the Bill of Rights.

[Texas]

But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object, evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

-- Declaration of Independence, 1776

[stanc]

What the 2A means to me is the same as it meant to the Founding Fathers: Government is not to restrict or interfere with the acquisition and possession of standard military weapons by members of the (organized and unorganized) militia.

And -- because the federal and State governments have infringed on that ability to purchase and possess military weapons with laws like the 1934 NFA and 1986 FOPA, and because the Supreme Court has consistently held that government can so infringe -- what the 2A also means to me is that words on parchment are insufficient to prevent government from imposing further restrictions on the right to keep and bear arms, especially semi-auto variants of military arms, like the AR15.

[Redomen]

To me the 2 amendment means that any arms I can build or come to possess shall not be infringed. It means the right to defend myself and my country by any means necessary be it bat or bomb. God granted the ability to create. If I can make it or come to possess it it should be my right to use it.

[pinetreebbs]

The Second Amendment means that citizens of the USA have a right to own firearms such that we can take back our country by force of arms should it be taken by a tyrannical government.

[GSPHunter]

A5,
In the basement of St. Vladimir's Ukrainian Orthodox Church in Ambridge, PA, Scattered along the walls are pictures from church events throughout its history, mostly pictures of the founders of the church, old Priests, and church school graduations. There is one picture from the 1930's of the Priest standing on the steps of the church with men wearing uniforms and holding their rifles at port arms. Some of the men were American WWI vets and some had fought with the short lived Ukrainian Army against the communists. I don't know how often if ever they drilled, however, I suspect they viewed being in the Sich as maybe the best way to prevent an American Holodomor.....
This got kindof long winded, but I guess to me, that's what the second amendment is all about. It gives the local community the ability to do something other than just roll over and die. I don't know at what point exactly firearms restrictions sufficiently defang us as to nullify that purpose, but it seems like a so called "assault" weapons ban is getting pretty close.

[Bayouhunter1960]

My belief in the 2n Amendment is simple it gives all American Citizens the exact same right the authors of the Constitution and Bill of Rights meant it to be with no exceptions.
The Bill moving along in Congress without much resistance T.A.P.S. Act. HR 838 with support from both sides will be the nail in the coffin we cannot stop if passed. Why it’s running so far under the radar is beyond me.

https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/116/hr838/text

https://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/taps-act-getting-gop-support-where-red-flags-other-gun-control-bills-dont/

Quote:
TAPS Act Getting GOP Support Where Red Flag, Other Gun Control Bills Don’t

In the rush to do something following recent shootings in El Paso, Dayton and Odessa, many of the usual elected and other suspects dusted off their well-worn playbooks to push their favorite legislative restrictions on the right to keep and bear arms. They’re pushing the usual wish list items like universal background checks, magazine capacity limits, another, assault weapons, ban, and their new favorite, red flag laws.

But one bipartisan proposal is beginning to gain traction, including among GOP members of the House and Senate, where the others haven’t the Threat Assessment, Prevention and Safety Act of 2019, or TAPS (see our earlier post here).

The bill is being sold as giving state and local officials the training and resources to work with law enforcement and mental health professionals to identify individuals who are potential risks for violence.

But the bill’s details are more worrisome than the anodyne description being used by those who are selling it. TAPS would create a new bureaucracy tasked with developing behavioral threat assessments on anyone exhibiting patterns of concerning behavior. And it would enlist social media companies and others to help develop these individual profiles.

What could possibly go wrong?

_________________

[Kswhitetails]

Deleted. Sorry A5, I skimmed too quickly.

[montana]

https://www.constitution.org/col/sofonmil.htm

These are two opinions about the militia and the 2ndA. I of course believe in the second opinion. The 2ndA, "in my opinion" is the canary in the mine.. All rights, freedoms, etc that have been or could be erased could one day rely on the 2ndA. When a group of people hand over their entire lives, present and future, "to another group of people who wields all the power" history has proven that kind of logic never ends well. The 2ndA is the citizens jail house door key, that should never be handed over to anyone.. The 2ndA is about division of power, period!

[Kswhitetails]

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.