.

 "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."

A well regulated Militia - The people, the individuals that comprise the population of a state in the union being "regulated" by their own self control and lawfulness.
Being necessary to the security of a free state - to keep secure the freedoms and rights guaranteed, not by lawmakers, but by God(or nature if so inclined)
The right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms - The GOD given or NATURAL right to keep ARMS

SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED - Exactly that.  No legislator shall make law that infringes on the ability of the militia(the whole people) to keep arms for the defense of their freedom and rights.



http://www.guncite.com/gc2ndmea.html
http://guncite.com/gc2ndcont.html#keep

Such a huge topic, not really sure what to say. I would like to add a 3rd bullet point for discussion if I may. If you want you can add it to your OP, if not thats fine to.

How should the 2nd amendment be analyzed?
1) legal wording of the law itself
2) writings of the founding fathers
3) Discussions and changes to the bill before being passed.

I personally think that we need to go by the wording itself, not historical context or the writings of the founding fathers.

There was an article I came across some time ago that focused on the issue but I haven't found it since. In trying to find it again just now I noticed that there is article after article which claims conservatives changed the meaning of the 2nd amendment, that the NRA became political, and that they created the idea that it was for personal ownership, as opposed to only for militias. There is a lot of propaganda against us.

Such a huge topic, not really sure what to say. I would like to add a 3rd bullet point for discussion if I may. If you want you can add it to your OP, if not thats fine to.

How should the 2nd amendment be analyzed?
1) legal wording of the law itself
2) writings of the founding fathers
3) Discussions and changes to the bill before being passed.

I personally think that we need to go by the wording itself, not historical context or the writings of the founding fathers.

There was an article I came across some time ago that focused on the issue but I haven't found it since. In trying to find it again just now I noticed that there is article after article which claims conservatives changed the meaning of the 2nd amendment, that the NRA became political, and that they created the idea that it was for personal ownership, as opposed to only for militias. There is a lot of propaganda against us.

So, why can't you answer the question: "What does it mean TO YOU?" 

Saying "I think that we need to go by the wording itself" states your opinion on the analysis question you want to add, but you posted nothing on the OP's question.

If you can't even answer the original question, I don't think you should expect anyone to change their question for your benefit.


I think all amendments get short changed.  It began when we started referring to them by the shortened titles "First Amendment", "Second Amendment", etc. 

The Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America carries with it the importance of the document it amends.  The Constitution is the framework upon which our nations government is based, from the election of the President on down to the rules for amending the document.

Only the most important aspects of government were included in the Constitution:

Article. I.

Section. 1.

All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.

Section 2.  (The House of Representatives)

Section 3.  (The Senate)

Section 4.  (Elections)

Section 5.  (Rules of House & Senate meeting, voting, record keeping and adjournment)

Section 6.  .....

Article II.  Section. 1.

The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America. He shall hold his Office during the Term of four Years, and, together with the Vice President, chosen for the same Term, be elected, as follows...

...

Article III. 

Section. 1.

The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services, a Compensation, which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.

...

Article. IV.

Section. 1.

Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.

...

Article. V.

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.

Article. VI.

All Debts contracted and Engagements entered into, before the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be as valid against the United States under this Constitution, as under the Confederation.

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.

Article. VII.

The Ratification of the Conventions of nine States, shall be sufficient for the Establishment of this Constitution between the States so ratifying the Same.

...

We are talking about the very definition of our government.  Only the most critical and fundamental ideas and rules for our nation are included.

Because of the difficulty involved in passing an amendment, these too should be critical, fundamental ideas.  The founders didn't want amendments to be taken lightly, so they made the process difficult, but still available.

Some amendments were added as "workarounds".  The Constitution didn't allow prohibition of alcohol, so the government and voters changed it.  When they discovered they messed up, they repealed it.  Shows that not all amendments were as well thought out as others!

In order to protect the public from government's abuse of power, which all governments have done throughout history, amendments were added to protect free speech, free exercise of religion, the right OF THE PEOPLE to keep and bear arms, the right to a speedy trial, due process, right to face one's accuser, etc.  All these were added because a government abusing its power would have the ability to usurp the public's human rights if these protections were not in place.

The founders felt the right to keep and bear arms was just as fundamental to our democracy as the 3 branches of government are.  Without the means to defend against an abusive government, the Constitution is merely words on a piece of parchment which those in public office, given time, could wipe away and replace with their own laws.

To sum it up, the Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America holds a special place reserved for the most important protections of our liberty and freedom.  it is not to be taken lightly, nor should it be changed or repealed to appease a political agenda, particularly when that agenda is being pushed by the very government the Constitution protects us from!

Such a huge topic, not really sure what to say. I would like to add a 3rd bullet point for discussion if I may. If you want you can add it to your OP, if not thats fine to.

How should the 2nd amendment be analyzed?
1) legal wording of the law itself
2) writings of the founding fathers
3) Discussions and changes to the bill before being passed.

I personally think that we need to go by the wording itself, not historical context or the writings of the founding fathers.

There was an article I came across some time ago that focused on the issue but I haven't found it since. In trying to find it again just now I noticed that there is article after article which claims conservatives changed the meaning of the 2nd amendment, that the NRA became political, and that they created the idea that it was for personal ownership, as opposed to only for militias. There is a lot of propaganda against us.

Yeah, I think he wants to know your personal interpretation of the 2nd and what it means to you personally.   There is endless debate over the interpretation of what was meant, and that will never go away.

Also, IMHO, you cannot just go with the wording itself, because, in the last 200+ years, meanings of the words and context of it's use has changed dramatically.  One must look at the intent of why it was written.  The newly formed government just fought a bloody conflict to remove itself from monarchical tyranny.  To ensure that it could keep itself free from that tyranny, and the tyranny that is inevitable from the consolidation of power in too few individuals, the answer is in the ability of ALL free individuals hold the power to fend from such aggression.

It was all common sense, sadly time and the incessant induction of the same old FAILED ideas of how governance should be has skewed the idea to the point where we see it today. 

Exactly what James Madison wrote:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federalist_No._46

"Federalist No. 46 is an essay by James Madison, the forty-sixth of The Federalist Papers. It was published on January 29, 1788 under the pseudonym Publius, the name under which all The Federalist Papers were published. This essay examines the relative strength of the state and federal governments under the proposed United States Constitution. It is titled "The Influence of the State and Federal Governments Compared."

Madison stresses that the federal and state governments are two totally different agencies. He articulates that they are separate yet can collaborate, and that the power lies in the people. The natural attachment of the people will always be to the governments of their respective states, so the federal government must be, in a sense, extraordinarily congenial to the people.

In an effort to further dissuade fears over a national military force, Madison indicates that, at any point, the maximum force that can be brought to bear by the government to enforce its mandates is but a small fraction of the might of an armed citizenry:

Let a regular army, fully equal to the resources of the country, be formed; and let it be entirely at the devotion of the federal government; still it would not be going too far to say, that the State governments, with the people on their side, would be able to repel the danger. The highest number to which, according to the best computation, a standing army can be carried in any country, does not exceed one hundredth part of the whole number of souls; or one twenty-fifth part of the number able to bear arms. This proportion would not yield, in the United States, an army of more than twenty-five or thirty thousand men. To these would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands, officered by men chosen from among themselves, fighting for their common liberties, and united and conducted by governments possessing their affections and confidence. It may well be doubted, whether a militia thus circumstanced could ever be conquered by such a proportion of regular troops. Those who are best acquainted with the last successful resistance of this country against the British arms, will be most inclined to deny the possibility of it. Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of. Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms. And it is not certain, that with this aid alone they would not be able to shake off their yokes. But were the people to possess the additional advantages of local governments chosen by themselves, who could collect the national will and direct the national force, and of officers appointed out of the militia, by these governments, and attached both to them and to the militia, it may be affirmed with the greatest assurance, that the throne of every tyranny in Europe would be speedily overturned in spite of the legions which surround it."

For me this sums it all up.

Apply Occam's Razor.

We are good

I go with Heavies 1rst post
Supported by Big All's post.
 

I don't even understand OF's post.   
 
 

In simple terms to me the 2nd A confirms what our founders stated is a god given right.  Individual, which is why it's listed in the Bill of Rights.   Having fought for independence, they knew that tyranny whether foreign or homegrown would never completely go away.
People who claim this only covers the type of firearms used at that period (flintlocks) should then also believe that the 1st only covers the written and spoken word since radio, TV and the internet weren't around.  No questions in my mind what it means.

To sum it up, the Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America holds a special place reserved for the most important protections of our liberty and freedom.  it is not to be taken lightly, nor should it be changed or repealed to appease a political agenda, particularly when that agenda is being pushed by the very government the Constitution protects us from!

Very well said.

Too many of the amendments have been the victim of creative aka "activist" reinterpretation to find all sort of activity legal or illegal. 

This country would not be under siege if the various actors stopped tinkering and using the courts to attempt to control the behavior of the populace.

I go with Heavies 1rst post
Supported by Big All's post.
 

I don't even understand OF's post.   
 
 

...
Occam's razor is a principle of logic that says if you have 2 or more answers to a question, then the simplest answer is usually the correct answer.
Examples:
If it walks like a duck, etc.....
K.I.S.S.

The 2nd amendment means...

The citizens of America need to have sufficient firearms and ammo to fight against any power or force that would try to oppress them, including their own government.

To me the 2A is a clearly defined fulcrum for liberty.

It is my opinion that the 2A was intentionally added to act as a trigger point to prevent future tyranny. In 1774 & 1775 the Britich knew that an uprising was coming, They knew they were facing a rising movement in These United States to separate from the empire. As with other Nations that the British ruled they actively removed weapons from the populace so they could not  be used against them. After the founding of the new nation and the founding fathers realized that any future agent that wanted to seize power in a way that took away the freedom of the people so they installed a safeguard within. They installed the second amendment to protect the people. Knowing that those who are armed are equally protected from tyrany and any action against the 2A would clearly be seen as a move to seize power from the people.

Yeah, I think he wants to know your personal interpretation of the 2nd and what it means to you personally.   There is endless debate over the interpretation of what was meant, and that will never go away.

Also, IMHO, you cannot just go with the wording itself, because, in the last 200+ years, meanings of the words and context of it's use has changed dramatically.  One must look at the intent of why it was written.  The newly formed government just fought a bloody conflict to remove itself from monarchical tyranny.  To ensure that it could keep itself free from that tyranny, and the tyranny that is inevitable from the consolidation of power in too few individuals, the answer is in the ability of ALL free individuals hold the power to fend from such aggression.

It was all common sense, sadly time and the incessant induction of the same old FAILED ideas of how governance should be has skewed the idea to the point where we see it today.

I will refrain from going down the interpretation issue unless New Guy wants to add that to the original topic.

As to the original question, I cannot really think of anything especially enlightening to say without a more narrow topic.

I like the 2nd amendment, I think we need it, I think it addresses a sobering point, I think it would have been written clearer. I worry it could be taken away someday.

I don't find some sort of emotional meaning to me personally though.

I will refrain from going down the interpretation issue unless New Guy wants to add that to the original topic.

As to the original question, I cannot really think of anything especially enlightening to say without a more narrow topic.

I like the 2nd amendment, I think we need it, I think it addresses a sobering point, I think it would have been written clearer. I worry it could be taken away someday.

  I don't find some sort of emotional meaning to me personally though.

Maybe if you understood how taking away guns from the public leads to loss of liberty, democracy and life, you'd be more passionate.

Remove the foundation, & the rest of the building collapses.  Seeing how you don't get that, no one is shocked at your answer. 

The Constitution was a guide book, not an instruction manual.  The writers assumed a certain level of knowledge and understanding to use it properly. 

If you don't get it, don't blame the writers.  They were, after all, smart enough to gain independence from England and create what has become the greatest nation on Earth.

Maybe if you understood how taking away guns from the public leads to loss of liberty, democracy and life, you'd be more passionate.

Remove the foundation, & the rest of the building collapses.  Seeing how you don't get that, no one is shocked at your answer. 

The Constitution was a guide book, not an instruction manual.  The writers assumed a certain level of knowledge and understanding to use it properly. 

If you don't get it, don't blame the writers.  They were, after all, smart enough to gain independence from England and create what has become the greatest nation on Earth.

I agree with everything you are saying, I just don't find emotion in it. I think it is my personality type, I don't find emotion in a lot of things some people do. This helps/causes me to look at things more logically and objectively but occasionally makes me come off as "cold." Disclaimer: I am not completely devoid of emotion though. I just don't find personal meanings in things. The 2nd amendment is what is is, not with separate meanings for separate people. An emotional meaning to me is irrelevant to what the 2nd amendment is.

I don't do well with "what does _____ mean to you?" type statements or word association questions and the like.

I don't do well with "what does _____ mean to you?" type statements or word association questions and the like.

Then why the fu*% would you answer this question?

If you have nothing meaningful to add, and don't like the way the question is worded because you "don't do well" with questions worded that way, just move along.

Then why the fu*% would you answer this question?

So he can inject himself into a situation where he can troll.......

So he can inject himself into a situation where he can troll.......

 

So he can inject himself into a situation where he can troll.......

I am not allowed to have a difference of opinion without being a troll?