Yahoo Answers is shutting down on 4 May 2021 (Eastern Time) and the Yahoo Answers website is now in read-only mode. There will be no changes to other Yahoo properties or services, or your Yahoo account. You can find more information about the Yahoo Answers shutdown and how to download your data on this help page.

Correct interpretation of the 2nd Amendment "Right to keep and bear arms"?

"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"

Does it mean that the people needed guns to become militias or does it mean they needed guns to protect them from militias?

4 Answers

Relevance
  • 7 years ago
    Favourite answer

    It means that one reason for the people to keep and bear arms is so they can be "well regulated" when called upon for militia duty. "Well regulated," in the idiom of the time, meant "competent," as in "a well regulated clock." To be competent with firearms, you need to practice and that's easiest done when you own some.

    United States Code, Title 10, section 311 (10-USC-311), defines the militias of the United States. It defines the "unorganized militia" as all able bodied males between the ages of 17 and 45 who are not members of the organized militia (Army, Navy, Marines, Air Force, Coast Guard, National Guard). If one accounts for subsequent laws and rulings against age, sex and disability discrimination, it becomes every adult (most of whom would be astonished to learn they are militia members).

    Source(s): I'm a firearms instructor and, by law, whether I like it or not, a member of the unorganized militia.
  • 7 years ago

    At the time the 2nd Amendment was passed, the militia was composed of the people. The Second Militia Act of 1792 even confirms this. See link.

    The idea is, the people are guaranteed the right to own weapons, so when they are called to serve in the militia, they can supply their own arms and ammunition.

    Notice how the 2nd Amendment says the well regulated militia is needed for the security of a Free State? That's literally what the militia was supposed to be for. To insure freedom. This may come in the form of using the militia to suppress rebellion, fight an invader, respond to disasters, and yes, even fight a tyrannical government.

    James Madison in Federalist Papers #46 also discusses that an armed populace and militias are a vital check against a federal government turning tyrannical. See 2nd link.

  • 7 years ago

    The key is the phrase "the right of the people". The PEOPLE, and as in EVERY other instance of the term or that phrase in the Constitution and the BOR, that means just that....the people, the citizen, the population, NOT ANY sort of government sanctioned or controlled entity like the National Guard or some official or even unofficial "militia".

  • 7 years ago

    The correct interpretation and intent are extremely important to the future of the country. With so many quotations and communications of and between the founders themselves it is nearly impossible to misinterpret their intentions.

    The second amendment, in the words of one judge, is a dooms day provision in case all other rights fail. As difficult as that might be to grasp today never the less it is there for a reason. Some insist that the amendment requires an individual be part of a militia in order to keep and bare a firearm. But, with some measure of context that is not the case as in... "Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American . . . . 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 ever remain, in the hands of the people." -- The Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788.

    Next, as we currently see, government skirts around the 2nd amendment by setting limitation and redefining what a firearm is as in its attempts at redefining "assault rifle", by its looks. Not its prefomance. We must remember and take into account that the intent behind the amandment requires that the firearm be capable of the task it may, as difficult and unimaginable as it may seem, be required to perform. A free society can not defend itself limited to slingshots or pellet rifles. That some would rather remove the right to practice the ultimate exercise in individual responsibility for a measure of temporary securty is no legitimate reason to disarm everyone. George Mason - "The militia may be here destroyed by that method which has been practiced in other parts of the world before; that is, by rendering them useless - by disarming them." (Elliot, p. 3:379-80)

    We clearly have a serious problem with mentally ill in our country as we now require them to self-treat, for the most part as we no longer have facilities designed to the care of such individuals. This is no legitimate reason to disarm or limit the remainig free thinking people. We currently experience difficulties with the traditional family structure. Kids need a family. It gives a solid foundation and clealry helps in personal growth. Yet not a thing is done to preserve the family.

    George Mason, "I ask, Who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers." (Jonathan Elliot, The Debates of the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution, [NY: Burt Franklin,1888] p.425-6)

    Richard Henry Lee "No free government was ever founded, or ever preserved its liberty, without uniting the characters of the citizen and soldier in those destined for the defense of the state... Such are a well regulated militia, composed of the freeholders, citizens and husbandman, who take up arms to preserve their property, as individuals, and their rights as freemen." (Signed Declaration of Independence, introduced resolution in Continental Congress to become independent, proposed Bill of Rights from beginning, author of Anti-Fed Papers, Congressman and Senator from Virginia)

    "As the military forces which must occasionally be raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the next article (of amendment) in their right to keep and bear their private arms." -- Federal Gazette, June 18, 1789

    Joseph Story (Supreme Court Justice) "The militia is the natural defense of a free country against sudden foreign invasions, domestic insurrections, and domestic usurpation of power by rulers. The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of the republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally...enable the people to resist and triumph over them." (Story, Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States, p.3:746-7, 1833)

    The people are the militia.

Still have questions? Get answers by asking now.