Who Has the Right To Bear Arms?

It would seem to me that the original writers of this amendment intended for the individual citizenry (that means us, of course) to have the right to own guns. There were no "organized state militia" organizations at the time, but the citizens would band together as needed to protect themselves and their property. This was the "militia" of the time, and the citizens needed to know how to shoot the weapons they used.

In addition, the reason for the amendment was that the people writing it had experience with the British government, who had the right to "disarm" people if they disagreed with the established government (the king/queen and Parliament). They wanted to protect the rights of INDIVIDUAL citizens from government.

Of course, the final decision will be made in the Court, and hopefully the Justices will not "redefine" what the original "militia" was.

Bill

 

When you look at it in the context of history, people needed guns to protect themselves against Indians, and to feed their families.

 

Some people didn't have guns to protect themselves against the govt which resulted in the Trail Of Tears.

 

That could be true, but the purpose of the amendment was so that if the government ever became oppresive the people could use their arms to overthrow them and restablish the government. Remember that these writers held sacred the right of the people to overthrow the government by force. It was the government, not Indians or deer that people needed (and still need) protection from.

 

Well stated! Afterall it was the US Supreme Court that signed the paper to put the unborn child to death at the whim of the mother. The blood is on the hands of the Supreme Court Justices for allowing this. The point that I am trying to make is that people need to be able to overthrow the government and establish a legitimate government, as N.C. Tentmaker so well stated!

 

Remember these were the same guys who wrote and singed:

 

Never thought of it this way TM. If I understand, this means the south should not have been treated as criminal's for exercising their constitutional rights.

How would this play out today? There are so many varied views in our country today that I vision a scene close to Iraq if this ever came to light.

 

Who Has the Right To Bear Arms?

I do. And if the temperature is in the low 60's or higher, I take advantage of that right and wear my short sleeves.

 

Yeah, and it really took strong teeth to chew and swallow a musket.

 

God did also;

Isa 52:10 (KJV) The LORD hath made bare his holy arm in the eyes of all the nations; and all the ends of the earth shall see the salvation of our God.

 

I do.
There is a reason a rattle snake has a noisy tail. It is there to warn what ever animal that might tread on it and that if it is stepped on it will kill the stepper.
A home owners association had posted a sign at its office stating that it was a gun free zone. Well break-ins and home invasions became rampant. They soon revised their rules and the invasions stopped and the break-ins became fewer. Just by the rule revision. It read like this, "All would be thieves beware, the home owner might be insured by Smith and Wesson."
A gun is the private citizens defense against all intruders and in our form of govt. the power is ultimately in the hands of the people.
If God gave the snake fangs to protect itself and a warning devise to warn off danger then He surely has made it a right for a citizen to protect them self from thieves and an invasion.

 

One day My Old Man was giving his spiel about not having guns in HIS house. I asked, "Why not put up a sign 'gun free house'?" He replied, "YOU THINK I'M CRAZY?" In other words, he is going to be a good peace living Christian depending on us sinners to protect him.

 

>Never thought of it this way TM. If I understand, this means the south should not have been treated as criminal's for exercising their constitutional rights.

AMEN, but not constitutional rights. The Declaration of Independance has no legal standing and neither does the preamble to the Constitution. Lincoln nullified both.

 

How exaclty would the regular citizenry, armed with shotguns and rifles, be able to stand up against a government armed with tanks and missiles?

That would be like planning to take a knife to a gun fight and forgetting to even take the knife.

At this point in history, our guns are used more to protect ourselves from each other, rather than the government.

 

The point is that our gun ownership is a right, not to be infringed upon. The rumblings of insurgency would be enough to convince any congressman to abandon whatever effort prompted it. No congressman could feel safe anywhere if they provoked this action.

 

"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."

It seems to me that the Second Amendment may be a bit ambiguously worded. The term "well regulated militia" for example. This clearly points toward regulation of firearms, not just a free for all. And "millitia" has implications that may indicate that this was not to be applied to individuals, but to the people collectively under a "well regulated militia". What defines well regulated?

Yet on the other hand, the right to keep, points toward individual gun ownership.

 

Yes, but the part I bolded can't be misunderstood. We know this was written by men who just left their own country by force which I believe adds insite to why it was there. This was also a time before authority and protection as we have it today (police departments). A man had to defend his own or be the gift horse. Would they have written it differently today, probably. That is not the point.

 

The bolded part could mean the people collectively. That is another part of the ambiguity.

BTW, I am no fan of the NRA, but I do own firearms.

 

I don't own any weapons but I do think it is every citizens right.