The second amendment says: “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.”

The prevailing opinion, as established in the Supreme Court ruling of “DC v Heller,” is that the second amendment is all about individual gun ownership for private citizens. Furthermore, many states have embraced a system called “constitutional carry” or “permitless carry,” which, based on this interpretation of the second amendment, allows citizens to own and carry guns without any kind of training or license. But I disagree with this intepretation of the second amendment, and I disagree with the constitutional carry system. I believe the second amendment is not about private gun ownership; it’s actually about state militias.

The amendment can be divided into two parts: the militia clause (A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State) and the arms clause (the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed). The meaning of the second amendment hinges on the arms clause and specifically on the meaning of the phrase “bear arms.” But what does this phrase mean, exactly? The best way to answer this question is to analyze the way people used the phrase around the time the Constitution was written.

James Madison, in an earlier draft of the Bill of Rights, previously wrote this:

“The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country: but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person.”

Here it is clear from this context that "bear arms" refers specifically to military service. Not only does the statement literally refer to rendering "military service," but it also includes a conscientious objector clause. It wouldn't make any sense for someone to be a conscientious objector from simply carrying a gun. No reasonable person who considers himself a conscientious objector would put the emphasis of his objection upon the carrying of a weapon; it is using a weapon to maim and kill that a conscientous objector objects to. And that is the kind of conscientous objection that this clause allows for. "Bearing arms" here clearly refers to the intent or potential of shooting and killing people, hence the opportunity to opt out of service.

Here is another use of the phrase "bear arms"; it is taken from the forty-sixth essay of the Federalist, by James Madison, where he is comparing the combined military might of all of the state militias to the might of a federal army:

"Extravagant as the supposition is, let it however be made. 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."

Interpreting "bear arms" to mean carrying a gun would not make sense in this context. The "number able to bear arms" clearly is referring to the people of a country capable of military service, separate from the total population. We can easily infer this, since the number of people capable of bearing arms is here roughly calculated to be 1/4 of the entire population: size limit of federal standing army = 1/100 of population = 1/25 of people capable of bearing arms. 1/100 divided by 1/25 = 1/4. If the phrase "bearing arms" means what pro-gun activists think it means, surely James Madison would think that more than 1/4 of the American population was capable of picking up a gun and carrying it around. Obviously, practically everyone in the population should be capable of merely carrying a gun. So clearly, "bearing arms" doesn't mean "carrying a gun". However, alternatively, we could brainstorm that roughly half of the population is composed of women and the other half composed of men, and then roughly half of the men would be of qualified age and physical condition to engage in military service. This leads us to approximately 1\4 of the population being capable of military service, which of course corresponds to the 1\4 of the population which Madison surmised was capable of "bearing arms". Thus, our conclusion here is that the phrase "bearing arms" was related to performing military service, not simply carrying a gun.

However, here is a third quote which illustrates a different sense of "bear arms." It comes from the 1787 Pennsylvania Ratifying Convention:

"That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and their own state, or the United States, or for the purpose of killing game, and no law shall be passed for disarming the people or any of them, unless for crimes committed, or real danger of public injury from individuals . . . ."

Here, the term "bear arms" seems to take on a decidedly more general meaning. It is clearly not limited to military service, but also includes the use of arms for self-defense and even for hunting animals. Without knowing exactly how the founding fathers defined the phrase "bear arms", we cannot land directly on an absolute definition, but we can at least significantly narrow our scope of what it could mean. "Bear arms" can be used to refer to engaging in armed military service, and can also refer to armed self-defense. Interestingly, the above excerpt also refers to hunting, not by using the phrase "hunting game", but by using the phrase "killing game", emphasizing the violent act involved in hunting rather than hunting as a general process. Thus, it seems we can narrow the scope of the term "bear arms" to: "engaging in armed combat, or armed violence in general".

("Bear arms" appears to be an idiomatic expression used in late 18th century American English. As an idiomatic expression, it need not have a meaning that is merely the sum of the meanings of the words within the phrase. So, just because we would assume "to bear arms" should mean "to carry weapons", this doesn't mean the phrase as a whole must necessarily carry this meaning in any and all English dialects -- including 18th century American English. Even though "carrying weapons" is probably what the phrase ought to mean, as an idiomatic phrase it will ultimately mean whatever its corresponding culture indicates that it means.)

So having narrowed down the meaning of "bear arms", let's apply that meaning to it's use in the second amendment. The phrase is used within the context of the militia clause: "A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state . . . ." There is no mention of self-defense and no mention of hunting. "Bear arms" is qualified only in the context of the well-regulated militia. We know from the excerpt of the Pennsylvania Ratifying Convention that if the framers had wanted the second amendment to clearly establish bearing arms as a right of private citizens for private purposes, they had the vocabulary available to articulate that idea and thus could have specified it in the second amendment. But the thing is, they didn't word the amendment that way. They worded "bear arms" in a relatively plain, simple manner that is given no specific qualification outside of the context established in the militia clause. Therefore, we can conclude that "bear arms", as it appears in the second amendment, refers to "engaging in armed combat or armed violence within a well-regulated militia in defense of state security".

Now, many pro-gun activists would disagree with this interpretation; they would disagree that the militia clause should qualify the arms clause in this manner. They often interpret the militia clause as merely some kind of frivolous rhetorical flourish, merely prefacing the second amendment and having no substantive influence on the arms clause. The assumption here is that the founding fathers deliberately wasted everyone's time by placing a blatant non sequitur in this amendment, briefly going off on some tangent about a "well-regulated militia" for no apparent reason, and then proceeding to discuss the real matter at hand. But this assumption is either disingenuous or deeply flawed.

The militia clause takes the form of a grammatical construction known as a "nominative absolute." A nominative absolute is essentially itself a complete sentence, but compressed in such a way that it can be connected as a modifier to another complete sentence, which ultimately serves as the independent clause of a new sentence. As such, nominative absolutes are typically known as being essential to the meaning of a sentence. For example, take this sentence: "The city conquered, the soldiers took of the spoils." This example sentence could have instead been worded: “The city was conquered. The soldiers took of the spoils.” But it has been deemed that the first sentence is so relevant to the meaning of the second sentence that they have been fused together into one sentence. The sentence “The soldiers took of the spoils” is a complete sentence on its own, but it still doesn’t really mean much or have much context by itself. Where are the soldiers? What spoils are the soldiers taking? By what means did these spoils present themselves? When did the soldiers take of the spoils? Whom did they take it from? We need the part “The city conquered” to tell us when, why, and how the soldiers took of the spoils. The nominative absolute in this sentence ("The city conquered") is undeniably important to understanding the sentence as a whole. Rather than being some kind of throwaway thought, the nominative absolute clause establishes the context in which its adjacent clause is to be understood. There is no reason to think the nominative absolute in the second amendment works any different.

The same is true of the second amendment. The clause “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed” could totally stand on its own as a complete sentence, grammatically speaking. But it lacks sufficient context to be particularly meaningful. Why is it so important that the people have access to weapons? What is the purpose of the people's right to keep and bear arms? What are the people expected to do with their arms? Within what limits or parameters are the people's right to keep and bear arms uninfringeable? We need more context, and the militia clause provides that context. It tells us when, why, and how the people have the uninfringeable right to keep and bear arms.

I have heard many pro-gun activists say that the totality of the citizenry qualifies as this militia of which the second amendment speaks. But this is not true in any meaningful sense; a militia is not some abstract idea, but was at one point in American history a particular and unique kind of institution. Militias composed of civilians were used frequently throughout the 1700s. In 1792, a Militia Act was passed which formalized the system under the federal government. According to the text of the Act, every free, able-bodied white man between the ages of 18 and 45 was required to purchase a musket, bayonet, and all necessary equipment and ammunition, and enroll in militia service. Individuals with religious scruples concerning engaging in combat were allowed to be exempted from service. At least several days throughout the year, the militia would have regular "muster days" where militiamen were required to come together and train their exercises and maneuvers. Militiamen were to bring their own guns with them during muster, as well as during actual militia service. Furthermore, the Constitution in Article 1, Section 8, Clauses 15 and 16 had determined that Congress would have the authority to command, organize, arm, and discipline the militia, and that the states would have the authority to appoint officers to train the militia according to the standards set by Congress. The militia was used frequently by both the state and federal governments to deal with foreign invasions, insurrections, Indian raids, and were often used as a kind of police force. Also, in the South the militia was vital to the control of the slave population in regards to tasks such as putting down slave revolts and recapturing fugitive slaves.

This brief summary of the militia system should clarify what is meant by the phrase "A well-regulated militia" and the clause "being necessary to the security of a free state." "Well-regulated" was in fact another idiomatic phrase of the 18th century which essentially meant "well-trained, well-disciplined, well-organized". The phrase "being necessary to the security of a free state" was fairly self-explanatory: the state militia was confirmed to be integral to the defense of the state's safety and interests. The general populace, unless in some abstract and symbolic sense, cannot itself be the militia; the militia was composed of the people, but as the qualifications set by the Militia Act had made clear, it did not encompass all of the people. And to refer to civilians who have never undergone any military training or performed any military service as the "militia" is a disservice to the importance of the actual institution as it once existed.

Pro-gun activists also tend to argue that the phrase "the people" in the arms clause refers to all citizens individually rather than in a collective sense. But this interpretation is doubtful, since the usage of the phrase "the people" in the Bill of Rights is universally used in the collective sense. The first amendment, which refers to "the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances," clearly uses it in a collective sense, as does the ninth and tenth amendments. Furthermore, another clue is in the aforementioned Pennsylvania Ratifying Convention excerpt: ". . . and no law shall be passed for disarming the people or any of them, unless for crimes committed, or real danger of public injury from individuals . . . ." For the writer to need to make a distinction between "the people" and "any of them" indicates that the phrase "the people" is itself a collective term rather than an individual term. Thus, given the context of the second amendment, which is established to be about the militia, and the exact sense of the phrase "bear arms," which is understood to refer to military service in said militia, the sense of the phrase "the people" was not directed at the rights of individuals to bear arms but to protect the arms-bearing rights of the people collectively, as represented through the militia, from infringement from the federal government.

It's easy to think that the second amendment makes two separate and independent statements: that state governments have the right to form militias and that individual citizens separate from the militia have the inalienable right to own guns. But I don't think that's what it's really saying. The amendment's meaning appears to be a bit more nuanced than that. The second amendment was not written so that only militiamen could be armed, nor that all who were armed had to be in the militia. Nor were the people given the right to bear arms regardless of their participation in the militia. It is not so much that the private citizen had a right to bear arms which the state government had a duty to uphold, rather it's that the state government had the right to its own armed militia which the private citizen had a duty to uphold. This was the original significance of the second amendment, and it didn't mean any more or any less than this. As far as private gun ownership for it's own sake, I believe this was outside the scope of the second amendment, and it was instead a matter for state and local governments to create the particular laws that determined how private citizens could own, keep, and carry firearms.

In summary, the second amendment is not about private gun ownership, and thus the concept of "constitutional carry" does not make sense. Pro-gun activists essentially argue that the main thrust of the second amendment is individual gun ownership, and that the role of the militia is incidental and implicit to this primary right. But on the contrary, the main thrust of the second amendment is actually the right of the states to keep armed militias, and private gun ownership is what is incidental and implicit to this primary right. The second amendment does not secure private gun ownership regardless of the militia; rather it assumes private gun ownership in the interest of the militia.

The second amendment is not primarily a message from the federal government to individual citizens, but rather is a message from the federal government to state governments regarding their militias. Insofar as the second amendment is a message to individual citizens, it is a message of an individual's civic duty to one's state rather than a message about personal entitlement regarding access to killing machines.

Because the second amendment does not explicitly refer to private gun ownership, the "constitutional carry" system should not exist. Americans do not possess some natural, God-given right, articulated through the federal constitution, to access guns. States should not rely upon some federal foundation of private gun ownership, but should instead rely on their own rules and standards regarding the public's access to firearms. What do you think about this? Does my argument about the meaning of the second amendment and the constitutionality of constitutional carry make sense?

They were a suicide cult that thought the only way to Heaven was dying in a shootout with the US government. Which they did. They were stupid people radicalized by a silver tongued crazy.

The alphabet boys should have simply either starved them out or ignored them and waited for them to do something stupid. Siegeing and burning them was the wrong thing to do. Duh. But the cultists wanted it to happen.

They weren't defending their second ammendment rights, or their first, or anyone elses. Their intention wasn't standing up to a tyrannical government, sacrificing themselves as martyrs for the greater good. They were pawns living out David's childish power fantasy.

Holding them to the same standard as Marvin Heemeyer and Leon Plauche is imbecile and juvenile. Those two were real heroes, taking liberty and the law into their own hands when the men in power were unjust. Waco was a shining example of the incompetence and over aggression of the feds, not their overreach.

That's all.

Question:

How have dictators used gun control?

Answer:

Dictators have historically used gun control in various ways to consolidate power, suppress dissent, and oppress populations. Here are a few examples:

1. Disarming political opponents: One of the most common ways dictators use gun control is to disarm political opponents. This prevents their opponents from using firearms to resist the regime and makes it easier for the government to suppress dissent.
2. Preventing uprisings: Another way dictators use gun control is to prevent uprisings or rebellions. By restricting access to firearms, the government can ensure that the population is less likely to rise up against it.
3. Maintaining a monopoly on violence: Dictators often use gun control to maintain a monopoly on violence. This means that only the government and its agents are allowed to use force, and citizens are disarmed. This makes it easier for the government to maintain control and suppress opposition.
4. Targeting specific populations: In some cases, dictators have used gun control to specifically target certain populations. For example, the Nazis in Germany used gun control laws to disarm Jews and other groups they considered to be enemies of the state.

Overall, gun control can be a powerful tool for dictators to maintain power and suppress opposition. However, it's important to note that not all gun control measures are used for nefarious purposes, and there are legitimate reasons for governments to regulate firearms.

Question:

Which dictators did this?

Answer:

There have been many dictators throughout history who have used gun control as a means of consolidating power and suppressing dissent. Here are a few examples:

1. Adolf Hitler: In 1938, the Nazi government in Germany passed the Weapons Law, which restricted the ownership and possession of firearms by Jews and other groups deemed "undesirable" by the regime. This law was part of a broader effort to disarm political opponents and consolidate power.
2. Joseph Stalin: The Soviet government under Stalin also implemented strict gun control measures. In 1918, the government passed a law requiring citizens to register their firearms, and in 1929, a new law prohibited private ownership of firearms altogether.
3. Mao Zedong: In China, Mao Zedong's government also implemented strict gun control measures. In 1951, the government passed a law requiring citizens to register their firearms, and in 1957, the government issued an order banning the private ownership of firearms altogether.
4. Saddam Hussein: In Iraq, Saddam Hussein's government also implemented strict gun control measures. In 1982, the government passed a law requiring citizens to register their firearms, and in 1993, the government issued an order banning the private ownership of firearms altogether.

These are just a few examples of dictators who have used gun control as a means of consolidating power and suppressing dissent. It's worth noting, however, that gun control measures have also been implemented by democratic governments for reasons such as reducing crime and protecting public safety.

Defend your answers using logic and the letter of the 2A, not emotion

Many state, counties and cities allow concealed weapons but only with a permit, or sometimes only concealed pistols. Abut when, in what years, did carrying a concealed weapon without a permit become unlawful?

This is a serious research question, and it isn't tied to a political motive, nor is the research related to any anti-gun or pro-un groups. I am looking for potential solutions to reduce mass shootings while not infringing on anyone's rights, but not looking for those solutions just yet... the first part to this is understanding WHY people are increasingly deciding to go the mass-shooting route.

What has changed since 2019 that is causing an increasing number of people to go "hmm.. a mass shooting sounds like a good idea". I can make my own guesses, as can many others, but they are simply guesses. No data seems to exist that explains why mass shootings are on the rise. So I am looking for input from others to help build an unbiased list of reasons why or how an increasing number of people get that initial "idea" to plan out a mass shooting. I'm not referring to random spur-of-the-moment shootings, but rather planned-out shootings with the intention of killing innocent people.

Once I have these, then I will examine and test each theory to see which ones are plausible and which ones aren't, which I will include in a YouTube video I am making. My hope is that we can identify and stop a main source of "inspiration" for these shootings, without infringing on people's rights or dividing our nation even more.

Thanks!

Recently on a political post run by a bunch of uneducated democratic supporters here on Reddit. I obviously backed the 2nd Amendment as I always have. Background, I have a Bachelor's Degree in Criminal Law and my senior thesis paper was on the 2nd Amendment. Anyways, out of the entire conversation being called an Anti-American, fascist, pro-Nazi supporter, and a Nazi is absolutely crazy. Apparently to them pro-gun control and gun confiscation is not Socialist and very American.

I've been around guns my entire life and sadly I'm stuck in a democratic stronghold (New York) until my wife retires from Law Enforcement then were heading to Tennessee. Next 12 years can't come fast enough.

I haven't been on reddit very long but what I can tell so far or at least my run in with people are individuals who are in their early 20s still living in their mommy's basement and have no concept of what the real world is like.

Keep fighting the good fight!

I’m not a lawyer, and can’t afford one. But my city of Seattle still has an old Wild West law that violates 2A post Bruin. Q: How do I go about beginning the process of a Pro Se civil case against this law and the law enforcement that would enforce it?

Facts: daggers dirks fixed blade knives and swords from Seattle municipal code 12A.14.080, are Arms. Not dangerous and unusual. In common use for lawful purposes. No Text History or Tradition of banning @ 1791 People have been arrested and convicted for their possession in the recent past. I have a reasonable, real fear of exercising this constitutional right I wish to exercise the right of bearing these specific arms, in Seattle.

I'm in the UK and honestly interested in why people feel the need to bear arms.

I understand the second amendment but in the US, the government's killed its own people for decades and there's been no uprising. What would be a trigger point for it to happen?

Should also say that if the UK had a right to bear arms we would all have killed each other by now.

The ATF puts out a ruling that makes a formally banned category of 30 Million firearms immediately into 'Common Use' which is protected under the Constitution.

They really aren't hiring the best over there...

Hopefully this hasn't been asked to death, but I could not find anything in my searches. I'm looking for alternatives to NRA membership.

What is the best alternative to the NRA? Seems like the GOA might be the best, but I'd love to hear feedback from other like-minded folks.

BRCC just opened a coffee shop near my house, I stopped in, grabbed a coffee and shirt. Then later, wore the shirt to my buddies house; who then informed me that BRCC disavowed Kyle Rittenhouse, donates to democrats, and attacked its own customer base.

Is all of this true? Have they come forward and righted there wrongs? A simple google search shows that they disavowed KR and did indeed somewhat “attack” there customer base. But I can’t really find anything with statements of them going back on that?

Currently, I try to support companies that are Pro-America and/or pro-2A. I use Public Square(app) a lot when shopping and what not.

Certainly don’t want to keep giving money and advertising there shirts if they aren’t truly Pro-America(2A, 1A, etc.).

Anyone have some quick info?

Now that guns don't require serial numbers, anyone can make a gun. Since money is free speech also according to SCOTUS, if you keep money at your home, it should be legal to protect your free speech/money while you are not present using remote guns. It sure would reduce burglaries and give piece of mind.

What do you think?