cedymock Loc: Irmo, South Carolina

The Constitution and the Declaration of Independence provided for citizens the ability to own firearms for the purpose of safeguarding our country and a balance of power between citizens and our government. I would like to point out the following excerpt from the Declaration of Independence.

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.

I am a proud citizen of the USA and love my country, and my hope is citizens will never have to fight our government but having the ability is what our forefathers wanted.

jbk224 Loc: Long Island, NY

The Declaration of Independence does not provide the blueprint for our nation. It is only the Constitution. Taking the DofI out of context and declaring that 'We the People', have the right to throw off such government, is completely a false narrative. And your narrative that the 2nd Amendment provided the citizens the ability to use firearms to maintain a balance of power between citizens and our government is also completely false. As noted by others, the right to bear arms was granted to the people/m*****as to protect their citizens; not from the new government, but from outside forces. Specifically the British and outlier groups looking to take advantage of a still nascent Federal government. Our Constitution provides for representation..that can be changed through a defined process and not an armed o*******w of our elected officials. Be proud of what was provided and has lasted for over 200 years!

Stephan G

The right to bear arms exists until such time it is infringed. Your argument not withstanding.

The DoI has not been ratified as part of the present government nor during the interim government that existed between the DoI period and 1776.

Also, there is no "balance of power". The full authority rests with "We, the people". The people can declare a Constitutional Convention. (A very interesting Law school class subject.)

tommy2 Loc: Fort Worth, Texas

Hmmm...the person or the gun?

IR Jim Loc: St. Louis

"A well regulated M*****a, being necessary to the security of a free State,"

This part of the second amendment doesn't make sense when you have it by itself.

"the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

This part does make sense by itself and is the part that hardcore second amendment advocates acknowledge. However it is not a statement by itself, it is connected to the former part, with a comma. This changes the meaning.

But in the end the Supreme Court did rule that we have an individual right to carry but it can be regulated.

Stephan G

A well Armed People are the best regulation to any m*****a. The problem falls into semantics. A "m*****a" is also a standing army. Somewhere it become forgotten that "We" are Citizens first, military second. "We" are not "Political Party" anywhere!

Look up "subjunctive clause" when it comes to language usage of the 1700s. Also, that comma is irrelevant. The parsing is crucial.

Stephan G

A gun can not feel threatened.

DirtFarmer Loc: Escaped from the NYC area, back to MA

A well armed people may be necessary, but the regulation is dependent on training.

pendennis

The wording of the 2nd Amendment varied in its construction, up until the time it was finalized, the intent was to insure that the "people" had the right. In fact, the state m*****as are covered in Article I, Section 8. James Madison, who wrote most of the Bill of Rights, was clear in his intent. And the term "well regulated m*****a" had/has nothing to do with government regulations. The 18th Century context was meant to be well-equipped.

jbk224 Loc: Long Island, NY

You are right on the money! Combined, in context, offers more insight. Muscats were the 'arms'. The right to bear arms does not mean that we have the right to bear any type of arms. Of course, muscats are long gone. But limiting the type of arms does not infringe upon our rights. So not only should we have common sense restrictions of the types of arms one can legally own; all of us, as law biding citizens, should not have a problem registering all purchases of guns--regardless of where and how. No matter your passion for the 2nd Amendment; what could one possibly be against in background checks and registration? Assuming you follow the law..have nothing to hide...and intent upon being a good citizen. You need a driver's license. You need a SS card. You need to r******r to v**e. Don't anyone tell me that these are intrusive and violate your privacy. Regarding those 'fit' to own a weapon is a whole other area to be addressed. Certain restrictions can be imposed without changing current laws; however, investigating one's mental health needs to be legislated by Congress as there are current laws that prohibit the release of this information. We should all come together and move on to what really needs to be done to help every American--not just some.

pendennis

A m*****a, in the context of the U.S. Constitution, is not a standing army. The Founders were loath to have a standing army, because they were still close to what the British had done with a standing army in the colonies. The people are the m*****a, and the states' m*****as are covered in Article I, Section 8. The "m*****a" is the body of citizens capable of defending their states and themselves. It's never meant the "national guard", etc.

The "Whiskey R*******n" was put down with the activated states' m*****as. At the time, there was no standing army in the U.S.

The U.S. Army, in fact, was only a defensive force. It only began to expand in size and scope, after the Louisiana Purchase, when the Federal government needed to protect westward-moving settlers.

jbk224 Loc: Long Island, NY

Good context.

Hamltnblue Loc: Springfield PA

Another i***t that doesn't read.
There are supporting documents that precede the constitution that explains the basis of each amendment.
The founders knew how tyrannical governments can become and set a foundation to protect against it.
N**i germany, Russia, China, Vietnam, North Korea, and most recently Venezuela are what happens when a government has not checks against it. Hong Kong is about to be the latest.

Politicians who swear to uphold the constitution, and then take steps to attack it, should be removed from office immediately. I'm sure this is in the framework as well but isn't being followed.

jbk224 Loc: Long Island, NY

And how shall they be removed?

Stephan G

Unfortunately, there are many jurisdictions that caved to popular demand and prohibit the training of weapon use by not allowing gun ranges in their area.



"Always know of where your bullet will end up before pulling the trigger." -- One of the lesser known maxims.