Briefly: 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.
Wow - where to start... Of all of the amendments in the Bill of Rights, none polarizes the country more than the 2nd Amemndment. Many people that are pro gun control are simply basing their mindset on emotion rather than the historical context and meaning of the Constitution. In many cases, no amount of measured discourse and meaningful/contextual statistics will alter their thought patterns. To make this site a kind of one-stop shopping source for information, there are other pages here that explain why the country was founded, what led up to the first Revolutionary War, and the several important documents related to the creation of the United States. I strongly urge you to refresh your knowledge of the history of the country's infancy before trying to understand why presevration and advocacy of the Constitution is so important to me, and why it should be important to you as well. Lastly, the 2nd Amendment is under such aggressive and continuous attack that I felt this page deserves a table of contents, and possibly even tabs in order to illustrate the impact these attacks have.
I was puttin' some thinkin' on the 2nd Amendment at the beginning of January 2012, and had what I now consider to be an epiphany.
As most of you probably know, the framers of our Constitution were highly reluctant to support the idea of a standing army due to the government's ability to wield said army in any way that was deemed to fulfill a nefarious purpose against the citizenry, or the possibility that the military would attempt a takeover of the duly elected government. I think the 2nd Amendment was put in place as a compromise toward that idea.
"A well regulated Militia,..."
Some people today are interpreting this to mean that the militia must be "well regulated", as in controlled and registered, or that by "militia", the framers were referencing the federal armed forces, and this interpretation couldn't be more wrong. In the era in which this document was written, it was common practice to refer to soldiers in an organized army as "regulars". They were "well regulated" in terms of training and provisions (ammo). This means that the first four words were intended to mean that the militias - as opposd to the idea of a standing army - must be well trained with battlefield-capable weapons and supplied so that they might be called up to defend the country.
"...being necessary for the security of a free State,..."
I see this as meaning the a country (or "State") cannot expect to be and remain free against either foreign or domestic aggressors unless the population is both willing to defend it, and even more importantly, CAPABLE of defending it.
The third part of the amendment puts the ultimate power solidly into the hands of "the People" (civilian citizens):
"...the right of the People to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed."
In other words, the right of the people to keep and bear arms was put in place in order that they might participate in the previously referenced militia for the purposes of resisting/putting down an out-of-control federal government that either usurped the Constitution (currently underway), or that might use its standing army as a vehicle for oppression of said citizens, or worse, a military that attempted to take over the government by force, or repel an invading army.
I assert that the original intent of the 2nd Amendment really has nothing at all to do with hunting or defending one's self, family and/or property, although that's a happy accident involving the right to keep and bear, and was probably assumed by the men of the time to be a logical extension of having a firearm, thus it was not overtly mentioned. Instead, it's about defending the principles set forth in the Constitution and to preserve the ideology as stated in the Declaration of Independence against a standing army - and/or nefarious abuse of said ideologies by the federal government, and perhaps equally as important, to protect those principles and ideologies from ourselves.
Finally, I see the 2nd Amendment as a mandate to all Americans, that they are responsible for the continuity and security of the republic that our forefathers fought to create and conitnue to fight to keep, and that this sometimes requires the use of force. It's a fact that the 2nd Amendment is what kept Japan from invading the US in WW2, and I'm convinced that it's the only thing keeping Mexico from trying to militarily take control of Southern California, Arizona, New Mexico, and Texas.
I'm prepared to accept that some folks may not agree with my interpretation, and that's fine. But when you consider the 2nd Amendment in the context of the lives and times of the men who authored it, I fail to see how anyone can possibly come to any other conclusion. In my opinion (and because of my analysis of the 2nd Amendment), talk of "assault weapon" bans and ANY other gun control measures are in DIRECT violation of the 2nd Amendment, and I consider any attempt at gun control is an infringement on my rights. You may now talk amongst yourselves (the 1st Amendment in action). How can we - as veterans, public servants, and even more importantly, as AMERICANS - be expected fulfill our promise to support AND defend the Constitution if we don't have the proper tools with which to do so?
Most of the stuff he signed today was just window dressing and reiteration of existing policy. The part that bothers me is that he's telling regular MDs that they can and should ask about guns owned by patients. The answers you give will be put into your electronic health record that is controlled by - you guessed it - the government. If you have guns, and your doctors ask you if you have guns in your home, take my advice and either lie or tell them that question has nothing to do with your current ailment. Of course, if you have kids, it's going to be much harder to control the situation, becuase children are easily coerced or cajoled into revealing info that you would rather wasn't public knowledge. My advice - BE CAREFUL, and if you take your kids to the doctor, don't leave them alone for a second.
New York has passed the following legislation:
What's really disturbing is that many of the first 13 states have the most strict gun control laws. All of the pro-gun-control legislators in those states are traitors to the Constitution (that, ironicaly, their states are responsible for creating). It's truly disgraceful, and just plain embarassing.
The following is a summary of this 2013 legislation:
Representatives in Wyoming, Texas, Oregon, Tennessee, and other states have introduced 2nd Amemdment Protection bills in their respective state legislatures that would guarantee that the 2nd Amendment will be honored in those states in defiance of any federal legislation that would infring on the right to keep and bear arms.
Individual county sheriffs around the country have also stated that they will not comply with or enforce gun confiscation efforts mandated by the federal government.