Does the 2nd Amendment give "individuals" the right to bear arms or just for members of a "well-regulated militia"?

Some Americans can't even defend their own homes with a gun, yet they expect their internationally deployed national guard which is loaded with guns, to be able to defend the homes of others. Freedom and democracy is spread with the gun.

If 10 come to my door, only 7 or 8 will be going to the next.

This never used to be a question.

They have been looking for ways to take the guns away from people...
This just might be the Achilles heel...

i am sick of this fucking shit! there is no need for "debate" or "interpetation" on ths "issue". if the phrase in the constitution is unclear to the dumbed down masses, one only needs to read from the hundreds of pages passionately written by our founding fathers, the greatest politcal minds the world has ever produced. they made it very clear it was a god given (NOT State granted!} right for individual citizens to own guns, in fact, more of a duty to do so, to protect from government abuse. this whole arguement that the militia IS the national guard is a joke, as the guard is a recent invention, unknown to the founding fathers! the militia was at the time understood to be EVERY male citizen between 16 and 40 or so, armed with their OWN (not state supplied ) weapon. these are the individual, free citizens that fired against oppressors at Lexington and Concord. they were NOT the national guard, case closed!!!
anyone that argues otherwise is either
1. completely ignorant of our history, and has not done their homework or,
2. trying to cover up the truth for their own sick agenda!

The intention of the Founding Fathers...

It is every citizens right to keep and bear arms so that they MAY form a militia to fight a tyrannical government.

The idea is that the government is supposed to fear the people, not the people fear the government.

As American citizens we have the Constitutional RIGHT to take up arms against our government if the cease to do the will of the people.

The Constitutional guarantee of the right to bear arms is to prevent a tyrannical government from DISARMING the public; so that they are crippled to fight back.

That is EXACTLY what is happening today. The NWO crowd fears a Revolution as their plans come to fruition; so they are attempting to take away our ability to kick their asses!

The militia thing is just a parenthetical thrown in as a supporting reason for the individual right to bear arms - that individuals have a right to bear arms AND freely form community based militias.

I knew this was coming from the "family values party".

Deserves a better response:

Years ago, my mother was in the hospital. My father was descending into Alzheimers. They had a farm in an isolated, rural part of the country (the U.S.). I was there taking care of them. My toy poodle was with me. I had picked up my father from adult day care in town and had parked the car near the front porch. It was nearly dark. I had observed nothing unusual driving up to the farm house. I was carrying a handgun - because I wouldn't be caught out there without something. The poodle bounced out of the car, did her stuff and started dancing around our feet, hungry for dinner. My father stayed in the car while I opened the front door. I went back to get him when the poodle started growling (she was small but no coward), then barking, doing the advance-retreat dance small dogs often do when threatened.

That was when I saw the coyotes, which were known to be sometimes aggressive out that way. I noticed four and quit counting, tried to hurry my father to the door, hoped the poodle stayed within grabbing distance. The coyotes advanced, picked up their pace.

As we reached the door, the coyotes rushed us. I had just enough time to grab the poodle with one hand and toss her inside. I almost had my father in the house when I heard one reach the porch. Got my father through the door but I was still on the outside of the door. I turned around and had just enough time to get a shot off into the coyote before it was on me, and got myself inside. Then another coyote threw itself against the now closed door. It's the only time, in all the times I carried the gun, that it was ever used against a live target.

I am kind of like my poodle - small but no coward.

Now, the question is this: what was the value of our Second Amendment Right in that situation?

I have no intention of being anyone's chalk outline! Or any coyote's dinner, or any criminal's dead victim!

I don't make a good victim.

As has been said in many times and places, laws only work for those who intend to abide by them. By definition, that does not include criminals, especially those who want to waste the lives of myself and my loved ones.

I watched the news as the D.C. mayor spoke about a miracle decline in violent crime in his city after some gun-related constraint. I didn't listen closely enough. How odd, very different stats and results are described in other countries. Trends tend to be fairly consistant; so, something is amiss with this picture.

When it comes to this topic, it's pretty clear that the root intent is not really the same as the message. It's not about our safety at all. I would not be surprised to see some further lone-gunman, postal type events as the Supreme Court ponders how to force the U.S. populace into a deeper trance-state of victimhood. "Shock and Awe" continues unabated. A little study shows it to be an old means to the same old end.

Of course, if the Court finds that the Amendment was intended only for militias.... Well, militias, I think, now come under the category of "domestic terrorism." I imagine any rational, thoughtful person can extrapolate out where this is going to go.

For those who think responsible gun owners are crazy, I suggest that you check out some recent MTV ads, and do some legitimate research on your own. Get over your own opinions and seek facts.

Yeah, a 60-year-old woman watching MTV ads. Go figure.

Guns can't protect you from space-based lasers or particle beams that can kill individuals and leave no evidence, think about that. But maybe we should be careful what we think because they might be watching.

it is better to have it and not need it than to need it and not have it i am not about to give mine up as live in one of the most dangerous places on earth gary indiana

You are absolutely right! It was a duty for all men and boys then to bear arms and be ready.
Now they are more worried about violations of the criminals civil rights, if you try to stop them from breaking and entering,
robbing or raping anyone in your family.

It's tough everywhere.
With the economy slowing down expect the crime rate raise.


"...Washington, often known as the "murder capital of the nation," cannot defend its citizens and will not allow them to defend themselves..."

fuck off
only outlaws use guns

One ABSOLUTE fact in US law is that a phrase used in a legal document HAS to mean the EXACT same thing in every place it's used.

So if you have 'The People' in the First Amendment meaning ALL the people, it MUST mean the same thing in every other Amendment.


-

Certain rights are unalienable.

If you're anti-liberal, why do you quote the founding fathers?

TGRR,
Gun-toting liberal.

Give up your guns and live or I'll just
have to pry it from your cold dead fingers.

It's backed by all politicians.
Getting the guns out of the hands of the people,
it's called job security.

The Articles of Confederation and the
US Constitution are only applicable to
humans who entrap themselves into being
corporate 'persons'. Check out both documents
you will see that they only refer to 'persons'.

And, to government, 'persons' are slaves
belonging to the State.

Therefore, now that you know that that you
are most likely a slave owned by the State
or the corporate UNITED STATES - if you have
ignorantly encapsulated yourself in the State
owned birth certificate name [where the family
name has been converted into a 'surname'- a
primary name], and you know that slaves have
no 'true rights', but only 'privileges' that
can be withdrawm by the State, if you are not
a good obedient slave obeying State rules and
regulations [Acts, statutes and laws, rules
and regulations] and paying tribute (taxes)
willingly and fully, then you can quickly
figure out that the 2nd Amendment can be
withdrawn from such individuals.

There is no Constitutional law or articles
having anything to do with the unalienable
rights of free will adult humans.

The only law you have is: "Do not unto others
as you would that others do not unto you."

In simplistic terms: You can swing your arms
all you wish, as long as you don't hit my nose.

Hey folks! You have your head in a pickle
barrel of being a slave, and then wondering
why you don't have any rights.

The "founding fathers" would be ashamed of the wacko liberals we have today.
Today they are a hybrid of socialist, communist and dictatorship.

I doubt you're a reverend yet you play one.

Seems clear enough to me...
"the right of THE PEOPLE to keep and bear arms SHALL NOT be infringed"

1. Depends. If you're talking about the Berkeley crowd, sure. But there's still a few of us classic liberals around.

2. Despite your seeming need for a gratuitous ad hominem attack, I am indeed a reverend. Just not of your silly and heathen religion.

Hmmm let me put my thinking cap on here for a second..

The constitution was written when? Around the time of the revolutionary war. Who fought in this? Average everyday citizens who owned guns. So what do you think the writers meant?

"well regulated" at that time meant "well maintained" and not "strictly controlled".

Also, if you read the writers' other writings, their meaning will become quite apparent to you.

There would be less crime without guns.

There would also be less crime without freedom of speech.

There would be less crime without freedom.

Onward towards Utopia!