NationStates Jolt Archive

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."

Of all the amendments, this one is probably the most infamous. Does it really state that everyone has the right to bear arms? If not the who or what does it apply to? Is it just antiquated, and holds no signifigance in this day and age?

I am not looking for a flamewar. I simply want to have an intelligent discussion on the meaning of the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

The position of the SCOTUS is that any law that does not infringe unreasonably on the rights of milita to own arms is legal. I tend to support that position.

Obviously children have no right to bear arms. In the time that it was first written, it also did not apply to other groups, such as slaves. In the current day, I would have to say that it applies to all citizens of the United States of adult age, barring any groups that are specifically denied arms by law, such as convicted felons.

Obviously children have no right to bear arms. In the time that it was first written, it also did not apply to other groups, such as slaves. In the current day, I would have to say that it applies to all citizens of the United States of adult age, barring any groups that are specifically denied arms by law, such as convicted felons.
That makes no sense. Restrictions to bearing arms are specifically placed by law anyway. You're saying I believe in allowing all groups to have guns except the ones that we say can't.

An American Government teacher at the local high school came up with this idea:

"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 constittution says Militia may bear arms. Now we have the National Guard that serves as our militia. So that would go to say that anyone who is a member of a militia has the right to bear arms and no one else.

Another Civics teacher from that same school, argues that the term "Militia" is used to refer to any eligible militiaman. Which in that time was restricted to adult, white, male landowners. Now, the only requirement for the militia is adult age, 18, so that would say that any adult, being an eligible militiaman(or woman) has the right to bear arms.

There are more details to their arguements, but I don't want to get in to that just yet.

In the context of the times in which the Second Amendment was written, the defense of the nation (State) was dependent on the ability of the nation to send out a call to arms. Nations did not keep a large standing army. In fact, some kept no standing army at all. The call to arms was to bring the Militia out to join with whatever standing army there was to defend the nation.

Notice that it says "A well regulated Militia". Not just a hodge podge of guys with guns who decide they're a militia. The Militia was then, and still is, a group of citizen-soldiers organized by the United State and by each of the several states, who train together to be able to "provide for the security of a free State."

Each member of that Militia, in the days the Second Amendment was written, was required to keep arms and ammunition available for himself, and bring it when called to duty.

Today the well regulated Militia is known as the National Guard.

I keep forgetting how poorly written parts of the American constitution and some of the amendments are. That one there is a prime example of the sort of vagueness you'd think a country wouldn't want in its constitution.

Well, given several things, including the founding father's definition of militia and arms and the like, as well as other factors, including other papers, we can get a good interpretation.

First we look at the two types of militias. There we find the organized militia of the state, and the unorganized, basically averge Joes with their own guns. At the time of the founding this difference wasn't huge. The division in militia classes is part of US law, and the most recent incarnation can be found here : http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/ts_search.pl?title=10&sec=311

Espescially when viewed against the light of the times, when the ruling demographic was males 17-45, with them basically composing the government, and seen as the citizens, an extrapolation might be made to argue for everyone.

Secondly, we must understand the meaning of the term state. What do they mean by the word state. It is often challenged that the term "state" refers to either "the state," as in the government, or a "state of being." Yaddah, yaddah.

Right to bear arms is vague, a strict constructionalist will say that this means any and every sort of weapon up to and beyond thermonuclear devices. Loose constructionists will say that the government can enforce restrictions, yaddah, yaddah.

Shall not be infringed has the same effect happening with it. Does the constitution mean "not touch at all" or "to reasonable levels." This has divides as well, oh fun.

Today the well regulated Militia is known as the National Guard.

Well not really. The guard is still army and it goverment controlled.

One may argue that the possibility of "insurgents" is what keeps the goverment "honest" with the freedoms of the average american.

In terms of public and legislative debate I would say the 1st Admendment has been argued over more than the 2nd over the last 229 years, followed by the 4th, then 2nd (and I'm sure some would state that the 5th is about equal with the 2nd in terms of discourse). More acts have been passed (and repealed) abridging the rights granted the 1st admendment than all the others combined.

Well not really. The guard is still army and it goverment controlled.

One may argue that the possibility of "insurgents" is what keeps the goverment "honest" with the freedoms of the average american.
In all honesty, your insurgents wouldn't last 10 seconds against the US army.

In terms of public and legislative debate I would say the 1st Admendment has been argued over more than the 2nd over the last 229 years, followed by the 4th, then 2nd (and I'm sure some would state that the 5th is about equal with the 2nd in terms of discourse). More acts have been passed (and repealed) abridging the rights granted the 1st admendment than all the others combined.
Very true. The second amendment didn't really come into question with anybody until, what, the nineteen-fifties? We've been talking about the first amendment since the Federalists Alien and Sedition acts.

That makes no sense. Restrictions to bearing arms are specifically placed by law anyway. You're saying I believe in allowing all groups to have guns except the ones that we say can't.

A right can be restricted if it can be demonstrated to be in the best interest of all people.

It is in the best interest of all people that your average everyday citizen not have access to nuclear weapons (which are arms).

It is in the best interest of all people that a felon who has not yet made it through his entire sentence not be allowed to have a gun.

It is in the best interest of all people that a child who has not matured enough to fully understand life and death issues not own a gun.

A right can be restricted if it can be demonstrated to be in the best interest of all people.

It is in the best interest of all people that your average everyday citizen not have access to nuclear weapons (which are arms).

It is in the best interest of all people that a felon who has not yet made it through his entire sentence not be allowed to have a gun.

It is in the best interest of all people that a child who has not matured enough to fully understand life and death issues not own a gun.
Which is different from the situation we have now?

That makes no sense. Restrictions to bearing arms are specifically placed by law anyway. You're saying I believe in allowing all groups to have guns except the ones that we say can't.

I'm not stating what I believe, just what is. Anyone who doesn't have a felony record and is of legal age can purchase a firearm, provided they don't have a criminal felony on their record.

As for my opinion, I personally don't see a problem with this. The Constitution guarantees the right to bear arms; the legislative branch can settle what limitations on arms need to be enforced, such as not letting non-military civilians have access to grenades and fully-automatic weapons, or allowing convicted felons to own guns.

Very true. The second amendment didn't really come into question with anybody until, what, the nineteen-fifties?
Racists have been restricted the right to keep and bear arms since the 17th century. But if you're talking about laws aimed at everyone, the Sullivan Act was passed in New York c. 1911. The first national firearms law, the National Firearms Act, was passed in 1934.

Well not really. The guard is still army and it goverment controlled.

One may argue that the possibility of "insurgents" is what keeps the goverment "honest" with the freedoms of the average american.Funny how many people think that. The second amendment does not say anything about the right of some of the people who disagree with the free State to take up arms. This amendment is NOT about letting the people keep guns so they can take them up against the government.

First, the government intended by this Constitution is of a sovereign PEOPLE. No king, no emperor, no elite ruling class. While some of us may disagree vehemently with what the majority has decided, by vote or by vote of our elected representatives, to do, this amendment is not about taking up arms to change those things. Many of us think the election of George W. Bush (either election) was a huge catastrophic mistake - but we are not authorized by this amendment to take up arms.

Second, this amendment contemplates the security of the free State (The United States of America) that is established by this Constitution, and further this amendment establishes that a well regulated Militia is key to that security, and the amendment therefore provides (in keeping with the way these things were done over 250 years ago) that the people (meaning all those eligible under the terms of the constitution to be considered as voting citizens) shall retain the right (and in fact, at that time, the duty) to maintain arms so that they could bring them to the defense of the Nation if called to do so.

This amendment is still not talking about roving bands of self-appointed "militia", or vigilanty groups. It dose not address itslef to any "right" to hunt game, or target shoot. It concerns itself solely with the need of the "free State" to provide for it's "security" by allowing the "well regulated Militia", which consisted of "the people" to keep and bear arms for the purpose of providing that security.

Which is different from the situation we have now?

It isn't. We restrict the right to bear arms when it is necessary, just as we restrict the right of a reporter to tell the world where our secret ops forces are going.

I was just preempting the "OH MY GOSH IF YOU MAKE ANY LAW WITH THE WORD GUN IN IT YOU ARE RESTRICTING MY RIGHTS AND I WILL SHOOT YOU" posts that always crop up in these threads.

It isn't. We restrict the right to bear arms when it is necessary, just as we restrict the right of a reporter to tell the world where our secret ops forces are going.

I was just preempting the "OH MY GOSH IF YOU MAKE ANY LAW WITH THE WORD GUN IN IT YOU ARE RESTRICTING MY RIGHTS AND I WILL SHOOT YOU" posts that always crop up in these threads.
Just making sure. I read the intent of the poster to be a highly liberterian view point that makes little sense...

In all honesty, your insurgents wouldn't last 10 seconds against the US army.While I agree in principle, and while I really hate to bring this up to the point that after I wrote this I almost deleted it several times before posting it, precedent says otherwise.

His (her?) "insurgents" took up arms a couple of time in our history.

Shays Rebellion, for one. It lasted a little longer than 10 seconds - although not much. And, the Confederacy, for two. They lasted quite a bit longer than 10 seconds.

How long these "insurgents" would last would depend on who they were, how many of them there were, what support they had, what logistical support they had, and who led them. In the end, unless they were the US Army, the Army would prevail. But how long, and how hard, that would be depends on these (and other) variables.

Suppose, for instance, that these "insurgents" were all well armed veterans?

While I agree in principle, and while I really hate to bring this up to the point that after I wrote this I almost deleted it several times before posting it, precedent says otherwise.

His (her?) "insurgents" took up arms a couple of time in our history.

Shays Rebellion, for one. It lasted a little longer than 10 seconds - although not much. And, the Confederacy, for two. They lasted quite a bit longer than 10 seconds.

How long these "insurgents" would last would depend on who they were, how many of them there were, what support they had, what logistical support they had, and who led them. In the end, unless they were the US Army, the Army would prevail. But how long, and how hard, that would be depends on these (and other) variables.

Suppose, for instance, that these "insurgents" were all well armed veterans?
Not against tanks, helicopters, aircraft, and nukes...

(none of which insurgents can field for long)

I'm in no way a gun lobbyist or anything. But I think the reason they only wanted the militia to keep and bear arms is because there weren't that many. I mean, a lot of Americans in the Revolutionary war had to fight with their bare hands because they didn't have enough artillery to host such combat. Not to mention the fact that only trained militia men would know how to load and fire the gun fast enough to protect the land.

Unfortunately, it doesn't matter what the forefathers meant by this amendment. What matters is what it means in today's society. Everyone talks about the Constitution being open-ended and everything. It was because they knew society, technology, and loyalties would change. So, the supreme court (a bunch of old people who probably go hunting monthly) get to make the decision.

Granted, I'm not comfortable at all with people owning guns that aren't trained with them and know how to use them effectively in a combat situation. If people are scared for their family or their property, there are non-lethal solutions that can also be considered arms that no one thinks about.

Um... I don't know if anyone has thought about this, but militia also policed the land. There were certain times when they would roam about the towns in shifts and make sure no trouble came about. So, police officers, also being trained in weaponry, can also be considered a militia of sorts. They protect the country just as much as anyone in camoflauge.

Not against tanks, helicopters, aircraft, and nukes...

(none of which insurgents can field for long)Again, CSW, it depends on who they are. Where are the tanks? Where are the helicopters? Where are the veterans? And these are the veterans - these are folks who've been taught how to think and operate as soldiers.

IF a very large group of veterans took a very large number of tanks, helipcopters, etc., (remember, these guys are trained in how to use these things) it would be hellish. Nukes? they wouldn't be used - we're talking about conflict internal to the US - if the Army used nukes (even tactical ones) in the US, the insurgency would grow rather than shrink.

I still agree that the US Army (to include the Marines, Air Force, Navy) would win. But 10 seconds?

"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 constittution says Militia may bear arms.

No, read it again. It states "the right of the people" not the right of the Milita.

Again, CSW, it depends on who they are. Where are the tanks? Where are the helicopters? Where are the veterans? And these are the veterans - these are folks who've been taught how to think and operate as soldiers.

IF a very large group of veterans took a very large number of tanks, helipcopters, etc., (remember, these guys are trained in how to use these things) it would be hellish. Nukes? they wouldn't be used - we're talking about conflict internal to the US - if the Army used nukes (even tactical ones) in the US, the insurgency would grow rather than shrink.

I still agree that the US Army (to include the Marines, Air Force, Navy) would win. But 10 seconds?
We're talking about a milita, not a very large, highly trained group of people (which would be against the definition of milita, irregular troops), but the '10 seconds' remark was more to point out that today a milita wouldn't do much against the might of the US armed forces, simply because of how expensive and controlled the arms needed to win a war against it are. Many countries can't even match our armies, not for a lack of trying, and surely they can field more money then a group of old men living on pensions?

We're talking about a milita, not a very large, highly trained group of people (which would be against the definition of milita, irregular troops), but the '10 seconds' remark was more to point out that today a milita wouldn't do much against the might of the US armed forces, simply because of how expensive and controlled the arms needed to win a war against it are. Many countries can't even match our armies, not for a lack of trying, and surely they can field more money then a group of old men living on pensions?
Please note - SGM Ret. ;)

No, read it again. It states "the right of the people" not the right of the Milita.You've missed the point. The people ARE the Militia - the Militia ARE the people.


Ya know, I've had this dicussion on NS about 2 or 3 times now. I've said my piece, and I'm done

You've missed the point. The people ARE the Militia - the Militia ARE the people.


Ya know, I've had this dicussion on NS about 2 or 3 times now. I've said my piece, and I'm done

So since the militia are the people and the people are the militia, both the people and the militia have the right to bear arms, right?

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
As a strict constructionist, this pretty much is why I believe the fewer regulations, the better - basically anybody of adult age who has not committed a felony has the right to bear a firearm.

Please note - SGM Ret. ;)
No offence ment, but I seriously doubt that a group of retired soldiers could put together the funds to buy and maintain that equipment.

As a strict constructionist, this pretty much is why I believe the fewer regulations, the better - basically anybody of adult age who has not committed a felony has the right to bear a firearm.

Meh. You ignore the entire first portion of the Second Amendment.



1. The legal precedent is overwhelming that the Second Amendment does not protect an individual right to bear arms.

Over the last 150 years there have been scores of cases involving the Second Amendment. No gun restriction has ever been struck down as violating the Second Amendment. To the contrary, the view that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess or use firearms has been routinely and consistently rejected.

Here is the official statement of the American Bar Association (http://www.abanet.org/gunviol/secondamend.html) on the issue (emphasis added):

As part of a comprehensive policy position adopted in 1994, the ABA committed itself to work to better inform the public and lawmakers through a sustained educational campaign regarding the true import of the Second Amendment. Opponents of firearms control legislation have relied upon the Second Amendment's guarantee of "the right to bear arms." The Second Amendment, in its entirety, states:

"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 United States Supreme Court and lower federal courts have consistently interpreted this Amendment only as a prohibition against Federal interference with State militia and not as a guarantee of an individual's right to keep or carry firearms. The argument that the Second Amendment prohibits all State or Federal regulation of citizen's ownership of firearms has no validity whatsoever.

The controversy over the meaning of the Second Amendment exists only in the public debate over gun control. Few issues have been more distorted and cluttered by misinformation than this one. There is no confusion in the law itself. The strictest gun control laws in the nation have been upheld against Second Amendment challenge, including local bans on handguns. The Supreme Court enunciated in United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939) what, over fifty years later, remains clearly the law of this country -- that the scope of the people's right to bear arms is limited by the introductory phrase of the Second Amendment regarding the necessity of a "well regulated militia" for the "security of a free State." In Miller, the Court held that the "obvious purpose" of the Amendment was "to assure the continuation and render possible the effectiveness of..." the state militias and cautioned that the Amendment "must be interpreted and applied with that end in view."

Since today's "well regulated militia" does not use privately owned firearms, courts since Miller have unanimously held that regulation of such guns does not offend the Second Amendment. The Supreme Court has twice reaffirmed its view of the Second Amendment as expressed in Miller. In Burton v. Sills, 394 U.S. 812 (1968), the Court dismissed a gun owner's appeal, for want of a substantial federal question, of a New Jersey Supreme Court holding that the Second Amendment permits regulation of firearms "so long as the regulation does not impair the active, organized militias of the states." Most recently, in Lewis v. United States, 445 U.S. 55 (1980), the Court held that legislative restrictions on the use of firearms do not - for purposes of equal protection analysis - "trench upon any constitutionally protected liberties."

The lower federal courts have uniformly followed the interpretation of the Supreme Court. No legislation regulating the private ownership of firearms has been struck down in our nation's history on Second Amendment grounds.

Yet the perception that the Second Amendment is somehow an obstacle to Congress and state and local legislative bodies fashioning laws to regulate firearms remains a pervasive myth. The gun lobby has conducted extensive and expensive campaigns to foster this misperception and the result has been that the myth of the "absolute bar of the Second Amendment" has real effects on regulatory efforts.

As lawyers, as representatives of the legal profession, and as recognized experts on the meaning of the Constitution and our system of justice, we share a responsibility to the public and lawmakers to "say what the law is." The ABA is committed to bringing about a more reasoned and lawyerly discussion of the meaning and import of the Second Amendment.

Here is a direct quote (with emphasis added) of almost the entire text of United States v. Miller (http://laws.findlaw.com/us/307/174.html), 307 U.S. 174 (1939):

An indictment in the District Court Western District Arkansas, charged that Jack Miller and Frank Layton 'did unlawfully, knowingly, wilfully, and feloniously transport in interstate commerce from the town of Claremore in the State of Oklahoma to the town of Siloam Springs in the State of Arkansas a certain firearm, to-wit, a double barrel 12-gauge Stevens shotgun having a barrel less than 18 inches in length

...

The District Court held that section 11 of the Act violates the Second Amendment. It accordingly sustained the demurrer and quashed the indictment.

...

In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a 'shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length' at this time has some [B]reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment or that its use could contribute to the common defense. Aymette v. State of Tennessee, 2 Humph., Tenn., 154, 158.

The Constitution as originally adopted granted to the Congress power-- 'To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions; To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress.' U.S.C.A.Const. art. 1, s 8. With obvious purpose to assure the continuation and render possible the effectiveness of such forces the declaration and guarantee of the Second Amendment were made. It must be interpreted and applied with that end in view.

[I]The Militia which the States were expected to maintain and train is set in contrast with Troops which they were forbidden to keep without the consent of Congress. ...

[Discussion of history of militias in the US and discussion specific state provisions for militias.]

Most if not all of the States have adopted provisions touching the right to keep and bear arms. Differences in the language employed in these have naturally led to somewhat variant conclusions concerning the scope of the right guaranteed. But none of them seem to afford any material support for the challenged ruling of the court below.

...

We are unable to accept the conclusion of the court below and the challenged judgment must be reversed. The cause will be remanded for further proceedings.

Reversed and remanded.

Former Chief Justice Warren Burger, a life-long hunter and conservative Republican, terms the NRA's Second Amendment rhetoric a "fraud" paid for by the firearms industry:
[O]ne of the frauds -- and I use that term advisedly -- on the American people, has been the campaign to mislead the public about the Second Amendment. The Second Amendment doesn't guarantee the right to have firearms at all . . . . It's shocking to me that the American people have let themselves be conned . . . by the campaigns that are sponsored and financed by the arms industry and the ammunition industry.
Warren Burger, Press Conference Concerning Introduction of the Public Health and Safety Act of 1992, Federal News Service, June 26, 1992, available in LEXIS, News Library, Wires File; see also Tony Mauro, Bill of Rights Has Not Been Scuttled, USA TODAY , Dec. 16, 1991, at 13A. ("[T]he National Rifle Association has done one of the most amazing jobs of misrepresenting and misleading the public.").

Arch-conservative and leading proponent of the use of original intent in interpreting the constitution, Judge Robert Bork has stated that the Second Amendment operates "to guarantee the right of states to form militia, not for individuals to bear arms." He believes California's assault-weapons ban is, and indeed "probably" all state gun control measures are, constitutional. Claudia Luther, Bork Says State Gun Laws Constitutional, L.A. TIMES, Mar. 15, 1989, at B5; see also Miriam Bensimhorn, The Advocates: Point and Counterpoint, Laurence Tribe and Robert Bork Debate the Framers' Spacious Terms, LIFE, Fall 1991 (Special Issue), at 96, 98 ("[T]he National Rifle Association is always arguing that the Second Amendment determines the right to bear arms. But I think it really is people's right to bear arms in a militia. The NRA thinks that it protects their right to have Teflon-coated bullets. But that's not the original understanding.").

2. Even if taken as an individual right, the right "to bear arms" is not an individual right to possess and use firearms.

It is widely assumed that "to keep and bare arms" means "to possess and use firearms," but that is not what the Second Amendment says. The definitive dictionary, the Oxford English Dictionary, makes clear that -- particularly at the time the Second Amendment was written and adopted -- "to bear arms" meant "to serve as a soldier, do military service, fight."

The Oxford English Dictionary defines "to bear arms" as meaning "to serve as a soldier, do military service, fight." 1 OED 634
(J.A. Simpson & E.S.C. Weiner eds., 2nd ed. 1989) (hereinafter, "OED"). It defines "to bear arms against" as meaning "to be engaged in hostilities with." 2 id. at 21. As an exemplary use of the phrase in 1769, the OED gives "An ample pardon . . . to all who had born arms against him," and the exemplary use from 1609 is "He bare arms, and made weir against the king." Id.

In the mid-19th century the original usage of "bear arms" was still understood:

"The 28th section of our bill of rights provides "that no citizen of this state shall be compelled to bear arms provided he will pay in equivalent, to be ascertained by law." Here we know that the phrase has a military sense, and no other; and we must infer that it is used in the same sense in the 26th section, which secures to the citizen the right to bear arms. A man in the pursuit of deer, elk, and buffaloes might carry his rifle every day for forty years, and yet it would never be said of him that he had borne arms; much less could it be said that a
private citizen bears arms because he has a dirk or pistol concealed under his clothes, or a spear in a cane."
Aymette v. State, 2 Humphreys 154 (Tenn. 1840)


3. The Second Amendment does not apply to the states.

The Bill of Rights did not apply to the states until the 14th Amendment was passed and not all provisions of the BoR have been incorporated through the 14th to apply to the states.

Here is an article from the NRA-ILA explaining that I am right:
http://www.nraila.org/Issues/articles/read.aspx?ID=23

In case you don't trust even the NRA on this, here are a couple of other sources:
http://www.usconstitution.net/consttop_bor.html
http://www.therant.us/staff/nsalvato/judicial_activism_undermines_the_integrity_of_the_constitution_-_1.htm
http://ap.grolier.com/article?assetid=0047310-00&templatename=/article/article.html
(You may note that the second article is a conservative screed against incorporation).

In the first Congress in 1789, Congressman James Madison had submitted proposed amendments for the Bill of Rights. One of Madison's proposed amendments would have prohibited states from violating the rights of conscience, freedom of the press, and trial by jury in criminal cases. The House passed Madison's proposed amendment. But the Senate rejected it because all the states already had their own bills of rights.

In 1833, the Supreme Court addressed the issue and determined the amendments of the Bill of Rights, applied only to the national government and not to the states. Barron v. Baltimore, 7 Peters 243 (1833). You can read the case for yourself at: http://laws.findlaw.com/us/32/243.html. It is pretty short and easy to read.

Before you go on a rant about Barron. The majority opinion was written by Chief Justice John Marsall. He was a hero of the Revolutionary War and a close friend of George Washington. At college, he was taught philosophy by James Madison. He participated in the debates over the ratification of the Constitution as a member of the Virigina legislature. Prior to becoming Chief Justice, he served as Secretary of State.

While it's true the Second Amendment no longer supports an individual right to bear arms, my state constitution certainly does!

I don't really care if the national one does or not as long as I have my state to ensure this right.

While it's true the Second Amendment no longer supports an individual right to bear arms, my state constitution certainly does!

I don't really care if the national one does or not as long as I have my state to ensure this right.
Actually, you might, as your state is very easily overruled by the Federal Government.

I keep forgetting how poorly written parts of the American constitution and some of the amendments are. That one there is a prime example of the sort of vagueness you'd think a country wouldn't want in its constitution.

it was written purposfully like this though... so that it could be open to interpreation and thus be changed according to the wishes of society (within limits).. this way the constitution is flexible (within reason) and my not at any point be so irrelevant that it just be lost.

Actually, you might, as your state is very easily overruled by the Federal Government.

Hasn't been overruled yet. Just because the Second Amendment doesn't mean individuals have the right to bear arms doesn't mean it's illegal.

Yet.

I see little reason to fear though, as gun control debates seem to have lost importance.