What's the purpose of the 2nd Amendment? And to who does the "Well-Regulated Militia" refer to?

[Physics-Man]

Leftists always say that a "Well-Regulated Militia" refers to an organized Military group such as the National Guard. Is this true?

[WindAtMyBack]

They made a clear distinction between the militia and the standing army and navy. The distinction is used many times in the founders' writings, and in the Constitution itself. They are very clearly different things.

The militia *IS* the people. They not only had the right to bear arms, they were expected to.

Does anyone remember reading about the "minutemen" in history class? That was the militia. They were regular people. They were called minutemen because they could be ready at a minute's notice. They didn't have to be armed, because they already were.

They really should not have used that wording for the 2nd amendment. They should not have given a reason, since there are a number of other reasons. Many of the ideas behind it go back hundreds or thousands of years. The right to bear arms specifically comes from the British where they made no mention of the militia, only self defense.

Some of the framers argued against the Bill of Rights in it's entirety. In hindsight their argument turned out to be partly valid. They argued that by enumerating certain rights, there might be a presumption that those were the only rights, or that other rights were less important.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

"Life Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness" is very broad, but the wording shows that our natural human rights were even more broad. The enumerated rights should not be used to limit our "unalienable Rights" to only those listed. This is true of the 2nd Amendment as well. Simply because they mentioned the militia, the intention was not to limit the right to bear arms any more than the intention of the Bill of Rights as a whole was not meant to limit our rights.

[Lliam]

The founders of this country were opposed to a standing army. They considered the American people to be the militia. They could be called upon to defend the country in time of need. During those times, the volunteers would be organized into an army of "well regulated" militias under military command.
When the battles were over, the men would be allowed to return home and to keep their weapons.
A shameful fact is, many private militias were formed to hunt down "Indians". They often slaughtered entire villages just to rid the country of indigenous people. But that fact goes to show that the government didn't control militias except in time of war.
However, the government, usually through local sheriffs, could step in if armed men committed acts that were considered to be criminal.

The second amendment clearly says "... the right of The People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." It doesn't say " the right of militias to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

The Bill of Rights does not grant rights to The People. It is a list of restrictions on government.

[DaisyJones]

The purpose is to protect us from her:

And this is the militia:
BLM & Antifa didn't burn a single business to the ground in this small Idaho town.
Their buses just kept on going.

[Anonymous]

The purpose of the 2nd Amendment is to prevent both the State itself and outside forces from other Nations from taking away the freedom of the American people through the use of force.

This has clearly failed.

You have allowed standing armies and their associated intelligence networks to utterly dominate not only your own nation but the nations of others, far from being the shining light of freedom you like to think of yourselves as being you are infact the number 1 threat to everyone else in the world.

The reason that a standing army is dangerous is because of its ability to suppress the population, hence why you are supposed to be calling upon the citizens of your free nation to form a temporary defensive militia in times of war and then disbanding said armies once the threat has passed.

In addition to this, the people shall also enjoy the right to bear arms for the purposes of defending themselves from criminal elements etc in the society.

So, are you going to honour the 2nd amendment any time soon and dismantle the CIA and the US military?

[Opinion Owner]

The National Guard is an example of a well regulated militia because it is not a regular army force.

A regular army is a full time professional, standing army which is explicitly prohibited by the 2nd amendment.

A militia is a group of civilians who form an army in times of war but during peace time are civilians.

Well regulated means that they are capable of performing their duties in a competant, controlled and professional manner.

Words have power and I would suggest to you that you stop referring to the 2nd amendment as 'the right to bear arms' and instead start referring it to 'no standing armies in peace time'

[Opinion Owner]

The National Guard though is a reserve component of the federal army, the 2nd amendment considered the correct and natural manner to defend freedom to be a State militia, not a federal one.

Presumably the idea being that if there is a serious outside threat to any of the States or an interal threat to freedom from a rogue state, it is possible to form a national army with the consent of the individual States, however a centralised federal army, even a militia in the wrong hands or with ill intent cannot be stopped by the people.

[hellionthesagereborn]

It is for the personal defense of the individual, the defense of the nation, and the defense of the people against a tyrannical government.

As for "well regulated militia", by literal definition that is a citizen army i. e. not organized military groups, and specifically in the era of which it was written was specifically every able bodied person in the nation as the militia was the conscripted people who fought in battles and the women who would be left behind to defend the home and children. It was literally American citizens and this is further proven by the numerous statements and letters written by the founding fathers further detailing what this amendment refered to (and yes, you could own cannons, you could own a war ship if you could afford it. You where barred from nothing.).

[Physics-Man]

Leftists would say that it's a ridiculous notion that our government would turn against us or become tyrannical. Or that we wouldn't be able to fight off a well trained military armed even with our semi automatic rifles. So as a reason, it's an outdated Amendment which should be removed. What do you say to them?

So it didn't refer strictly to the Military? Would you please refer me to those statements and letters that state that the 2A applies to ordinary civilians?

[hellionthesagereborn]

Well yeah, thats why they are leftist because they have never studied history, or anything for that matter. I mean the idea that the government cannot turn against you is an insane premise given the fact that the united states exists because the government turned on us. Thats not even getting into the shady dealings the US has done like Project MKUltra and all of that crap. Not to mention china, North Korea, Nazi Germany, Soviet union and currently russia, Venezuela, Libya, etc. etc. etc.

As for not fighting off a well trained military, well clearly they don't know anything about Vietnam because that was a bunch of crappily armed farmers fighting off a super power with tanks and air supremacy. Also the second amendment says we have the right to bare arms i. e. I legally have the right to own a tank so that would really help even the playing field (they have literally taken away our right to bare arms, then claim that our lack of arms is proof that we could not possibly take on the government and therefore should reliquish our arms. I cannot fathom how many mental hoops a person has to jump through to come up with that ass backwards argument.). If anything that argument should be evidence that we need MORE arms not fewer.

[hellionthesagereborn]

Also I don't think the military uses full automatic anymore except for maybe covering fire (as it became apparent in Vietnam that more bullets did not equal more enemy dead hence them opting for more realistic training simulations rather then just more fire power (because soldiers are not particularly inclined to kill other people and you need to train their bodies to act before the person can second guess themselves and hesitate to kill).

As for removing it, that is quite literally what every evil empire has done so that would be idiotically stupid for one, and for another they have that ability technically, all they need to do is have all the states agree to such an insane premise and then they can make gun ownership illegal and with it turn a perfectly law abiding population into criminals who will fight you to protect themselves and their families. Basically its a stupid idea on quite literally every single front to the point where the only people who could push it are useful idiots who have never thought anything through let alone this OR the corrupt and evil people who wish to seize power and control over us and told the useful idiots to go along with it.

[Anonymous]

To protect yourself, family and property from others.
To protect yourself from threats both foreign and domestic.
To keep your state free from a tyrannical government. A well regulated militia being those who live in that state that aren't part of the government, since whats the point of having people from the government protect your freedom from the government? Evert time the government disarms its people in modern history, it opens the door for dictators. At least with the second amendment, we have a fighting chance to protect ourselves from being enslaved. The constitution is more important than any elected official or new "soft laws" that might be made. So pretty much every law the left have made against firearms is in violation of the constitutions 2nd amendment.

[Pantera9000]

The purpose of the 2nd should be quite clear! It was so the people whom the constitution applies to can legally re-stain the floors of any government building with a dark red finish.
The constitution states clearly "WE THE PEOPLE" not "WE THE GOVERNMENT" or "WE THE CORPORATIONS"

WE THE PEOPLE!

As a matter of fact not only does it ONLY apply to the people but it is not giving the rights to the people, it is an enforcement law that says the government has NO rights to take any rights from the people and the constitution was written to make it perfectly clear that the people ARE the nations military and body drafted by the state is working for a standing army to be use ONLY in defense from foreign invasion.
The government was not given the right to draft though!

[Sargentcaptain]

The 2nd amendment is meant to protect people, both from internal struggle (tyrannical government, criminals) and outside influence (invasions and wars).
The "Well-Regulated Militia" part is there because the anti federalists thought that the federal government would ban local militias, becoming increasingly tyrannical. This would fall into the either invasion or the tyrannical government category, depending on your worldview.

[joeldalton]

No. A well-regulated militia refers to the general public. As any group of citizens can be called up as a militia. “Well regulated” means well trained, and well equipped.

[Physics-Man]

The general public isn't generally well-trained, so how could the 2A apply to them?

[joeldalton]

You don’t have proof of that statement. And it’s moot. the SCOTUS has repeatedly ruled that the right to bear arms applies to everyone.

[Physics-Man]

Then how would the 2A apply to them if there isn't any way to know whether they're well-trained or not? There needs to be an indicator or proof that they're trained. So then, how do we now that the 2A applies to them if there isn't a way to show that they're trained?

I'm Pro-2A and a member of 5 Gun Rights Organizations, including the NRA, by the way.

[joeldalton]

You’re glossing over “well equipped”.

[Hispanic-Cool-Guy]

Purpose is to be able to defend yourself, family and property from potential danger or damage or theft.

Secondly, a militia is common citizens acting as a military.

[DaisyJones]

Yes, and part of that danger is our own government.

[maulstrum97]

Well-regulated meaning in working order, properly equiped and proficient. Militia refering to the citizens duty to come forth in defense of the nation.

[exitseven]

That is one militia group that the 2nd amendment refers to.

[Anonymous]

The purpose of the second amendment is to allow for a well regulated militia to be available for the defense of America.

[888theGreat]

It would be me and you and dog named boo and anyone else that had a gun that wanted to get their country back to being a Republic.

[anylolone]

Second amendment's point is exactly what gun nuts say it's.
How do we know this?
Private people owned fucking cannon galleons.

[princeofromance]

No, It is the furthest from the truth, Militia are people who will go to any lengths to push their agenda.

[DaveToo]

That IS the recognized well-regulated militia in this country.

[Anonymous]

It refers to every legal citizen like you or me