Can someone explain to me where the second amendment says people can own guns?

[Anonymous]

Can someone explain to me where the second amendment says people can own guns? I DO NOT want any modern day references - any one who does will be deleted & blocked.

I want it explained as per the EXACT amendment. I don't give a flying fuck about modern decisions & court cases. Because guess what, unless you're stupid, you'd realize don't apply.
.

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.
https://constitution.congress.gov/constitution/amendment-2/ .

The Second Amendment of the United States Constitution reads: "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."
Even if you wanted to argue individual right as some try - https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/second_amendment - the second amendment is very clear. It is ***only*** in the security of a free State. Nothing else. Your home isn't your state.

[Anonymous]

Right here:

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

This is about the dangers of standing armies / state controlled armies being a threat to the freedom of the people, hence there shall be no such armies allowed.

Any threat facing the States is to be dealt with by forming a militia.

Outside of war time 'the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed'

So it is perfectly clear that people are completely free to own guns and that the last thing that you ever be seeing in the US is the STATE disarming its citizens and having the most powerful army the world has ever seen.

So nice job, you completely fucked it up.

[Opinion Owner]

should ever be seeing*

[Asker]

@guffrus - as said in the literal sense of the word militia is the national guard, the reserves, deputized sheriffs, etc. No fuckards on the side of the street. Too bad loser. Come up with a better claim.

[Opinion Owner]

The entire fucking constituion is all about protecting peoples freedom and rights.

You seem to be under the impression that I have said that an ordinary person is a militia, I haven't said that at all.

The militia is about combatting large internal or external threats as an organised resistance is necessary to combat a large and organised threat.

Individuals are allowed to defend themselves against individual / small scale threats.

Even in the UK I am allowed to arm myself and first strike in defence of myself, someone else and even property.

Why do you think there are stand your ground laws etc? It is all to do with your right to defend yourself.

[Asker]

"The militia is about combatting large internal or external threats as an organised resistance is necessary to combat a large and organised threat."

No. That is nothing more than a lie bred by stupid people. No government would EVER allow its people to raise arms against it. No government. Ever. If a government did so... then the military has every right to coupe and kill civilians to protect that government.

[Asker]

"Even in the UK I am allowed to arm myself and first strike in defence of myself, someone else and even property." -

Uh-huh. Then explain, liar, liar pants on fire, why a gentleman who killed a tinker in the UK a few years ago was almost tossed into jail. When the person he killed assaulted him & was in his house? Hmmm... come on liar, liar pants on fire.

[Opinion Owner]

Where did you get this idea from?

No government would EVER allow its people to raise arms against it.

As I have said, the purpose of forming a militia is to combat internal or external threats (to the state / countries ability to ensure the peoples freedoms etc)

So if for example a religious group or criminal gang etc attempt to take over, it would be the militia who dealt with this threat.

Yes, the national guard is a militia. So the question becomes why do you have another full time army when you aren't supposed to have one due to the threat that it poses to the freedom of the people?

Regarding self defence in the UK; you are not allowed to use excessive force, so presumably the case you are refering to the court decided that excessive force had been used.

Though in fairness I dont personally have much faith that the law of the land is respected, but that does alter the fact that the law is as I have stated it.

[Opinion Owner]

does not alter*

[LikeALog]

The Second Amendment is part of the Bill of Rights. The
Bill of Rights does not grant Rights. The Bill of Rights limits the Government restrictions of those Rights.
The Second Amendment merely reinforces the Right from being infringed.

Here is part of the preamble to the Bill of Rights:
"THE Conventions of a number of the States having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best insure the beneficent ends of its institution."

Note that there was fear the Government would abuse its power so clauses were added to restrict the Government's power.

[Anonymous]

At least try to make a reasonable argument. And a consistent one.

Calling people who disagree with your interpretation stupid doesn’t really help your argument. Especially when you’re shitting on hundreds of years of legal precedent decided by people who spend their life studying the law.

But I know, they’re all stupid and you’re the reasonable one.

[Asker]

ROFL. That isn't my interpretation. THAT IS THE LITERAL 2ND AMENDMENT

[NamerOfStars]

Come on, now- ".. the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed". You quoted that YOURSELF. You may not agree with it, but the language is as plain as day.

[exitseven]

It is pretty self explanatory. To try and clear up your confusion, your home is part of your state so you are protecting your state when you protect your home.

[driven159]

it was more for protecting a younger country from outsiders and to make sure the government did go crazy thing against its own people but when you get lawyers and politicians get involved things get screwed up which they always do

[joeldalton]

Jesus. You are retarded. Me having a gun secures a free state. Tyrannical governments can’t override the rights of an armed populace.

[Asker]

And actually yeah they can. Are you so uneducated that you don't know of military coups in other countries? That is the legitimate militia mentioned in the 2nd amendment - not you loser civilians - and thus a MILITIA can take over the government if needed. Not you trash.

[joeldalton]

Anyone can be called up to a militia, moron.

[Anonymous]

"the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." Literally translated, don't fuck with people's right to own and carry guns.

[Cubus]

"The right of the people to keep and bear Arms" - here you are.

[anylolone]

Everywhere in it. Learn some reading comprehension.

[Snakeyes7]

The part where it says "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

[Sixgunsound]

Mostly the “people” part.

[demonics]

and the "arms" part... the "people" and the "arms" part.

[Sixgunsound]

@demonics fair enough

[MountAverage]

I don't even care, it's outdated.

[MrTaboo]

To bear arms, arms means weapons which are guns.

[MrTaboo]

And what rely on police for protection?

[Stephen_77]

Another retarded democrat

[Stephen_77]

Because trying to reason with democrats is like trying to reason with a mad box of frogs.

[demonics]

"Arms"