Anonymous
Anonymous asked in Politics & GovernmentPolitics · 4 weeks ago

Wasn't the the 2nd amendment more about the right to form malitas rather than individual gun ownership?

Like muskets back then weren't really that dangerous by themselves so safety regulation or fear of misuse weren't really a big part of discussion. So the focus was more on peoples right to form malitas that are regulated by local governments 

74 Answers

Relevance
  • 4 weeks ago

    Militias are made up of individuals. And when the 2A was enshrined into our Bill of Rights muskets were military style rifles.

  • Anonymous
    4 weeks ago

    The word you're looking for is militia. Learn how to spell, you idiotic imbecile 

  • 4 weeks ago

    IF AND WHEN THE DEMOCRATS GET COMPLETE CONTROL OF THE WHITE HOUSE AND A LIBERAL MAJORITY ON THE SUPREME COURT, THEY WILL GET THE SUPREME COURT TO CHANGE THE MEANING OF THE 2ND AMENDMENT WHICH WILL ALLOW THE DEMOCRATS TO MAKE GUN OWNERSHIP ILLEGAL

  • 4 weeks ago

    Tell the thousands of people killed by musket fire that "muskets back then weren't really that dangerous by themselves".  Explain why the Second Amendment contains the phrase "right of the people" if "right of the militia" was intended.  read the extensive writings of our Founders on the subject.  The right to keep and bear arms, self defense, was considered an INDIVIDUAL right.

    "No freeman shall be debarred the use of arms..."  Thomas Jefferson

    "[T]he people are not to be disarmed of their weapons. They are left in full possession of them."  Zacharia Johnson

  • What do you think of the answers? You can sign in to give your opinion on the answer.
  • 4 weeks ago

    "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."

    Notice the comma after "State"? It means people have the right to keep and bear arms as well as having a well- regulated militia.

  • Anonymous
    4 weeks ago

    Yes of course it was about that. But the Supreme Court which has been stacked with Conservative justices like Scalia, etc,  has made sure the original intent was not honored

  • 4 weeks ago

    The Supreme Court ruled in  District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008) - that membership in a militia is not required to own a gun. 

    It said:  "The Second Amendment guarantees an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home."

    Remember, in 1789 we did not choose to have a standing army, so all able bodied citizens would form militias whenever an army was required.

  • 4 weeks ago

    "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 Second Amendment provided for two things: 1st, a well regulated militia was authorized to protect the new free state, and 2nd, the right of the citizens to keep, and the bear arms shall not be infringed. Both subjects were established due to the formidable influence of Great Britain in the Colonies. The militia could not be everywhere at all times, so the people were authorized to keep and bear arms to protect themselves, and their communities from outsiders, political opportunists, and thieves and robbers. A new country was a magnet for political take-overs, and for the more unsavory personalities of the criminal variety. The formation of an armed militia was not to be infringed, and the right of the people to keep and bear arms was also not to be infringed. 

    Source(s): The comma between "free State and "the right."
  • 4 weeks ago

    Nope.... the notion of "militias" as organized forces was covered in the Articles...

    The first 10 Amendments are collectively called the Bill of RIGHTS for a reason.....Why would the 2nd Amendment be part of it if it only had to do with State authority?

    Read this sentence:  "Robust commerce, being necessary for a thriving and sustainable economy, the right of the people to access roads and waterways shall not be infringed."

    Now, from a legal or grammatical perspective, would you say this sentence A) Says roads and waterways are for commercial use ONLY.... or B) Identifies a RIGHT and specifies why protecting that Right is in the national interest?

    One of the lasting images of the "Rodney King" Riots in Los Angeles was that of the Asian shopkeepers standing on their roofs or in front of their stores with rifles and hand guns.....and the stories of some shopkeepers sending armed family members to protects neighboring shops belonging to friends..... and how those shops were undamaged even as their streets burned.

    THAT was the essence of the "militia" in action in the context of the 2nd Amendment... armed citizens coming to the defense of their families, their homes and their properties even as the government-backed order crumbled around them.

  • Bill
    Lv 7
    4 weeks ago

    I wish anti-gun nuts would all buy guns and then shoot themselves in the head. Tell me though, why do you think peasants in the middle ages were disarmed by their government? 

Still have questions? Get answers by asking now.