The Second Amendment | The National Constitution Center | US government and civics | Khan Academy

A deep dive into the Second Amendment, which states that "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." In this video, Kim Kutz Elliott discusses the Second Amendment with scholars Alan Gura and Adam Winkler.

To read more about the Second Amendment, visit the National Constitution Center’s Interactive Constitution. On this site, leading scholars interact and explore the Constitution and its history. For each provision of the Constitution, experts from different political perspectives coauthor interpretive explanations when they agree and write separately when their opinions diverge.

Khan Academy is a nonprofit organization with the mission of providing a free, world-class education for anyone, anywhere. We offer quizzes, questions, instructional videos, and articles on a range of academic subjects, including math, biology, chemistry, physics, history, economics, finance, grammar, preschool learning, and more. We provide teachers with tools and data so they can help their students develop the skills, habits, and mindsets for success in school and beyond. Khan Academy has been translated into dozens of languages, and 15 million people around the globe learn on Khan Academy every month. As a 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization, we would love your help! Donate or volunteer today!

[inspiredmore]

The 2nd ammendment neither establishes any state militia, nor authorizes its armament. It presumes a militia to exist, and recognizes that the people are its members.

[knightofthesun]

Winkler, the 2nd amendment is not about " The Wild Wild West ", it is about FREEDOM from Tyranny.

[zz]

Good job Khan Academy for talking to Alan Gura! Most MSM would rather get opinion on the 2nd Amendment from David Hogg or Dianne Feinstein than someone who actually knows what they are talking about.

[easternbmx]

Where in the constitution does it dictate what "reasonably traditional" weapons are?

[rodrigoteresa]

Thank God for a pretty objective and reasonable look at the amendment. I don't care what side you're on, this is a bit of a breath of fresh air.

[OMGitzBadCompany]

She does know she can, in fact, own a tank though right?

[CPLBSS]

The only problem that I have with Mr. Winkler's stance is that it's completely based on flawed logic from the Supreme Court. Defining "arms" as something common and used for 'legal' purposes is completely asinine and arbitrary. Arms are literally any weapon and it's ammunition. Just because we've allowed the government to trample and pervert words does not invalidate the origional intent. And yes, contrary to the typical ignorant rhetoric; an individual with enough cash and a clean background CAN purchase a fully functioning tank...

[AVR_]

At 13:30, the argument he makes is wrong. The second amendment is the ONLY Right where intentional wording is used that specifically prohibits infringement or restrictions . Yes limitations can be placed on free speech and certain modifications can be made to the other rights, but the right that is protected by the second amendment is specifically designed to prevent infringement. And the definition of infringement has not changed since 1791. Infringement means encroachment, limitation, restriction, revocation, or prohibition. The right to possess and carry firearms was intended to not have any restrictions placed on it. Because the founders knew that every restriction would be followed by more and more restriction. But since politicians and legislators are hell-bent on ignoring the 10th amendment and the second amendment, we have weapons restrictions of every kind.

[TheDrudd]

The spirit of the entire constitution is very simple and basic. Its all about balance. Balance in every way. Without balance you get tyranny and oppression

[thomasvbcotti]

Miller case it was found that the sawed off shotgun was illegal because it was a gun under the 1934 NFA act it was not a commonly used gun by the government. It had a two fold ruling, he needed a tax stamp to own that rifle, but the court found that whatever weapons the government possessed the people can own. To me that was a good thing. Funny he left that out.

[steveholman]

I was pleased to see that the Kahn Academy web site would post a video on the reasons for and the importance of our second amendment. Unfortunately, many educational institutions would argue against the meaning and/or the continuing need for it.

[subjectofgov]

There were gun control laws imposed in the "Wild West" which was in some towns rather than a state or area. That in no way means it was a legal law. Governments and powerful people have always imposed weapon bans on common people they wanted to control.
Look at todays laws against weapons in states like California, NY and others. Many of those laws are clearly infringements on peoples rights to arm themselves and the lawmakers who passed those laws knew they were conflicting with the Constitution, but they don't care. They pass them anyway.

[floraf]

The professor circles out the word "the"

me: great, middle school poetry interpretation class all over again

[williamcanady]

The meaning of well regulated in the late 1700s was fine tuned, or well trained like a well regulated watch. Not the same as say our use of the term federal regulation today.

[jeffing]

I wish the current debate surrounding gun control was being argued from reason on both sides.

[polalva]

We have the right to bear arms, by the constitution, so lets call out our congress and senators, why are they infringing on our constitution rights, no state should regulate our rights also, there is no clause in the constitution that a state has the right to infringing on our rights

[cobbetlprogrammer]

NOTE: Folks the 2nd Amendment is a TWO-PART Statement i.e; The first part "A well regulated Militia..etc.." Has Nothing to do with the Individual (who ONLY seeks to own Firearms). Check the MEANING of "Militia". It's used to Denote a Number of people greater than 2 or 3? Who organize together. So a "Well Regulated Militia" is Pulura (i.e, Organized Citizens'). But the second part says; "The Right of the "PEOPLE (which is "Singular or of an INDIVIDUAL) to keep and bear Arms...etc"
THUS, "I" the Individual Citizen, by choice can have No Involvement With the Statement "A Well Regulated Militia" When it's just me and my gun.for self defense.

[DaMainDiSh]

The 2nd amendment is just in case the 1st one doesn’t work out.

-Dave Chappelle

[austindboyd]

"...the right of the PEOPLE o keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

[GeoFry]

Did well right up until the militia being only the preview of only the state government. Any group of regular citizens may form one (unorganized militia). (It does not protect armed gangs and criminals.)