How should we interpret the Second Amendment?

Follow us:

[drmartin]

Hmm, the Washington post telling me how I should interpret an amendment they don't believe in.

[RocketmanRockyMatrix]

The only gun control, that I believe in is myself controlling my own gun.

[roboman]

2nd amendment should cover all weapons just like it did when it was written, any attempt to limit or change it is an infringement of basic human rights to survival

[FoEDekker]

Two things, the militia was the people, and "well Regulated" meant "well outfitted" in the 1700s. A standing Army was actually seen as a threat to individual citizens liberties.

[Italianlad]

A well regulated militia goes to the people themselves. You can't have a militia without a strongly armed citizenry, and that's what regulated means in this context. What sense would regulate mean within the context of the Amendment, if it meant government regulation, when the statement ends with "shall not be infringed?" Who the hell honestly thinks "well regulated" means the government can decide what guns we can have when arms can be any weapon including guns, when the term is used to refer to the militia, and not actual weapons? People need to read the definition of regulate in a time period appropriate dictionary, like a Webster's 1828, it means to keep in good, working order, like regulating the time on an out-of-order wrist watch. The statement is a qualifier, I can tell my kids, "a well regulated bed time, being necessary for the body, the right to play the next day shall not be infringed." Doesn't mean if you don't go to bed, you can't play tomorrow, it means you won't want to do much, if you're tired. The implication is, there's always time to play, and time to sleep, same here the implication is, here's the reason for an armed citizenry, but not necessarily the only reason.

[JerichoGuzman]

Terribly biased explanation that ignores definitions in the Federalist Papers and downplays DC v Heller

[edwardnavoy]

The USA has more than enough gun-control laws. We actually need more proactive constitutional carry.

[gabrielschultz]

You know, you could just read the constitution. It kind of explains it pretty well.

[TheHarleywolf]

They forgot to mention the part of the Heller decision that said firearms in common use for lawful purposes could not be banned.

[mrdavis]

There is no interpretation. It means what it says.

[bleedingkansai]

James Madison wrote the amendment, and he was a federalist. The second amendment was simply guaranteeing to antifederalists that the right to keep and bear arms is protected, because in Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution it's discussed how the federal government ultimately controls militias- which are comprised of the people. The individual right to both keep and bear arms needed to be protected in writing, as a check to tyranny.

[oscareyes]

The Second Amendment does not protect our right to go hunting. The Second Amendment protects our right to defend ourselves.

[dbeard]

Load of bull crap. Read what the founders said about the 2nd amendment during ratification.

[russelljordan]

It's very easy to interpret the 2a. If you're an American citizen you have the right to buy any weapon from pistols on up to military grade. Simple as that. You interpret it exactly the way the founders had intended for it to be interpreted

[sparkyboi]

"Shall not be infringed" seems pretty clear to me

[kerryjones]

Hmm to defend against a tyrannical government. Nothing to do with hunting or self protection

[willmont]

The video is wrong when it says that the Supreme Court in 1939 recognized the 2nd as a collective right. It has always recognized it as an individual right.

[timothyevans]

The second amendment is clear. The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. By anyone. From government to property owners.

[chrisjoy]

The right to bear arms shall not be infringed

[dustinjasper]

We should interpret it how it is written literally