The Second Amendment of the Bill of Rights | Simple Civics

Do you know the Second Amendment of the Bill of Rights?

Drafted on September 25th, 1789 the Bill of Rights was the start of America's commitment to continuously forming a "more perfect union". With these freedoms codified into law, the document helped win over states that were skeptical of having a federal government. Today the constitution is a living document that has evolved to benefit all Americans.

#SimpleCivics #Constitution #BillOfRights #Civics

[poltpickle]

There is no debate.

Shall not be infringed.

[syzygy]

A lot of people forget that when the 2nd amendment was written, private citizens owned gattling guns and war ships. The citizens were the militia, there was no standing army. People back then had much more destructive weapons than were allowed now.

[dillonharr]

No one's going to point out that's not how you load a black powder rifle?

[shadowsfall]

If only I could go back in time….I’d tell them boys that “shall not be infringed” apparently isn’t clear enough.

[mattmorris]

It is also to prevent a tyrannical government meaning we are to have no restrictions on what we can purchase.

[theodorefreeman]

"...security of a free state." Meaning the states had the power, not the federal government.

[jmds]

The Gatling gun came later, but you’re correct.

[FreedomFreys]

There is no debate, people trying to do so don’t understand language and intent. If you need further context on what our founders were saying there is plenty of other documents and writings to further define it for you.

[fredmercury]

At no point does it say the people with the guns must be part of a well regulated militia.

It says there should be a well-regulated militia.

It says the right of _the people_ to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

At no point does it say _the people_ must be _in a militia._

[dantheman]

No, wording is very clear not to be infringed.

[josephsmith]

The 10 amendment allow the state to make law that aren't already protected by constitution

[rmac]

The comma shows the separation of the two topics first A well regulated militia, second the Right of the people to Leep and Bear Arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED!

[charliem]

You have to read the comma to really get what it’s saying.

[samwayne]

when the 2nd amendment was written the average person wasnt being taxed out the ass with their wage, what they bought or parking

[sbkenn]

Amendments can be amended. This one should be.

[breakhart]

debated because its not black and white, so the question is always what it means by "well regulated militia"

[Mallysh]

I do not see that it is „well“ regulated when everybody can buy a gun without being mentally tested 😂

[auntypha]

the 2nd amendment makes no mention of a tyrannical government.
It mentions a well regulated militia - which is PART OF the state.
since the right to bear arms is within the same amendment and sentence as the stuff about the militia the amendment could be interpreted as the amendment ONLY protecting guns used by well regulated militias....

[Josh-]

The interpretation of being able to own firearms is very, very recently. The original interpretation did NOT allow for civilian firearm ownership; only that participation in a militia could not be denied (i.e. the citizens have the right to form a well-regulated militia). In almost every case, firearms were NOT stored in private homes but secured in armories.

Four times between 1876 and 1939, the U.S. Supreme Court declined to rule that the Second Amendment protected individual gun ownership outside the context of a militia. As the Tennessee Supreme Court put it in 1840, “A man in the pursuit of deer, elk, and buffaloes might carry his rifle every day for forty years, and yet it would never be said of him that he had borne arms; much less could it be said that a private citizen bears arms because he has a dirk or pistol concealed under his clothes, or a spear in a cane.”

This is the history of the interpretation of the 2nd Amendment. You are welcome to hold whatever opinion of firearm ownership that you wish, but do not tread upon historical fact for your own political agenda.

[JSpky-fxjm]

I think the keyword is "well regulated" people love to say "they're gonna take our guns away" but that's not what people are arguing for. Regulation does not constitute infringement. You have a right to own and drive a car but there are regulations in place for safety reasons. You have to have your car insured and you have to go through a process to obtain a license to drive your car. You can't just get a car and drive it around without a license or insurance. I think having similar regulations in place for the purchasing and ownership of firearms is both reasonable and constitutional