The constitution allows rights to gun ownership in the situation of preventing a coup or government takeover. It does not protect an individuals rights to gun ownership for the sake of gun ownership. It is an injustice to the constitution to clip the line to "A right to bear arms" as it misguides people into believing it means something it doesn’t. I dare you to read the constitution and prove this wrong.

"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."

How can "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms" be misunderstood.

 

5 Responses to “When will people learn the difference between a "well regulated militia" and individual gun rights?”

  1. Mr Placid says:

    Your assertion "The constitution allows rights to gun ownership in the situation of preventing a coup or government takeover" is nothing more than an opinion. It is meaningless unless you are appointed to wear a black robe and sit with Clarence Thomas, Sonia Sotomayor, Antonin Scalia, and the other six.
    References :

  2. mhp_wizo_93_418 says:

    In 2008 and 2010, the Supreme Court issued two Second Amendment decisions. In District of Columbia v. Heller (2008), the Court ruled that the Second Amendment protects an individual’s right to possess a firearm, unconnected to service in a militia and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Additionally, the Court enumerated several longstanding prohibitions and restrictions on firearms possession that it found were consistent with the Second Amendment. In McDonald v. Chicago (2010), the Court ruled that the Second Amendment limits state and local governmental authority to the same extent that it limits federal authority.

    The supreme court says you’re wrong. -… ….
    References :

  3. Vianna Lee says:

    The Supreme Court interprets the 2 amendment as individual rights. The Supreme Courts uses the documents that the framers had written to each other and outside people to decide what they had in mind.
    Obviously most people gained food by hunting, also outside and inside the cities there were many dangers and there was not a police force. People had to be able to feed themselves and protect themselves, their families and properties.
    The most important part that shows this is not a group (militia only) right is because all other parts
    of the Bill of Rights are INDIVIDUAL rights.
    References :

  4. George says:

    "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."

    How can "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms" be misunderstood.
    References :

  5. skypod says:

    "The right of citizens to bear arms is just one more guarantee against arbitrary government, one more safeguard against the tyranny which now appears remote in America, but which historically has proved to be always possible."–U.S. Vice-President Hubert Humphrey

    "The conclusion is thus inescapable that the history, concept, and wording of the Second Amendment… as well as its interpretation by every major commentator and court in the first half-century after its ratification, indicates that what is protected is an individual right of a private citizen to own and carry firearms in a peaceful manner."
    –U.S. Senate Subcommittee on the Constitution 1982

    "What the subcommittee on the Constitution uncovered was clear and long-lost proof that the Second Amendment… was intended as an individual right of the American citizen to keep and carry arms in a peaceful manner, for protection of himself, his family, and his freedoms."–U.S. Sen. Orrin Hatch, Senate Subcommittee on the Constitution 1982

    "The Second Amendment secures a right of individuals generally, not a right of states or a right restricted to persons serving in militias."–U.S. Department of Justice Office of Legal Counsel 12/17/04
    References :

Leave a Reply