What Exactly Were Our Founding Fathers' Intention With The "Right To Bear Arms"???

Only for well regulated Militias of Individuals of the People who keep and bear Arms; simply because civil Persons who are specifically unconnected with well regulated militia service still have a natural right to acquire and possess forms of even controversial private property, which may include the class called Arms.

 

Agreed! But some people do need to carry where ever they go for various acceptable reasons.

Agreed!

We have passed the point of requiring an actual assault weapon. Semi-automatic rifles are acceptable. Full automatic is not.

Absolutely! I personally don't want to use a handgun but for some people it is the best to carry (with permit of course.) Semi-automatic shotguns are a great firearm for hunting and should be acceptable. I personally prefer either a double barrel, but since my shoulder replacement, have had to go to less recoil so I use a Browning Semi Auto 5 12 ga with a rifled barrel. BTW, semi auto and pump shotguns do have military purposes and are issued to some soldiers.

I spent 27 years on active duty and carried an M-1 rifle, an M-1 A-1 Carbine, an M-14, and M-16 and a 1911 45 semi-auto pistol from time to time in various assignments. The weapons the militia should have at their disposal should be all of the above except for full auto or burst fire selections.

 

I wish people would actually read the Constitution before talking about it. Everyone here is wrong. It clearly says that we have a right to armed bears. I imagine that everyone should be able to get a grizzly and stick a saddle on it and then put a could of turrets on the sides.

 

The 2nd Amendment guaruntees Americans the right to possess at home and bear during crisis/emergency, a standard issue american military firearm.

and that's it.

 

Supreme Court precedent has been used to prove your arguments false

- - - Updated - - -

Repeatedly proven false

 

They can be separate, and they are. The wording of the amendment is a list of rights given, much like the first amendment.

 

I would like to say 'thank you' for your service. Still don't know how a Browning Auto 5 is an improvement on recoil lol

 

No, they are also allowed firearms for hunting, sport shooting, competitions and household defense.

 

My favorite shotgun was a LeFever Nitro Express 12 gauge double barrel side by side. The short barrels were good for quail and squirrel or rabbit, and the long barrels good for geese, ducks and dove. Slugs could go from either set. But a double barrel is a solid breech gun, which means the total recoil is felt on the shoulder. The Browning auto-5 semi automatic recoil was most absorbed by the reloading function. After my shoulder replacement my Dr recommended I not shoot the double except on hunts on which I would shoot only 1 or 2 times. When hunting hogs one must be prepared to shoot, then be prepared to shoot again to stop the hog if he does not drop straight down.

 

It's VERY clear. The Right of "The People" (which is you, and me) to acquire, own, keep, and bear arms (weapons) shall NOT be infringed. It is an individual right, that confers on individual Citizens (again, you and me) the ABSOLUTE right, unimpeded by government regulation, to acquire, own, keep, and bear arms.

That right is subject to conditions. If you're a violent (*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*), with a violent past, BZZT. No go. If you're a psycho, who might snap at any moment, as documented by your medical history, BZZT. But if you don't fit those restrictions, as most don't... You are ENTITLED to acquire, own, keep, and bear firearms to protect yourself, others, and, should it ever become necessary, eliminate our existing government and establish another.

 

Ah, I see what you mean. I've shot a double barrel side by side that a buddy of mine had and i know what you mean! I do have to say good choice on the Browning, its a pretty nice shotgun and has a great history.

 

Yes, they are and that is given by the second and ninth amendment.

 

Nope; it only provides for well regulated militias of the United States to not be Infringed in the performance of their duty.

- - - Updated - - -

Rights in private property which are secured in State Constitutions do that.

 

what does "bear arms" mean?

does it mean take them with you to 7-11, Fairway, and Home Depot?

does it mean carry them on your person during times of emergency and crisis?

 

Is English your second language?

Yes.

Of course.

- - - Updated - - -

Is English your second language?

Yes.

Of course.

 

why do you ask?

 

yep..one never knows where evil shows up

 

Let's put it this way, only well regulated militias of the United States may keep and bear Arms while marching with the banner of their State or the Union.

 

Because you're asking me to explain a phrase the average second grader can understand without assistance.

 

It is found in State Constitutions regarding inalienable or indefeasible rights in property which may include the class called Arms.

- - - Updated - - -

The Only Thing that is very clear and therefor, non-ambiguious, is what is necessary to the security of a free State.

 

Yes but it also makes clear that the right of the people to keep and bear arms is also unambiguous. It is clear that the founders wanted the people to have arms for protection against tyranny, self defense and hunting are both covered in the second and ninth amendment in the Constitution as well as state constitutions.

 

What is Only clear, is that well regulated Militias of Indivuals of the People may not be Infringed in the keeping and bearing of Arms, for their State or the Union.

Rights in even controversial forms of private property are secured in State Constitutions with federal precedent in support.

 

Yes, the 2nd amendment is not ambiguous to anyone who can read and understand English. As the USSC said, there are two basic types of clauses, prefatory (statement of purpose) and the operative clause/s. prefatory clause does not limit or expand the scope of the operative clause.

1.Operative Clause a “Right of the People, ”The first salient feature of the operative clause is that it codifies a “right of the people.”

These excerpts from the actual text of the Heller v. District of Columbia with the page numbers where they can be found in the total text of the Court's decision, may help those who disagree why they are incorrect:

In interpreting this text, we are guided by the principle that “[t]he Constitution was written to be understood by the voters; its words and phrases were used in their normal and ordinary as distinguished from technical meaning.”

Held: 1. The Second Amendment protects 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. Pp. 2–53.

(a)The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms. Pp. 2–22.

(b)The prefatory clause comports with the Court’s interpretation of the operative clause. The “militia” comprised all males physically
capable of acting in concert for the common defense. The Anti-federalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in
order to disable this citizens’ militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress
power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, so that the ideal of a citizens’ militia would be preserved.
Pp. 22–28.

(c)The Court’s interpretation is confirmed by analogous arms-bearing rights in state constitutions that preceded and immediately
followed the Second Amendment. Pp. 28–30.

(d)The Second Amendment’s drafting history, while of dubious interpretive worth, reveals three state Second Amendment proposals
that unequivocally referred to an individual right to bear arms. Pp. 30–32.

(e)Interpretation of the Second Amendment by scholars, courts and legislators, from immediately after its ratification through the
late 19th century also supports the Court’s conclusion. Pp. 32–47.

(f)None of the Court’s precedents forecloses the Court's interpretation. Neither United States v. Cruikshank , 92 U. S. 542, 553, nor Presser v. Illinois , 116 U. S. 252, 264–265, refutes the individual-rights interpretation. United States v.Miller , 307 U. S. 174, does not limit the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes, but rather limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by the militia, i.e., those in common use for lawful purposes. Pp. 47–54.

The 2nd Amendment "Unambiguously refer to individual rights, not “collective” rights, or rights that may be exercised only through participation in some corporate body. (such as a militia)

Nowhere else in the Constitution does a “right” attributed to “the people” refer to anything other than an individual right.

Reading the Second Amendment as protecting only the right to “keep and bear Arms” in an organized militia therefore fits poorly with the operative clause’s description of the holder of that right as “the people."

The term was applied, then as now, to weapons that were not specifically designed for military use and were not employed in a military capacity. (Description of arms by the court)

Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment. (Justification by the court)

Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, e.g. , Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union , 521 U. S. 844,849 (1997), and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, e.g., Kyllo v. United States , 533 U. S. 27, 35–36 (2001), the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding. (The court threw out the frivolous idea that the 2nd Amendment did not apply to modern weapons.)

We turn to the phrases “keep arms” and “bear arms.” Johnson defined “keep” as, most relevantly, “[t]o retain; not to lose,” and “[t]o have in custody.” Johnson 1095. Webster defined it as “to hold; to retain in one’s power or possession.” No party has apprised us of an idiomatic meaning of “keep Arms.” Thus, the most natural reading of “keep Arms” in the Second Amendment is to have weapons. (Court defining what "Keep Arms" means to eliminate ambiguity of those who do not accept "Keep" as possess or have) Keep arms” was simply a common way of referring to possessing arms, for militiamen and everyone else.


In Muscarello v. United States , 524 U. S. 125 (199, in the course of analyzing the meaning of “carries a firearm” in a federal criminal statute, JUSTICE GINSBURG wrote that “urely a most familiar meaning is, as the Constitution’s Second Amendment . . . indicate: ‘wear, bear, or carry . . . upon the person or in the clothing or in a pocket, for the purpose . . . of being armed and ready for offensive or defensive action in a case of conflict with another person.’” Alhough the phrase implies that the carrying of the weapon is for the purpose of “offensive or defensive action,” it in no way connotes participation in a structured military organization.

The phrase “bear Arms” also had at the time of the founding an idiomatic meaning that was significantly different from its natural meaning: “to serve as a soldier, do military service, fight” or “to wage war.” (Court finding that to "bear arms" was separate from "the militia.")

Meaning of the Operative Clause: Putting all of these textual elements together, we find that they guarantee the individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation. This meaning is strongly confirmed by the historical background of the Second Amendment. We look to this because it has always been widely understood that the Second Amendment, like the First and Fourth Amendments, codified a preexisting right. (Certifying the INDIVIDUAL right without regard to any other purpose)


There seems to us (The court) no doubt, on the basis of both text and history, that the Second Amendment conferred an individual right to keep and bear arms. (Specifying that the 2nd Amendment was an individual right unrelated to any other purpose, such as Militia)

The prefatory clause reads: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State . ." (Introductory as opposed to operative) Finally, the adjective “well-regulated” implies nothing more than the imposition of proper discipline and training.

The phrase “security of a free state” meant “security of a free polity,” not security of each of the several States. (Court defines as "free country")

Relationship between Prefatory Clause and Operative Clause was debated with respect to the right to keep and bear arms, as with other guarantees in the Bill of Rights, was not over whether it was desirable (all [Founding Fathers] agreed that it was] but over whether it needed to be codified in the Constitution. (Court acknowledging that codifying the 2nd amendment would remove the ambiguity about the individual right)

It is therefore entirely sensible that the Second Amendment’s prefatory clause announces the purpose for which the right was codified: to prevent elimination of the militia. The prefatory clause does not suggest that preserving the militia was the only reason Americans valued the
ancient right; most undoubtedly thought it even more important for self-defense and hunting. (Court expanding the reason for codification and to remove the purpose of the 2nd Amendment to only be related to a militia.)

We therefore believe that the most likely reading of all four of these pre-Second Amendment state constitutional provisions is that they secured an individual right to bear arms for defensive purposes. (Reflects on the definition of "keep and bear" is also codified in State Constitutions as in the 2nd Amendment.)

The operative clause of the Second Amendment furthers the purpose announced in the prefatory clause, in continuity with the English right:

“The right of the whole people, old and young, men, women and boys, and not militia only, to keep and bear arms of every description, and not such merely as are used by the militia, shall not be infringed, curtailed, or broken in upon, in the smallest degree.​

​

 

Right! I went to the Heller decision and excerpted statements with the page numbers to read the complete text, and it very unambiguously proved that the USSC held that the militia was not relevant to the right of the individual to keep and bear arms and fully defined keep and bear as possess and carry. The actual text instead of just a summary, which says the same thing in other words.

But I will bet you money some ignorant individual will still make stupid claims that what it said was not what it said. It is strange our stupid some people can be.

 

How unfortunate that possess and carry are nowhere to be found as delegated to our federal Congress and reserved to the States or the People, as a result.