Deluxe Martial Arts Forums - View Single Post

Mike Brewer · 09-18-2005, 07:55 PM

Guys and Gals,

I have been having an ongoing debate with an anti-gun friend of mine. If we can overlook the fact that I keep company with someone so misguided for just a moment, I'd like to get some opinions on what our Forefathers meant when they wrote the 2nd amendment. For your convenience, here is that amendment:

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.

It's my position that having just fled an oppressive government which used its militia as a means of controlling the populace, our Founding Fathers likely had a strong distaste for the shock-troop philosophy of the British government at the time. However, they were smart enough to realize that they would need a standing Army if they were to keep the freedoms they fought so hard to win. Hence, the recognition in the 2nd amendment that a well regulated militia was indeed necessary to their security. However, there's a comma in the sentence that separates an idea - or clarifies it depending on your viewpoint.

The Founding Fathers of our country were forced to take up arms against the well regulated military of the British Crown. They were the people, and their arms were used for battle against the militia. So it stands to reason that a very plausible interpretation of the statement that is our 2nd Constitutional Amendment could be:

Because we need a well armed military to keep our citizens free, and because we never want that military to become a threat to its people, we will never allow the right of the people to keep their own weapons to be infringed.

In other words, because the military needs to be armed, so do the people.

What do you think?

09-18-2005, 07:55 PM	#1 (permalink)
Mike Brewer Moderate Moderator Join Date: Jan 2004 Posts: 8,324	Gun Control and the 2nd Amendment Guys and Gals, I have been having an ongoing debate with an anti-gun friend of mine. If we can overlook the fact that I keep company with someone so misguided for just a moment, I'd like to get some opinions on what our Forefathers meant when they wrote the 2nd amendment. For your convenience, here is that amendment: 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. It's my position that having just fled an oppressive government which used its militia as a means of controlling the populace, our Founding Fathers likely had a strong distaste for the shock-troop philosophy of the British government at the time. However, they were smart enough to realize that they would need a standing Army if they were to keep the freedoms they fought so hard to win. Hence, the recognition in the 2nd amendment that a well regulated militia was indeed necessary to their security. However, there's a comma in the sentence that separates an idea - or clarifies it depending on your viewpoint. The Founding Fathers of our country were forced to take up arms against the well regulated military of the British Crown. They were the people, and their arms were used for battle against the militia. So it stands to reason that a very plausible interpretation of the statement that is our 2nd Constitutional Amendment could be: Because we need a well armed military to keep our citizens free, and because we never want that military to become a threat to its people, we will never allow the right of the people to keep their own weapons to be infringed. In other words, because the military needs to be armed, so do the people. What do you think?