Second amendment, meaning of

What is the deal with Americans and their firearms? No wonder why there's so many crimes in the US.

Oh, and I think you have every right to keep a poleaxe at home.

Of course all americans should have guns, it's not like anyone ever shot their entire school, or killed 40 something people at a nightclub, i mean who tf wants to feel safe nahhh i like living in fear that a white crazy teenage boy will kill me while I'm having a math test, gives me a rush!
If you don't notice the sarcasm in what i just said, you might wanna go to the doctors.

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.

Plain and simple. Only those who would disarm the people can't seem to get it.

The people, that's American citizens, not the national guard, not the military. THE PEOPLE.

Why? To defend a "free State". NOT necessarily the United States of America, but freedom.

Think about it, our founders had just recently defeated their previous government - by force, with guns - to gain freedom. This ammendment guaratees us (the people) the ability to do the same, to organize a citizens army (militia), should it ever become necessary.

This ammendment is not about defending America from foreign adversaries. It is about defending our freedoms FROM the United States, or any other government that would threaten them.

Many in this country (USA) can't handle this, they would much rather have security than freedom.

Americans will NEVER surrender their arms.

I never really understood the second amendment - I thought it was something to do with the time when the constitution was written up fearing an invasion from the British invading to reclaim the colonies or the Spanish colonisers invading from the South.

Guns aren't going anywhere. No worries.

I think we need laws like that i mean criminals find ways of getting them anyway so this just assures the public can be evenly armed i mean the only reason criminals do suck things is because they usualy have the upper hand like having a gun but they wouldnt dare commit a crime against someone who is just as armed as them

The second amendment says "arms", not "firearms" At the time of its writing "arms" were muskets, sabres, poleaxes, lances, cannon and rifles. The second amendment was government on the cheap, an encouragement to the citizenry to keep their own weapons for national defense so the weak central government didn't have to supply them.

The naval equivalent was Article I, Section 8, Paragraph 11 "Letters of Marque and Reprisal", authorizing private ships to act on behalf of the government and attack and capture enemy vessels.

Neither of these encourgaements proved particularly successful. The Naval Act of 1794 was passed creating the U.S. Navy and authorizing construction of the first six frigates, including the USS Constitution.

The second amendment failed so miserably that in 1794 the new federal government decided to manufacture its own muskets and established the armory system, with the first armories built at Springfield, Mass, and Harpers Ferry, WV. Wise move on Washington’s (that’s George’s) part, since for the private citizen refused to keep guns at home--a musket was expensive, prone to rust very quickly, unreliable, and became a club after the first shot.

The current masturbatory frenzy that is attached to the second amendment only materialized about 50 years ago, sprouting from right wing fringe movements like the John Birch society and the KKK as well as general fear of communism. The insertion of the words "under god" in the pledge of allegiance in 1954 and "In God We Trust" in 1956 were outgrowths of these times.

A good guide to the original writers' intended meaning of the second amendment, in which the initial phrase "A well-regulated militia" is given both explanation and proper emphasis, can be found in United States v. Miller, 1939.

The Robert's court, with its bizarre opinion that the second amendment applied to keeping a machine gun in the home for self-protection, is absurd and clearly an activist court making law where none existed.

This grew out of the English Bill of Rights of 1689, which itself is often misquoted. Rather than the assumption of the "right" to bear arms, it's more about the rights of Protestants not to have their arms seized on the basis of their religion. Which I agree with. I don't believe people should be treated differently because of their religion.

However, there is a vast difference between "we won't treat you differently" and "everyone should have guns".

What is the purpose of a gun? To elevate a projectile to such a velocity that it can maim and kill. I think everyone would agree that's the only purpose of a gun. So the amendment becomes: Everyone should have the right to maim and kill.

This is in no way a criticism of America. It is a criticism of people in every country (and my own, more than most) who believe that because it is written, it is true.

What I write now is nuanced. What someone wrote three hundred years ago is so far beyond nuance as to require proper re-evaluation.

In short, think about things before you accept them as fact.

Americans are idiots, it should be.

Lol... Americans and their crazy rules.
Canada's better :3