comment: >
  
  Grinz. Nods. Thanks for the clarification. I will admit to smacking them a bit hard. :-)
context: Can you help me understand the other amendments on which we Americans all agree? I am pretty certain that our legal scholars spend day on and day out struggling with the interpretation of the law. Not one point in the Constitution is above debate. It is why we have the processes and protections we have.
  This is one of the greatest benefits and challenges with the system we established and the process we have followed for 246 years, give or take. It isn't easy and it isn't convenient. It isn't pretty, and it definitely is subject to being unfair but it is our way. >
  
  The bill of rights is clear.  The difficulty is transferring broad freedoms to modern times.  
  After the revolutionary war, there were privately owned warships.  Which were the pinnacle of military technology at the time.  The second amendment has to be toned down from that level of freedom, as no one wants SpaceX to build ICBMs. >
  
  
  as no one wants SpaceX to build ICBMs.
  
  An ICBM is basically a lifting body with reentry capability. So yeah, we absolutely want SpaceX to build those - that's their entire purpose.
  The whole space race was basically the US and Soviets showing off rocketry capabilities because a warhead that doesn't go where you want isn't worth anything.
  Welcome to the world of dual-use technology and why economic sanctions and nonproliferation efforts are so complex. >
  
  I'm not trying to split hairs, I was trying to point out dual-use. We want SpaceX to build and operate lifting bodies that can reenter, which only really differ from ICBMs in the payload. If your point is that we don't want SpaceX to have nuclear warheads to put on top of its lifters, sure, but that's a control of the warheads, not the rockets.
  And yeah, a nuke is "valuable" in a money sense, but in the context of the Space Race/Cold War/MAD, a massively inaccurate delivery vehicle can't operate as an effective deterrent and so is largely strategically worthless. That's more what I was trying to get across. >
  
  This question assumes that US citizens agree on the other Amendments. 
  Just some examples:
  10th and 14th Amendment- Is it a state issue or is an individual right incorporated under the 14th Amendment
  9th Amendment- A massive legal mind field no judge has ever wanted to use to base a decision on.
  1st Amendment- Should this be covered under the first Amendment or is it obscene under the Miller test. >
  
  It's worth mentioning that the US isn't exactly free from discussions about the exact boundaries of what the -other- amendments mean. We have discussions about what kind of behavior qualify as speech, what kinds of regulations infringe on speech, what kind of regulations constitute infringement on freedom of religion, what kind of information gathering constitutes a search, what circumstances evidence is admissible if obtained without a warrant, what kind of regulations constitute a "taking" and thus entitle someone to compensation, exactly what kind of punishments are "cruel and unusual", exactly how lousy a lawyer can be without denying the accused the right to representation at trial... you name it, there's a fuzzy boundary somewhere. We even had a third amendment case not too long ago!
  The reason that the 2nd Amendment gets as much press as it does, leaving aside the fact that it's very different from how most governments see the issue, is that there was an extended period in the US in which -no- cases dealing with the constitutionality of weapons law reached the Supreme Court. Between a single case about sawed-off shotguns in the 1930s and the Heller decision, there was nothing; no decisions, no footnotes, no opinions, no dicta, no dissents. The court simply never picked up those cases to begin with.
  US jurisprudence changed immensely in that time period. There were a lot of fundamental changes about what kinds of laws that the government could enforce, or could not enforce. So a lot of the activity you're seeing now is the effect of the court saying "yeah, since we applied a lot of these legal principles everywhere else, we probably oughta apply them to the right to bear arms too, huh?" But a lot of those principles cut directly across the policy that some people want - if you want to ban guns, saying "yes, state and local governments are bound by the 2nd amendment just like they're bound by the other amendments" is a massive "screw you!" issued by an unfriendly court.
  That's really the source of the disagreement. A lot of people believe that you don't have a right to own and carry arms, no matter what the language in the 2nd Amendment says, in the same way a lot of people believed that it was perfectly rational to discriminate against blacks despite the language in the 14th. >
  
  Ironically, there were no 2nd Amendment cases because it was just accepted as obvious that the amendment only had to do with protecting state militias because those are literally the first words of Amendment. That sawed off shotgun case ruling you mentioned completely dismissed the idea the amendment had to do with anything other than a well regulated militia. It wasn't until 2008 that the court "discovered" the amendment actually protected an individual's right to weapons.
  That discovery was the culmination of a decades long propaganda campaign funded by the NRA and other right wing ideology factories (aka "think tanks"), themselves funded by gun manufacturers. They hired the best "Conservative" legal minds to effectively erase the whole "well regulated militia" stuff which might allow for laws that hurt the manufacturer's profit. This, combined with the paranoic and dystopian propaganda campaign designed to convince people that shadowy dark figures are coming for their guns and children, have been incredibly effective at changing the popular understanding of the amendment. >
  
  >That sawed off shotgun case ruling you mentioned completely dismissed the idea the amendment had to do with anything other than a well regulated militia.
  That's not true. It linked a sort of test to a regulated militia, but the Court in Miller did not wrestle with a collective right versus an individual right that the debate (now moot) about the Second Amendment centers on. >
  
  
  It linked a sort of test to a regulated militia
  
  The idea that the 2nd Amendment only applies to weapons that are related to a well regulated militia is the entire basis for the "collective right" argument. >
  
  > The idea that the 2nd Amendment only applies to weapons that are related to a well regulated militia is the entire basis for the "collective right" argument.
  Then it sounds like the collective right argument -- which is moot by now -- is on weak footing. 
  The test spits out an answer. Ok. But an answer for whom? An individual or an entire, collective militia? Miller doesn't wrestle with this at all. 
  Well, maybe implicitly. The defendant was an individual, not a collective militia or the defendant as a member of a collective militia. >
  
  
  The test spits out an answer. Ok. But an answer for whom? An individual or an entire, collective militia? Miller doesn't wrestle with this at all.  
  Well, maybe implicitly. The defendant was an individual, not a collective militia or the defendant as a member of a collective militia.
  
  Miller absolutely does wrestle with and answer the question: 
  "In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a 'shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length' at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument." 
  This is as clear an assertion that the right attaches to the weapon's relationship to the Militia rather than the individual as you will ever find. 
  You're right that it's no longer good law, but my point was that this was the only legal precedent regarding the 2nd Amendment until Supreme Court, parroting NRA talking points, "discovered" that the founders didn't really mean that well-regulated militia stuff after all. >
  
  >This is as clear an assertion that the right attaches to the weapon's relationship to the Militia rather than the individual as you will ever find.
  Conclusory. Typing this doesn't make it so. Like I said, the test is linked to a militia in Miller, but for whom is the answer?
  In your quoted language, it says "guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument." The right for whom?
  The Court does not explicitly say. But the defendant is an individual, not XYZ Militia.
  >until Supreme Court, parroting NRA talking points, "discovered" that the founders didn't really mean that well-regulated militia stuff after all.
  Maybe you don't like Scalia's Originalism, but I found his textual analysis sound. >
  
  
  Conclusory. Typing this doesn't make it so. Like I said, the test is linked to a militia in Miller, but for whom is the answer?  
  In your quoted language, it says "guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument." The right for whom?
  
  My brother, I'm not making some kind of deduction. Typing it does make it so when the answer is right there in the text. The right applies "to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia" as the court states unequivocally. 
  ​
  
  But the defendant is an individual, not XYZ Militia.
  
  Yes! Bingo! That's why the defendant LOST in Miller. You're answering your own questions at this point, but you need to at least bracket your pre-disposition towards the individual rights argument in order to comprehend what the court was doing here. >
  
  >The right applies "to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia" as the court states unequivocally.
  That's the "test", not whom it applies to. 
  >That's why the defendant LOST in Miller.
  The defendant lost because that person was an individual? That's pretty novel, and the Court does not say that...
  If the Court in Miller so clearly elucidated a collective right for a militia, it's awfully cagey and arcane about it. >
  
  I would say that's not true, just for example the first amendment, in Texas a citizen journalist was arrested for asking a police officer information, and then publishing that information.
  Many states have laws that ban state government agencies from hiring, contracting or entering into deals with businesses that boycott Israel.
  The U.S. Senate even considered a bill that would've made it a crime to boycott Israel or settlements in the occupied territories. >
  
  
  Many states have laws that ban state government agencies from hiring, contracting or entering into deals with businesses that boycott Israel.
  
  That's not a First Amendment issue. It would be to ban state government agencies from entering into deals with people just for advocating for a boycott though.
  But, business practices themselves are not protected speech.
  The government can say contractors can't hire marijuana users, but have to be mum on employees that advocate for legalization. >
  
  The 2nd amendment was written in 1789 and ratified in 1791. It was not properly debated with the rest of the Constitution during the 1787 convention. 
  It is worth noting that the only military that was under command of the US government was the 1st regiment, which comprised of less than 400 regular soldiers in 1791. They routinely got assistance from local militias, which would make up the bulk of the troops.
  After multiple failed campaigns from 1787-1791, Congress voted to approve a larger, formal standing army for the defense of the country. So at the time of writing and ratification, it was heavily understood and even hoped that regular citizens would arm themselves for purposes of serving in a militia to buttress a weak central army.
  That is obviously no longer the case, as the US military is the most powerful military force in human history. Had Congress approved a stronger standing army before the adoption of the 2nd amendment, it is entirely possible it was not only not ratified but never even suggested in the first place. >
  
  Gotta disagree.
  For two reasons.
  First, southern states wanted to be able to form up militias to suppress slave revolts without asking permission from the government.
  Second, the frontier settlers wanted to be able to defend themselves against attacks by Indians without first asking permission from the government. 
  I would argue that the Second Amendment should be repealed and replaced with a reasonable right to defend yourself and your home, and to hunt. >
  
  Gun ownership assures us of our freedom from tyranny. One of the first measures enacted by tyrannical regimes e.g the Nazis was to ban private ownership of weapons  this keeps tyranny in check. Do you think that Nazi Germany declined to invade Switzerland because it was neutral, I have some news for you, Germany invaded more than one neutral country, but the swiss had a more difficult terrain combined with the fact that people have guns in their homes as a policy. Freedom ain't free. Governments must be kept in check by the people. Why is it that everyone trusts the government only untill the other guy wins. If you are against gun ownership for people, go buy a gun >
  
  Crazy you think people with guns stand much of a chance against modern military.  It's also nuts that the right wing that is so 2a crazy also supports the most authoritarian politicians.  What a suprise it can be when one of them gains too much power and decides the guns are now a threat to them.  Just like history. >
  
  Ever heard of Vietnam? >
  
  Not at all what we're talking about .  That was us against a military backed by the Chinese and Russia. >
  
  Compared to the US military, it should’ve been an easy win on paper. >
  
  Again, not at all the same as a bunch of guys with hunting rifles. >
  
  Do they have hunting rifles or “weapons of war.”  I’m confused. >
  
  How many in the US have weapons of war other then the military?  Drones are the game changer.  Combine them with NSA sophistication, and there won't be a lot of hiding places against the government if they mean business. >
  
  People seem to not realize that they meant "well regulated" in the sense that the militia would be able to be in effective shape to fight when needed.
  Basically this translates to sating "citizens should be capable of owning the same equipment as the nations military and be able to use it effectively when needed"
  Alot of people also don't realize that they may not be in the military but if they are able to fight they are considered to fall in what is called the "unorganized militia"
  These two things being forgotten or ignored are the reason people keep disagree on the 2nd amendment. They don't understand what it means in the eyes of our founding fathers, and they don't understand where they fully stand in this nation when it comes to these definitions.
  Long story short: People disagree because they put very little time and energy into thoughts that spew out their mouth. >
  
  Isn't it funny how people don't seem to know and understand that able bodied men from 18-45 are in fact members of an unorganized militia by US Code and can be pressed into service. >
  
  Because gun control has always been about disarming perceived political enemies.
  That goes back to the original gun control laws limiting African Americans.   And that continues today.  Handguns are literally upwards of 90 percent of gun crime.  Yet political gun control debates are about rifles.  Because even in progressive constituencies handguns are popular. >
  
  Black people were not political enemies. Gun control legislation designed and implemented with the intent of limiting gun control by black people had nothing to do with their political power, because they had very little in some parts of the country, and zero political power in most of the country. 
  It was about racism, and the fear that black people would turn around and treat white people the way white people treated black people for centuries. Racism and fear-mongering, pure and simple. >
  
  That's the definition of political enemies. >
  
  How? Black people were not enemies of white people, and the issue had nothing to do with politics. The only way what I described could be the definition of “political enemies” is if we forget the meaning of both of those words and ascribe an entirely new definition when the two words are put together. >
  
  The Bill of Rights are restrictions on government, not a list of permissions for the government.
  You have to view the 2nd through that lens.
  If you really think the founders didn't believe in individual right to own firearms, it should be easy to produce their discussions on disarming the US population at the time. What you will find is the exact opposite. >
  
  
  Why cant Americans seem to agree on what the 2nd Amendment says
  
  Because we can't repeal it. Getting the congressional majority required to repeal the second amendment is basically impossible in our current government system and distribution of beliefs. You would need 2/3 of congress to agree to get rid of it. That's an impossible ask.
  So because we can't REPEAL it... we have to live under it. That means that progressives will lobby for regulation like national registration, background checks, taking guns from criminals and abusers, and up to outright bans on certain types of firearms or just banning firearms.
  The only way for such policies to work, is if we INTERPRET the 2nd amendment to mean that "firearm ownership can be regulated". The progressives stick to terms like, "well regulated militia" and various other limits put on things like "free speech"/etc.
  The conservatives, cling to the "shall not be infringed" and then we all meet in the middle to call each other names.
  
  Laws are interpreted. If they were objective and ontological.. we'd have computers handling court cases instead of judges. >
  
  The issue is that changing amendments to the constitution is prohibitively difficult.
  Those who think it is bad for citizens to have guns just *happen* to think that the 2nd amendment is about state armies.
  And those who think it is good for citizens to have guns just *happen* to think that the 2nd amendment is about citizen rights.
  The fact that there aren't many people who are inconsistent with those above statements shows that disagreeing about the definition is a proxy fight to alter the amendment outside of the established and prohibitive process defined in the constitution. >
  
  SCOTUS Justice Berger: "The gun lobby's interpretation of the Second Amendment is one of the greatest pieces of fraud, I repeat the word fraud, on the American people by special interest groups that I have ever seen in my lifetime." Source. >
  
  Constitution: the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. I dunno how much more clear it needs to be. If " the people" are the ones who form the militia. Also the founders were very clear and forward with the threat of government overreach and becoming tyrants hence the, That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,-That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it. And how would they do that? With guns. You don't think a tyrannical government is just going to say you know what your right we will just step down.  You won't ever get our guns. Ever. >
  
  They meant for everyone to have muskets cause bears and wolves and shit. It's debatable what they would've said with the available information of our time but to assume that you know they would have stood by 2A is bullshit...that they would stand by their wording of the second amendment even in the situation where firearms have become the leading cause of death for our children. There are 120 guns for every 100 people in America, all of them more powerful than they could imagine at the time. I'm not in favor of taking them away from lawful owners, but a semantic defense of the wording starts to seem pretty lame when our kids are scared they'll be shot for going to school and both the data and the events they represent prove that they should be. Nope, gotta go by the words people said 200 years ago! Well, we already regulate plenty of guns away from private citizens and we might decide to do AR's again, we will just have to see. 
  From the article, emphasis mine:
  "The previous analysis, which examined data through 2016, showed that firearm-related injuries were second only to motor vehicle crashes (both traffic-related and nontraffic-related) as the leading cause of death among children and adolescents, defined as persons 1 to 19 years of age. Since 2016, that gap has narrowed, and in 2020, firearm-related injuries became the leading cause of death in that age group (Figure 1). From 2019 to 2020, the relative increase in the rate of firearm-related deaths of all types (suicide, homicide, unintentional, and undetermined) among children and adolescents was 29.5% — more than twice as high as the relative increase in the general population. The increase was seen across most demographic characteristics and types of firearm-related death." >
  
  So the article is about children not adults so its inaccurate in the way you try to bunch adults and children together, heart disease and diseases are the leading cause of deaths, also the article was commissioned and written by anti gun lobby and their doctors just research the doctors political affiliations and you'll see. Regardless your opinion that the 2nd amendment is debatable is factually incorrect it's literally written on plain as day, subjective interpretation and word play changing definitions and all the other nonsense people try to do is imo treason its written very clearly and obfuscation of simple words is just a tactic. And so important the founders made it the second thing they wrote why not the second to last or last of they weren't sure because they knew it was important for citizens to defend themselves especially from government. Your argument doesn't make sense because it was the second thing they wrote so be sure they would stick to it today. The wording is clear it's you that want to change the meaning becuase your political bias.  Also since cars are were the leading cause according to your political buddies article should we ban cars?? >
  
  Coke can Thomas says that Anita Hill is a liar and the first clause doesn't matter. >
  
  Because it’s super vague. The second amendment is the only one where the thing that everybody claims it guarantees, isn’t specifically mentioned. The word “gun” or “rifle” or “pistol” or “body armor” etc does not specifically appear anywhere in the constitution but it’s all accepted as a “right”.
  Also because guns are retail product and recreational hobby, so it’s a bizarre sell to say this sporting good toy is at the same level as voting, free speech discrimination, slavery etc. can’t think of any other “right” that’s a retail product and subject to the whims of supply and demand, capitalism etc >
  
  Glad you asked.
  During the revolution, private militias formed to fight. The continental army was maybe 20% of everyone. After the war, the articles of confederation stipulated each state had to maintain a “well maintained militia”. Sounds familiar. This was seen as democratic and decentralized. It had seemed to Americans that militias won the war.
  When the British invaded in 1812 the militias fled in fear at their technology, firepower and expertise. After that, debates began into forming a professional standing army. A few decades after that, our new army invaded Mexico and bombarded Mexico City for 3 months.
  As a frontier nation, safety and security rested in guns. This was part of the American way of life. After the founding of the states guard (national guard) the need for an armed population was unnecessary.
  The 2nd amendment was for a citizen army. Which failed. The 2nd Amendment is unnecessary with both a federal army and national guard. Unless you sell guns. >
  
  The federal and national guard is not of the people, while it is made up of the citizens of the country the government controls them and they only answer to the government, what happens when the government goes rogue and tyrannical? That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,-That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it. And for that we need guns to remind politicians. Guess you forgot that governments can become tyrannical? >
  
  Because it's actually a fairly broad statement.
  Most of the amendments are fairly broad on their face and that was deliberate. The goal was to further refine things via the courts as time went on.
  If you take something as basic as the freedom of speech, what does that actually mean in a practical sense?
  Ok, so the government can't interfere with your ability to say what you want to say. Does that mean you can make terroristic threats? Per a strict reading of the first amendment, you should be able to do that without punishment. That clearly has some troubling implications so we add an asterisk to the end of the statement.
  What exactly that exception covers is a huge source of discussion and debate. Extend that to most of the amendments. The second is no different.
  It's a bunch of people trying to agree on what a vague statement means and that's never going to be clean. Especially when that statement has a metric ton of political and social baggage on it. >
  
  It is a matter of perspective. I for one, consider myself to be in the camp of those that hold that all Americans ought to be able to possess a firearm. The purpose being to serve as a militia as stated. 
  I am in favor of a rather "open" interpretation which would allow for hunting and sports shooting. 
  The issue for me then lies in the phrase "well regulated". 
  I feel that the founders must have thought that adding this "well regulated" language would surely be thought of as encompassing and guiding all future matters in which common sense must be relied upon.
  p
  "Well Regulated" empowers the government, be it State of Federal authorities to limit and curtail as required. 
  "Well Regulated" clearly places the final say not in the hands of the people, but in the hands of the prevailing authorities. 
  "Well Regulated" clearly implies there should be made certain laws that serve to qualify as well as exclude certain citizens, should they be found incapable of ably following the "common sense" expectations of such a profoundly powerful entitlement. 
  "Well Regulated" most definitely means that should certain weapons or weapons related activities emerge, which posed a greater danger to the people of any militia, sporting activity or activities for the purposes of sustenance, rather than serving as a benefit, would be REGULATED, so as to neutralize any negative effects.
  Therefore, while a stauch Right To Bear Arms advocate, I am also a person that believes that assault rifles,  having emerged some time after the founding fathers time, must fall under appropriate regulation, especially given what must now be deemed our apparent inability to control random acts of violence against our own citizens. 
  Note: I said regulate them, not ban them. 
  This should fall under the same mechanism that dictates proper licensing. 
  Ultra 2A people: Please remember that the constitution is very clear. We may again see the days when you are "mustered" by your state for militia duty, but in any event the Federal Government has been given the job of regulating you well! >
  
  Regulated in the parlance of the Founding Fathers meant in working order not restriction through extra judicial federal regulations. >
  
  Keep in mind that in the 1700s it wasn't unreasonable for a nation to not have a standing army if it was not planning on going to war; if a king needed soldiers on short notice, he'd start conscripting peasants and hiring mercenaries. Armies are expensive and having them stand around doing nothing useful was a luxury.
  In the present day, things are different. Our modern technology allows us to keep soldiers around without going bankrupt, and the threat of military force is used far more than actual military force (see: mutually assured destruction). 
  Following this principle would be akin to bringing back cavalry charges and the musket line: a great way to weaken our nation and her power and influence for no gain. >
  
  You missed the point.  It is very clear in the state constitution that you have a right to protect yourself.  Boom.  Done.  The mention of the "need for a militia" in the US Constitution is the cause for ambiguity in the amendment discussion.
  I just pointed out that the state constitution is clear that there IS NO NEED for an army, unless there is war.  And, that nowadays, we DO keep that army.
  Your comment: Modern technology allows us to keep soldiers around without going bankrupt?  NO.  Money - $$$ - keeps them around......your and my TAXES pay for that.  And as for the bankruptcy, we already are bankrupt, but just do not know it. That $30 trillion debt.........is a clear signal of that. >
  
  A $30 trillion debt that does not affect us negatively in the slightest, despite what the fearmongers on the right tell you whenever they're not in office.
  If you're seriously arguing that we should not have a standing army in this day and age because of the opinion of some people 250 years ago, I cannot take you seriously.
  And because reality has shifted on whether or not it is appropriate for a nation-state to keep a standing army, who's to say that the notion of individual firearm ownership also has not changed? Both are based on documents written a long time ago that were meant to be updated as times changed. >
  
  OK.  We are done here.  
  " Why can't Americans agree on the 2nd amendment "  That was the question. >
  
  Because some people are debating honestly, and others are debating unfounded talking points. 
  Some people will tell you what the 2nd Amendment says, and others will tell you what they want it to say. 
  It is pretty simply, there is a WHY and a WHAT. 
  Why -
  A well-ordered Citizen Army is necessary to the Security of a Free People...
  What -
  To preserve the right to form Citizens Armies, the Right of the People to keep and bear Arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED. 
  Some will claim that this was intended specifically for the Militia. If that were true, then why doesn't specifically say Militia. It doesn't, it say the Right of the PEOPLE to keep and bare Arm. 
  Some will say is specifically uses the word - Regulated - but, this is very easy to look up, in the common use of the time - Well Regulated - means well-ordered and operating properly and in a well regulated Clock. 
  Some will say that - well regulated - is related to the Militia. That is, they can't regulate Arms but the can regulate the Militia. But it still doesn't say that, and that is interpreted OUT OF Historical Context. 
  Some will say this only applies to Muskets, and if that was the weapon of the day, then way didn't they specifically say Muskets? In fact it doesn't even say Rifles or Guns, it specifically uses the much broader and more inclusive work - ARMS meaning Armaments. Arms is open ended, it can mean Cannons and Artillery.  
  And, if we look at the historical context, they had just fought a war against people who tried to make the citizens powerless and under Britain's Thumb, among those oppression was to suppression of Gun Rights in a society that was primarily wilderness. 
  And if you are going to limit citizens to Muskets, are you also going to limit the Police to the same Muskets, and if not, why not? 
  You have to understand that Anti-Gun Politicians are not trying to protect you, Politicians and Oligarchs are trying to protect themselves and their own corruption. 
  If you can see the Govt moving toward Fascism, they you are Blinded.
  Early Warning Signs of FASCISM -
  
  Powerful and Continuing Nationalism
  Disdain for Human Rights
  Identification of Enemies as a Unifying Cause
  Supremacy of the Military
  Rampant Sexism
  Control of Mass Media
  Obsession with National Security
  Religion and Government Intertwined
  Corporate Power Protected
  Labor Power Suppressed
  Disdain for Intellectuals and the Arts
  Obsession with Crime and Punishment
  Rampant Cronyism and Corruption
  Fraudulent Elections
  
  That is the Blue Print for modern American Politics. >
  
  It very obviously specifically protects the rights of individuals to have firearms but there is political interest in removing these rights from individuals and because of this there is incentive to interpret this amendment differently. >
  
  The warping of 2A to being a god given right started in the 70’s-80’s. Up until then the NRA was a relatively benign but large group of hunters and sports shooters. The attitude shift came in response to the civil rights movement and possibly the violence and unrest of the 60’s. The current 2A insanity is firmly driven by the same root cause of all the other current right-wing, Fox News, Republican, MAGA talking points… racism and white grievance. Think about how much of the Constitution the Republicans have taken major shits on lately: the right to vote, fair elections, free speech, freedom of the press, the right to privacy (Roe v Wade), the peaceful transfer of power.
  It’s not just the 2A that is now contentious. The American right is pretty much throwing out the whole damn Constitution. >
  
  (Disclaimer - I'm a pro-gun-rights person, so all this is from that perspective, but I try to be openminded.)
  That's kind of a revisionist take. If you look at things like the argument in Dred Scott that listed the right to keep and bear arms right alongside other rights like freedom of travel without being unjustly hassled by law enforcement, holding political meetings, or even have public speech rights; and the Federalist and Anti-Federalist papers that talk about the intent of the 2A being that the citizenry should have weapons; then a clearer picture of what it was supposed to be emerges.
  The problem is that there are really three major camps in the debate: 1 - having weapons isn't a right anybody should just have but they should have to justify themselves to the government, 2 - having weapons is a right that some people should have and others shouldn't (generally along racial lines, but also look at things like exemptions to ownership and carry laws for law enforcement, even off duty or after retirement), and 3 - having weapons is a right that everybody should have.
  Unfortunately, for a large portion of American history, the dominant view has been 2. Permit-to-purchase systems, "may-issue" licensing, "Saturday night special" laws (or the modern incarnation, the "safe handgun" roster), California's Mulford Act... Most "gun control" started as either racially biased in intent, or abuse of discretion to have racial biases in action. Modern laws tend to be more class based - if you can't buy a cheap handgun, and have to pay an extra tax for the gun and ammo for an expensive gun, and have to buy a safe even if you live alone, and have to have expensive state-sponsored training before you can buy it... It all stacks up.
  But now you've got an area of law where 2 isn't really tenable anymore. Which means either everybody has the right to a weapon or nobody does. So the courts start coming down in favor of what the amendment says - you've got a right to own arms. But the people who a)don't want anybody to have guns, or b)don't want some people to have guns don't like that. It upends not only their preferred policy, but in some cases their very worldview - yes, black people and brown people and gay people and trans people and poor people are PEOPLE and have the exact same damn rights as everybody else.
  And the people who are just concerned about public safety effectively become pawns in this overall policy debate. "Your kids are in danger of being massacred in school!" They hear. Well shit, who doesn't want to protect kids? "Banning guns (or XYZ guns) is the way to keep kids safe!" You see how that's a powerful emotional argument. Self defense becomes another emotional argument, whether it's "from the wrong sorts of people" guys or the "to fight government tyranny" folks or the "armed gays don't get bashed" from the Pink Pistols LGBT+ group.
  So it's controversial because there's a lot going on socially, and the previous "mainstream" position isn't really supported by law anymore. >
  
  Isnt there a bigger option - there is some limited right to own guns outside the concept of a militia but subject to reasonable restrictions. 
  That actually is probably the most widely supported view politically .. >
  
  I mean, like I said people want 2 but that's not really supported by the actual law. Unless you mean "reasonable restrictions" to be "what kind of gun" laws, in which case I'd say it still doesn't match the law because the Founders not only expected but encouraged people to own and operate ships armed with cannons to bolster the Navy through privateering warrants, and privately owned land artillery that could be used when militias were called up was a thing (although prior to the Revolution the land militia officers sometimes had some kind of charter to purchase their cannon from Royal foundries to ensure quality control of their guns' manufacture so that gets a little more muddied). >
  
  The private navy argument is a bold take.  So private companies should be able to have nukes, just in case they are needed to assist in war?  Or do you agree there is a line where some weapons of certain types are reserved for Publicly run militias only and not for private use?
  If you agree there is a line that nukes fall on the far side of, what metric are you using to draw that line? >
  
  Bluntly? My conceptual line is war crimes. If it's "illegal" for a government to use something, it should be illegal for private citizens to do it, too.
  As far as "private navy" being a bold take, it's documented historical fact. The Constitution provides for letters of marque, the US refused to sign the Paris treaty outlawing privateering because of our defense strategy at the time, and militia artillery companies existed.
  That being said, do I think in an ideal world that the 2A should be rewritten and clarified? Sure. Do I trust anybody to do it? Absolutely not. But I think the bare minimum of what "ought to be allowed" is anything that either the National Guard or a civilian police force operates ought to be on the table for private citizenship ownership and use, and that's quite a bit more than what we have now. I'm fine at a conceptual level with CBRN being off the table for private operation (though nukes get weird because of the way private contractors build and maintain the US nuclear arsenal). >
  
  Didn’t the individual states also pass slightly different wordings of the amendment, as well? I seem to remember something about missing commas, which can change the meaning. 
  Also, it’s possible that the ambiguous meaning was seen as a feature and not a bug. >
  
  States didn’t get to ratify different versions. The only one that matters is the official one listed on the Constitution by the Constitutional Convention. >
  
  I think op means that many/most states had the equivalent of the 2nd amendment in their own state constitutions.  
  Also, until the whole of the federal constitution was enforced against the individual states via the 14th amendment, the constitution was only a check on federal power.  States were free to do as they wished and the feds had little authority to change that. >
  
  
  Also, until the whole of the federal constitution was enforced against the individual states via the 14th amendment, the constitution was only a check on federal power. States were free to do as they wished and the feds had little authority to change that.  
  
  That has no relevance to my point, which was that when ratifying proposed amendments states do not get to unilaterally reword or otherwise alter them. >
  
  38% of the US think that it only contains 14 words. That is the root of the problem. 
  No amendment can be understood by selectively removing clauses to support your political beliefs. >
  
  Don't pretend a portion of society doesn't also stop at "militia" and ignore "the right of the people." >
  
  I think it's a small amount of people who actually think people don't have a right to own any gun under the 2nd amendment.
  The first part of the amendment is its purpose. The second is what it does. The intent of any law is extremely important because it can give insight into limits of the law. 
  In the 2nd amendments case since the laws stated purpose is for there to be a well regulated militia. Any gun ownership outside this context isn't necessarily protected under the 2nd amendment. >
  
  Because some people really really really want it to say something other than what it says and they think they'll have an easier time convincing everyone it doesn't say what it says than getting it changed. >
  
  As an American, I can confirm what the rest of the folks in this discussion are saying: we don't really agree on the other Amendments either.  2A is just a recurring issue because we have so many mass shootings that Republicans are ok to ignore. >
  
  Yeh, and the other thing we don't really agree on - the definition of mass shootings - just so the American media and anti-gun-rights advocates can say things like we have so many mass shootings that Republicans are ok to ignore. At this point every gang shooting is a mass shooting. >
  
  U.S Congress has consistently defined a mass shooting as a shooting event with 3 or more victims. >
  
  The US Congress has said a lot of things - often with great inaccuracy >
  
  Ok, let's see your definition signed into law as a counterargument then. >
  
  
  Ok, let's see your definition signed into law as a counterargument then.
  
  There is no definition signed into law. People in multiple government agencies, mainstream media, and sundry lobbyist organizations disagree about what constitutes a mass shooting. Your own link states the same.
  
  There is no universal definition of mass violence crimes, mass murders or mass killings. Many different definitions are used by researchers, criminal justice experts, and public policy bodies. Some definitions focus solely on the number of deaths, but others count crimes in which there are few deaths but many injuries. Some definitions focus on the method used to kill and injure (e.g. firearms only) and others include crimes committed with any weapon. Some definitions focus on the perceived motive of the perpetrator (e.g. hate, terrorism, or a desire to kill strangers) or who was attacked (and do not count mass casualty crimes as mass violence if the perpetrator’s motive was to kill family members or rival gang members). Some definitions are designed to establish eligibility requirements to receive federal assistance after mass violence crimes.
  
  Obviously the people who hate gun rights prefer the definition that requires the lowest possible standard to qualify as a mass shooting. >
  
  The definition I linked is from the Investigative Assistance for Violent Crime Act of 2012; Public Law 112-265, 126 STAT. 2435.
  So it is actually a law. Sorry you're wrong. >
  
  Didn't Republicans have complete control of Congress at that point, also?
  So it's not even a law Democrats made or pushed. >
  
  The 2nd amendment was never "a problem" until uppity blacks started to exercise their constitutional right and defend themselves against governmental violence perpetrated aka cops. 
  Remember, the biggest supporter of gun control was Regan in California. 
  Now history repeats itself where the government apparatus and the media conspire to keep the people disarmed and servile 
  
  “Under no pretext should arms and ammunition be surrendered; any attempt to disarm the workers must be frustrated, by force if necessary. The destruction of the bourgeois democrats’ influence over the workers, and the enforcement of conditions which will compromise the rule of bourgeois democracy, which is for the moment inevitable, and make it as difficult as possible >
  
  Who specifically, in 2023, is being conspired against to be disarmed and servile? >
  
  As a gun owner and supporter of the 2A individual right to own a gun, I have never liked the way the Founders wrote the amendment. The preamble about "a well regulated militia" to some means the Founders meant to restrict gun ownership to just that purpose. That's false, of course. The Constitution was written at a time where hunting for food, and self-defense against indian attacks and road robberies were essential. 
  But my question remains, WHY did they phrase it that way? Why bother adding that preamble if private gun ownership and use was so common? I think that question has led to a lot of debate.
  Also, note that the First Amendment starts "Congress shall make no law..." while the Second Amerndment is more sweeping: "...shall not be infringed." That points against regulation by the executive branch as well.
  Regardless of its construction, though, arguments suggesting it should be ignored because it is "outdated" are irrelevant. It means what the Supreme Court says it means, ultimately, and the only way to change that is by another amendment to the Constitution. >
  
  The elephant in the room is that EVERY person who says “assault weapons” really wants to ban handguns.
  Thus, they want to restrict your right to defend yourself. >
  
  Some of the same Americans who thought that you had to join a militia to exercise your right to own firearms also thought you had a constitutional right to abort babies. So even specifically granted enshrined rights can be muddled and reinterpreted to mean that you actually have no gun rights at all, but the reinterpreters can come up with abortion rights that were never mentioned in the constitution >
  
  The 9th Amendment exists because the Founding Fathers knew that someday someone would make the exact argument you are making right now. >
  
  No. The founding fathers were of a time when society was heavily dominated by Judeo-Christian values. With texts like, “I knew you in the womb” in the Old Testament , they would have never imagined that society would throw away life for convenience. The right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness starts with life. Abortion as legal wouldn’t have ever crossed their minds as a possibility >
  
  Judeo-Christian values also include marriage to most Christians correct?
  Well, since marriage was never made a constitutional right, we have to assume marriage was never supposed to be a right using the logic above me. >
  
  Marriage is not a right, rights belong to individuals. Rights to assemble exists. If I can’t get married because no one will marry me, who do I sue for depriving me of my right to be married? Marriages are civil unions that states should never have been allowed to charge licenses for >
  
  You sue the hottest super model you can find. 
  But on a serious note, if you believe marriage is a right or not, there is no way the Founding Father's thought they could put down every right on paper. >
  
  The 9th amendment kind of does that >
  
  This is why I said to the original poster that your comment is why the Founders included the 9th Amendment. >
  
  Laughs. They can't agree because they don't agree. There is a  hard minority that "likes" guns. Period, full stop. For that minority, there is no political argument they will accept, if it means giving up their "totems," for lack of a better word (and I spent a real moment trying to think of a better word). Then there's another minority, also hard, that believes the purpose of the amendment is to make sure that citizens are always able to rise up against an unfair government. That's clearly not what the authors intended, but it's at least a reasonable sophistry. Then there's the "safe gun" crowd. Those who believe that owning a handgun for self-defense is fine, that owning a low power rifle for hunting is fine. But they draw the line at military assault weapons. Where I live, open carry looks weird and threatening. Yoo have a gun. You are a LEO, Armored Guard, obvious security, or criminal.
  And that's why we cannot agree. >
  
  Handguns kill far far more people than rifles of any type. >
  
  I did not say any of this was reasonable. I said this is why they can't agree :-) >
  
  Gun control has always been about disarming perceived political enemies. >
  
  Um. Gun control doesn't have a single unified base either. If we did, since people who want less guns are the majority, we'd have actually done something. There are some very reasonable people. There are some very unreasonable people. But a lot of the current gun control has nothing to do with politics it has to do with body count. It's the outrage of Uvalde, where the people with the guns attacked the people trying to help the kids. It's about a society that raises a lot of unhappy kids, who have access to guns, and take them to school. I enjoyed hunting, personally, when I was younger and well enough to do that. But I was also careful to only kill food that I could eat. I've fired (live, blank, test loads and just dry) a lot of weapons, and I've never fired one in anger. I have no personal investment in taking away somebody's guns; I have a personal investment in living in a less violent place. >
  
  You just described what I meant to a tee.  If you actually cared about body count then you'd go after handguns.   But you don't.  None of the gun control advocates do.   It's all about disarming perceived political enemies.   And media feel goods for political points.
  There is nothing reasonable about the modern gun control movement. >
  
  
  If you actually cared about body count then you'd go after handguns.
  
  Sigh... Politics didn't start in 2016. Gun control groups did go after handguns, and were fairly successful. City-level handgun bans were on the books across the country. "Assault weapons" were just next on the list, but then Heller and McDonald said you can't ban handguns.
  So this "if you really cared, handguns" stuff is frankly ignorant of the history of what's been done and how far the right has come. >
  
  So successful just look at Chicago.  Handguns are the perceived weapons of choice for groups Progressive politics want to court.   You shouldn't have to "know somebody" to defend yourself. >
  
  That's a completely separate argument. >
  
  No it isn't.  Gun Control has always been about disarming perceived political enemies.
  Now it's the Yokels in flyover country.  The Mulford Acts were politically active and violent racial groups like the Black Panthers.  Early Gun control was about disarming Native or African Americans. >
  
  Yes, the founding fathers did understand, and that is why the Second Amendment is in the constitution. 
  Look at our government. >
  
  Well, the structures of making a sentence changed from old English to modern English.
  The comma, as used in old English, was simply used to append a phrase onto the original subject. Therefore, in old English, the 'well regulated militia' is the only subject being discussed. And since each Colony/State regulated these militias, and each colony/state decided who the people were that could be armed, the colonies/states wanted explicit permission for the people in the militia to arm themselves.
  Times have changed. States no longer have militias, whose sole purpose was to enforce slavery and serve as possies to round up runaway slaves and to sometimes just hunt for criminals. Of course slaves were considered criminals for running away.
  So, the original intent of the 2nd amendment was the subject of 'well regulated militia' and everything appended onto the sentence with commas referred only to the subject of 'well regulated militia'.
  But modern English interpretation's have tried to convert the comma to an 'and' statement. Modern bastardized English interpretations try to say there are two subjects to the sentence, both well regulated militias and people. They are trying to add the general population of people and not just those chosen to participate in militias.
  You see, the original intent was to make sure the people selected for the militias could arm themselves and have arms available when called upon. There was no national guard armory to keep arms and ammunition under lock and key. Slave owners and other white members of a militia needed to arm themselves. They therefore needed the legal right to buy and keep arms for the business of a well regulated militia.
  What slave states did in those days was to form and regulate militias as a local law enforcement tool. State run Militias are no longer in use and therefore the 2nd Amendment is really no longer useful. 
  Slavery was not voluntary and logically had to be enforced in those days. Either have 2nd Amendment legalization of militias or the slaves would have emancipated themselves.
  Does everybody get the picture of how life was completely different back in the days of slavery? Does everybody understand the plain as day old English usage of commas in a sentence?
  There are NO 'ands' in the 2nd amendment. The whole 2nd amendment refers only to the one subject 'well regulated militia'. >
  
  People fear what they do not understand, and there is an almost total lack of education on firearms, so people fear them. Their fear and ignorance drive their false assumptions on the 2A.
  A few interesting facts influencing the 2A:
  1. Every male aged 17-45 is a member of the militia under current US law. (10 U.S. Code § 246).
  2. The Militia Act of 1792 required every male citizen to own a weapon.
  3. In 1776, the Continental Congress decided not to buy weapons with 20 round magazines only because they cost too much.
  4. Technically and legally, no one ever “retires” from he US military. They are still members of the military and are legally subject to recall until their death.
  5. “The militia” was understood to mean “all the citizens” when the 2A was written.
  6. The full name of the National Guard is “The Army National Guard of the United States.” The National Guard is not now, and has never been a state militia. It is a federal government organized, funded, and armed replacement for state militias. 
  7. All limits on weapons began as racist attempts to limit he right of self defense only to white people.
  8. All current weapons restrictions are still racist and classist. They are designed to prevent the poor and disenfranchised from defending themselves. Does anyone seriously think the rich and powerful will be prevented from having armed guards?
  9. Since the easing of weapons restrictions, the fastest growing categories of weapons owners has been minorities and women.
  A footnote: The 1A, 2A, and 4A each use the phrase “the right of the people.” Some people try to claim that it refers to individual rights in the 1A and 4A, but a collective right in the 2A. This is clearly illogical. It either means a collective right or it means an individual right when it is used the same way to describe rights. Does anyone make the nonsensical argument that the 1A only applies to the right of a state to express itself freely and not individuals? That is exactly what the 1A means if “the right of the people” describes a collective right. >
  
  If you notice where the commas are placed, they are separating ideas; so the thought should read: A well-regulated militia shall not be infringed, being necessary to the security of a free state shall not be infringed, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
  When worded like, which is what the commas do, then you can see that the Constitution said what it meant to say by the original founders, there is no second-guessing, the founders and writers wrote it that way so there would be no confusion.  But today, people are less educated than they were back then, so they try to overthink what the Constitution says, they really want to tear it up, but that document was the best-written Constitution in the world, there have been world leaders who actually said they were envious of our Constitution, why? because it protects the people, and the right to keep and bear arms is the foundation of our protection.
  And it's the job of the people to protect our Constitution and to make sure our elected politicians follow the rules outlined in that Constitution.  The Tenth Amendment ensures that liberty belongs to the people and when government oversteps the Constitution and limits our liberty, the states and “We the People” have the right to take action.  That points us to the Declaration of Independence, which it states:
  When in the Course of human Events, it becomes necessary for one People to dissolve the Political Bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the Powers of the Earth, the separate and equal Station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent Respect to the Opinions of Mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the Separation.
  We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness—-That to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed, that whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these Ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its Foundation on such Principles, and organizing its Powers in such Form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. 
  This means that over the course of time it may come about that we might have to take the government by force if they do not change and take away our freedoms, life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.  The writers put that in there because they left England for that very reason, and they want to make sure that could not happen again, but knowing that it could, we the people have the rights afforded to us in the Constitution and in the Declaration of Independence. >
  
  I see the Second Amendment as the right of self defense. 
  Most people are not able to defend themself against a larger, stronger or more numerous foe with their bare hands.
  A gun is not a guarantee that you will always succeed in defending yourself, but it gives you a far better chance than you'd have without a gun.
  I have yet to hear anyone who wants to ban guns address this point except to say "statistically, the chances of your having to defend yourself are small."
  Such people also say that "You should not have a gun because you might be irresponsible with it or it may be stolen from you and used on someone else." I would take such people seriously if they applied laws to those who are already committing crimes. >
  
  I’ve always thought that the idea that it means ONLY a militia force that’s well regulated is complete bs. All the other amendments in the bill of rights are about Individual rights of the people. So why would that one amendment be for the government to regulate people? 
  Also when all the first states made their constitutions, all of the ones that copied the bill of rights for their own constitutions specifically stated that it was meant for private ownership among individual citizens. So it’s not like back then they thought differently or something. 
  The idea that firearms have drastically changed is true but before the 80s there was very very little regulation on firearms. In the past 100 years firearms have not changed all that much to warrant suddenly banning certain kinds. There’s been magazine fed semi automatic weapons, and before the automatic weapons ban, automatic weapons. So all these laws didn’t come about until way after guns were already pretty advanced. >
  
  Everything said about it by the right is a lie.
  
  A well regulated Militia
  
  Why is this completely ignored? Drugged up wife beater going to buy a gun to kill his children to spite his wife is no part of a "A well regulated Militia". For fucks sake. >
  
  That's called premeditated murder and isn't constitutionally protected, it's a crime. >
  
  You have two ideologies that each look to support their ideology via the amendment. By emphasizing particular parts of the amendment and defining those parts a particular way, they can support their predetermined ideology. 
  First, you have the anti-gun ideology. They tend to believe that the average person should either not have guns at all or be very restricted in what they can own. They emphasize the "militia" component of the amendment. By restricting the right to only the militia, they can justify the disarming of the general populace. To do so, they have to define "militia" as a preexisting entity that one joins. Much like joining the church book club or the local softball team.
  Except the militia is not a preexisting entity that one joins. It is something created or "called" as need be. A good example of a modern-day day militia is in the current Ukraine War. Shortly after the beginning of the war, the government began arming its general populace, thus creating a militia. The 2A was meant to skip the step of having to arm them by having them already armed. 
  Second, you have the pro-gun ideology. They tend to believe that the average person should have access to largely whatever they want. They emphasize the "shall not be infringed" or "bear arms" component. By defining it independently of the militia, they can justify owning all weapons because the weapons are for personal use. 
  The problem here is that there clearly was a tie to the militia. The average (militia) soldier didn't carry a cannon or other "military" equipment. They carried a basic rifle of the kind typically issued to soldiers. If we look again at Ukraine, the government armed the populace with rifles of the type carried by the average soldier. They didn't hand out rocket launchers or tanks, just basic rifles. 
  The Supreme Court hit the nail on the head in US v. Miller, in my opinion. If you haven't, I encourage you to read the actual opinion. The court did not emphasize either part and looked at the 2A as a whole. They went to great lengths to look at both who comprised the militia, how it functioned, and what was expected of those being called. Essentially, every male of fighting age was the militia. It was called and organized as needed. The weapons to be provided by those called were the same or similar to the weapons used by the average soldier. The gun in question in the case was a sawed-off shotgun, which the court determined had to reasonable relation to militia service because it was not the type of weapon used by the typical soldier. What they did not to was tie the person's ability to have a weapon to militia service. 
  So, in a modern context, both sides are both right and wrong. Realistically, the only weapons that should not be regulated are those issued to the typical soldier, which would be the much demonized assault type rife because if a person were called to fight, that is what they would need. Beyond that, there's not much off the table for regulation. >
  
  200 plus years of our country evolving, the diminished importance of civilian militias in national defense, the light years in advancement of the Lethality and killing power of common weapons compared to those in 1780, along with an extreme militant right wing dreaming of  the day they can declare tyranny and start killing our elected officials to save the nation from...shhh...liberals. All contribute to the debate to what weaponry civilians should be allowed to own. >
  
  It's been distorted by the gun lobby who's only interest is profit. 
  It's also been distorted by time. One can argue that if you're an originalist that means the only thing the Constitution grants citizens is the right to own a muzzle loading musket. 
  There's also a lot of people today insisting that by "arms" the Constitution allows citizens to own any type weapon they want. However, while the constitution doesn't specify what arms means, it was a known fact at the time that every state in the colonies outlawed private citizens from owning a cannon. >
  
  Would you agree that when the 2nd amendment was created, citizens could own military grade firearms? >
  
  Sure. At the time there was little distinction. Developments like riffleing were decades away. Plus the whole idea was to have men owning their own musket that would be adequate if they had to be called up to serve in the militia. >
  
  Welp, a bunch of gun manufacturer lobbyists really didn't want to stop making money, so they decided they wanted 2A to enshrine private individual gun ownership.
  Working backwards from the conclusion they desired, they pushed their agenda up through the courts, and eventually got a decision that skewed greatly from the original intent of 2A, as well as how that amendment had been interpreted for a century.
  Ever since then, debate has ensued. >
  
  Maybe stop quoting the Progressive/New Deal era court?  There isn't a decision from that era that is good.  From Japanese internment, to gun control, to Wickard. >
  
  The court has been corrupted by one side or the other for a long time. >
  
  Everybody knows about 2A and can debate it all day,
  I never hear anyone bring up Article 1 Section 8 Clause 16 though which reads:
  "To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;"
  I think that since 2A brings up militias it would be important to read 2A and A1S8C16 in conjunction.
  I think it's also worth considering the intent of having militias when the Constitution was written, which from what I have gathered was to act as the military in case of invasion from a foreign power.
  Id also add that in my experience most ammosexuals (people who believe there should be no regulation placed on weapons owned by civilians) tend only to focus on the part in 2A that says "the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed" and also have never even heard of A1S8C16 >
  
  It is probably the most poorly written words of all the constitution, poor communication is usually the culprit of most divisions. >
  
  Well, it’s not like the Republicans/MAGAs aren’t trashing the rest of the Constitution, well written or not. >
  
  Good point, wouldn’t matter to a gunner if it was law or not, nothing going to keep a gunner from a gun, it’s kinda their mo on everything to a maga. >
  
  Americans like to have asinine proxy arguments instead of just debating the issue at hand: should firearms be available to civilians and if so, what types and under what constraints? That debate involves making political judgements and Americans are scared of those so they have endless semantic and historical arguments about a 200 year old document instead >
  
  After looking at the thread, I can sum the answer in a single sentence.
  We are afraid of admitting that we are too violent for guns. >
  
  Stop pretending the founding fathers were Gods. They were winging it. They couldn’t predict the future and they didn’t get everything right. We were supposed to evolve into reasonable people that could debate things and decide whats right for the citizenry in our current times. Unfortunately some of us turned into regressive anti-intellectuals who refuse to debate, refuse to compromise and refuse to try to make life better for their fellow Americans. We know how deadly guns are, especially to kids but some people would rather stick fingers in their ears and refuse to accept reality. Guns need to be regulated better. >
  
  
  Stop pretending the founding fathers were Gods. They were winging it. 
  
  And, frankly, as a group they did not agree on anything.
  Basically everything in the Constitution, everything, is a compromise that most or all of them were angry about. >
  
  Because my former party doesn't believe in the 2nd Amendment, but they know you can't just outright get rid of it without going thru the process to amend the Constitution, which the Democratic Party knows it won't be able to do.  So they keep insisting that it means something that we know for a fact that it doesn't. >
  
  Please do not submit low investment content. This subreddit is for genuine discussion. Low effort content, including memes, links substituting for explanation, sarcasm, and non-substantive contributions will be removed per moderator discretion. >
  
  People don’t agree on many of the amendments. Look at the arguments over the 1st Amendment (religious establishment vs freedom) 8th Amendment (what is cruel and unusual punishment).  So while your question about disagreement on the meaning of the 2nd Amendment (which is a relatively new disagreement) is an interesting one, your premise that it is unique to the second amendment is erroneous. >
  
  A right to have a military(militia/national guard) in the common defense of the equality of liberty and justice within our shores as the volunteer expeditionary forces(army) which as the founding fathers knew hence the regulated reasoning for muster and supply, for to have infringement as a primary context only invites the culture of criminality or common sense regulation has always been insight but ignored for kaos profiteering. >
  
  Because an accurate (according to linguists) interpretation of the second amendment opens up a LOT more weapons to normal people while actually saying nothing about carrying them. 
  So technically you could have a bunch of community armories -not letting the weapons to be stored at houses- and people could go in to the armories and train on any weapon that is viable for a militia. . . but it would require a lot of new laws, a lot of moving and shaking, and quite a number of armed standoffs. >
  
  I've said it before, to mixed results, that the problem is people forget the 3rd Amendment.
  
  No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.
  - 3rd Amendment 
  
  IMO, it is hard going on impossible to practice the 3rd Amendment without the 2nd. Likewise, the 2nd Amendment makes so much more sense when looking at why the 3rd was necessary in the first place. >
  
  You write that the 2A has been "a point of constant debate, argument and conversation for almost a century now," but you don't cite a source for this, and I don't believe that this is really true.
  The 2A was an obscure and almost-forgotten amendment, dealing with obsolete ideas from before the US had a standing army, about how to provide for the national defense, right up until the 1960's when white nationalists, notably Harlon Carter began agitating to re-interpret the 2A as a license for individuals to use guns to personally kill individuals they deemed threatening, even apart from any connection to military service. This was seen as a radical and unfounded idea at the time.
  While there is nothing in the Constitution to support this point of view, conservative activists labored for decades, from about 1965 to 2008 to promote this invented ideology.  In 2008, after 30 years of focused advocacy by the NRA, the idea of that the constitution protects a personal right to confront someone with a gun was endorsed by the Supreme Court's 5-4 Heller decision.
  Unfortunately, few Americans are familiar with the context in which the 2A was written, or the purposes it served. Additionally, the wording of this amendment is not too clear. This make it relatively easy for those seeking to promote gun ownership to produce arguments that sound plausible to those eager to find an  excuse to justify their choice to own a weapon.
  While the right-wing has been relatively successful in promoting the idea that their understanding of the 2A has a long history, it is in fact of very recent invention: the Heller decision that established it was written in 2008! Although the author of this decision, Antonin Scalia, has now passed away, two of this decision's authors, Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito, have continued to promote Heller's absurd and very recent interpretation of the 2A as being true, to the great detriment of the country. >
  
  The history has been pretty wild in that one and a lot of it’s meaning to common people changed back in the 80s and 90s. When the amendment was originally proposed, it was proposed by the state of Virginia. The second amendment was to be used so that militias could be formed in order to put down slave uprising’s. Virginia demanded that the second amendment be added, because they never wanted the federal government to infringe on their ability to police the slave population. It was generally understood up until the 80s that the government didn’t want Black people owning guns. It wasn’t a lot of debate about it. Reagan actually ran on a platform of banning guns when he won the governor ship in California. In Bill Clinton’s presidency they passed an assault rifle weapons ban, and the NRA got completely hijacked by opponents to that law. Before that the NRA it was more along the lines of a social club and marksmanship sport association. When Wayne LaPierre took the helm the NRA went from being about responsible gun ownership to a PAC with lobbyists and since then have actively worked to shut down anyone that isn’t fervent enough in gun love. That organization completely changed the conversation about guns and has worked diligently to rewrite history. >
  
  The interpretation that 2A gives unfettered rights for every US citizen to own personal firearms ignores the part about militias. 
  A proper interpretation of the second amendment would be nothing less than restricting personal firearm ownership to people volunteering to serve in a militia. 2A was written with exactly that in mind. The current situation where anyone, anywhere in the US can very easily and legally acquire a weapon capable of killing multiple other people in seconds was not what the 2A authors imagined and if they had known it would turn out this way there is no chance 2A would look anything like it does. >
  
  The Militia was all adult male citizens.  So basically since we've expanded the definition of citizen it should be the same as Voting.  All adult non felons (I would expand that to non violent felons after they have served their time) have an unfettered right to small arms. >
  
  If they’re in the militia >
  
  Every adult is in the militia. >
  
  Thats just flatly incorrect. >
  
  Every adult man was part of the Militia even if they weren't called to action. It was meant to act as a reserve of men and weaponry that could be called upon in times of crisis. >
  
  The big problem with the 2nd amendment is that it's context has completely been lost to history for the average person. 
  The 2nd amendment was more like a early version of the draft. The milita mentioned in the 2nd amendment was comprised of the people (more specifically all men of age). Militias would be run by state and local governments. Many of these militias were early versions of the police. If a town was under attack it was assumed that the people who where allready in a organised Militia will be able to defend themselves. People had a responsibility to serve in these Militias. Part of that responsibility was having a weapon in working condition. 
  Keep in mind this was at a time when people were highly skeptical of a central government so these local Militias were seen as a better alternative to a large centralized army. This idea was basically abandoned over the years. The national guard now has this duty and the draft is the main way of calling on the people.
  So basically the whole context of what the Militia was supposed to be does not have a modern equivalent and that makes it hard to interpret what the 2nd amendment means in a modern context.
  To make things worse. Many amendments to the constitution were only supposed the be restrictions on the federal government. The 1st amendment was only supposed to be a limit on the federal government. Same with the 2nd. However after the Civil War and the passage of the 14th amendment these amendments have now been seen to apply to state and local governments as well. 
  This creates a conundrum for the 2nd amendment. How can state and local governments regulate their Militia without infringing on a right to bear arms?
  History has basically created a huge cluster fuck that basically makes the 2nd amendment impossible to interpret in a modern context. 
  So that is why its meaning cant be agreed on. But my personal interpretation of the amendment is this. Everyone part of the Militia has a right to bear arms within the context of the well regulated Militia. State and local governments can pass any gun restriction laws they want as long as the people have access to said weapons for target practice and general matianiance. To me this is perfectly within the preview of what the 2nd amendments intent was. >
  
  One thing all people should be able to agree on is that it's a shit sentence.  It's possibly the worst thing of the written things ever. >
  
  It contradicts itself. It says the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed but it starts out talking about a well-regulated militia so which is it? Why does it say "well regulated militia" and and "the people." >
  
  How America could delude itself in thinking the second amendment, a relic from the 1790’s , justifies their obsession with guns and the hundreds of thousands of deaths that resulted, is an appalling mystery to the rest of the civilized world. >
  
  Because it hasn't been updated to modern times. I don't even know how much of the population can still write in cursive. >
  
  For one thing, the 2nd amendment was vaguely written, The vagueness leaves a lot of room for debate. It was also written at a time when they didn't have they types of armament that we have today.
  The world in which the 2nd amendment was written looked very much different than the one we live in. There were no police, no roads, cars. If you lived in a settlement house you were defenseless without a gun. 
  For all we know they would have included the right to own a bazooka if the English had tanks back then. They might have included the right to have surface to air missiles if the English had aircraft. >
  
  The problem comes from the bizarre construction of the clauses and the apparent self contradiction of both  regulated and not infringed. >
  
  Many Americans have no understanding of the content and context of the constitution. Many Americans will defend whatever their party has said, no matter what their understanding is of that.
  This is what I have noticed: The louder they yell, the less they understand. >
  
  The impact of lobbying by the NRA and arms manufacturers is probably a good place to look >
  
  The 2nd is in place to protect our constitution/vote from people like Trump who would rather be king. >
  
  If that's the case, shouldn't someone have shot him?
  If no one did, can that really be the reason? >
  
  OP - am I hitting back unfairly or something wrong? Feel like maybe I'm blindsiding or something. Checking in. >
  
  Im simply spectating what people say, I open the pandora's box for discussion and I see what is said without my own bias's or beliefs interfering in their statements. I have no illwill or discomfort at what may be said to me so much as curiousity in what this question invokes for responses.