On the 2nd Amendment to the US Constitution

Also, the 2nd Amendment is now null and void of its original intent since we have a National Guard. Each state has its own state National Guard unit. There’s your well-regulated militia right there. We already have one. As long as we have a National Guard in each state, the 2nd Amendment is fulfilled.
At the time the 2nd Amendment was written, they didn’t have any National Guard. In lieu of the National Guard, they simply had local call-up militias. All of the men in the locality would have to show up to join the militia if a call-up were ordered. The militia itself had no guns, so each man would have to supply his own gun. Uniforms were provided by the militia. That was the reason for the right to bear arms – so men could possess their own guns that would be necessarily in forming the local militia when the call-up went out. Since the militia itself had no arms, the people who had to join the militia needed to have the right to keep their own guns in the case of a call-up.
We don’t do it that way anymore. We do not have call-up militias where every able-bodied man is required to show up and join the local militia, bringing his gun with him, when the call goes out. We don’t do it that way anymore so the 2nd Amendment is useless and null and void in that context.
However, there is a section about the necessity of having a “well-regulated militia.” We have that now in that each state has its own National Guard unit. Those units are the well-regulated militias referred to in the amendment. If, say, a national government came in and dissolved the National Guard in one or more states via decree or law, the states could sue and go to court citing their 2nd Amendment rights to have a militia. The courts would rule that the state had an inherent right to a National Guard unit under the 2nd Amendment that may not be revoked.
If a state dissolved their own National Guard unit, interested parties could sue the state citing the 2nd Amendment which would order that state to recreate their National Guard unit.

Please follow and like us:
error3
fb-share-icon20
Tweet 20
fb-share-icon20

0 thoughts on “On the 2nd Amendment to the US Constitution”

  1. We have all of our other rights as a result of the 2nd amendment. the second amendement protects the people from a government of tyranny. which suprisingly the present government is very close. read 11 percent of population in jail. also another thing that those who live on the coasts havent yet realized is the whole rest of the U.S. lives away from emediate contact of law inforcement. which means we arm and protect ourselves. it is fine that those who are afrauid of guns choose not to have one. but dont think for a second you have the right to take our protection. one of the reasons japan never intended to attack mainland america is everyone owned a gun. Everyday government wittles away more freedoms. they onlything slowing its advancements in the name of security are gunowners. dont demonize guns. demonize those who take perscription drugs and shoot people.

    1. if anybody who wants more gun control actcually looked and gun violence rates in cities that allow no guns they would change thier minds or lack the ability to think. last year more than 100,000 people died as a result of mispercribed drugs. less than 1000 people died of accidentle gunshots. more than ten thousand people were save as a result of brandiching a weapon. No genicide can happen in a country with a second ammendment.

    2. Most every home in the USSR owned a gun too. Why didn’t they overthrow the government?
      Most every home in Iraq had an AK-47. Didn’t stop us from invading and didn’t stop Saddam from putting a vicious dictatorship over him for decades. Sure, there were periodic armed rebellions against him by some of those folks with AK-47’s in their home, but he crushed every single one of them.
      There is nothing in the 2nd Amendment or in the debates about it that says anything about how that amendment was intended to let everyone have a gun to protect us from a tyrannical government. All it talks about is the need for a well-regulated militia. And we have that now in the National Guard. So if you took your argument to court, the court would rule that the amendment said nothing but every man needing a gun to protect us from tyranny.
      Along the same lines, there is nothing in the amendment or the debates about it that suggests that every house needed to have a gun to protect themselves from criminals. Instead it only talks about the need for a militia (National Guard). If you sued saying you had a Second Amendment right to own guns to protect your home from criminals, your case would be thrown out because that was not the intent of the amendment.

      1. I don’t really want to debate ak 47s with you Robert. Ak47s we not in any house holds in irac. Dictators don’t allow the masses to have military weapons. Only the aks in america a semi. By semi I mean you have to pull the trigger for every round to leave the barrel. The gun argument in america doesn’t include aks. Less than .001 percent of gun crime is committed by a semi auto rifle. The facts show that in areas where guns are outlawed the gun crime is many times those areas where people aren’t allowed protection. The equalizer against all crime is self protect against life and limb. Why didn’t you respond to the deaths by percription drugs. Why don’t we discuss the crime and murders stopped by self protection. All I keep hearing is this assault rifle broken record. Its a fact that if Jews in Germany had guns they would not have been hauled out of town and shot. You can’t argue these points. There are many atrocities that would not have happen if the free had weapons to protect themselves and their children.

        1. After the fall of Saddam, every household in Iraq obtained an Ak-47 from the local armory + most males over the ages of 35 were Iran-Iraq war vets.

        2. Yeah were the Iraqis able to overthrow the US occupiers due to the weapons they possessed? Of course not.
          Even under Saddam, I understand that most every Iraqi home had an AK-47 in it. I believe this is because most Iraqi men were members of a local government militia and they had to train regularly. Lot of good those guns did them to get rid of Saddam! Even if every home has an AK-47, it is not so easy to overthrow a ruthless armed to the teeth dictatorship with a professional army.

  2. At least now the National Guard isn’t the way to wuss out of a war (They’re the ones called up.). Therefore, Bush’s little Vietnam scheme wouldn’t work now.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.