There has been much debate regarding how the second amendment in the Bill of Rights ought to be properly interpreted.  Much of the controversy over the amendment's interpretation centers upon the first clause of the amendment, particularly as to what relation and relevance that clause has to the second clause.  However, when we look at the history behind the amendment's creation, it appears that this confusion did not need to exist.  There could have been a much more clear and direct framing of the amendment.  The following essay will explain with historical evidence and grammatical analysis why this is the case.

The second amendment's text goes as follows:

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.

The framing process behind the amendment included numerous earlier drafts and proposals.  This is the militia provision from the first version of the Bill of Rights, as presented by James Madison on June 8, 1789:

The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed, and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country: but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms, shall be compelled to render military service in person.    

However, about a month later on July 21, 1789, Roger Sherman presented his own separate proposal for the Bill of Rights, which included the following militia provision:

The Militia shall be under the government of the laws of the respective States, when not in the actual Service of the united States, but Such rules as may be prescribed by Congress for their uniform organisation & discipline shall be observed in officering and training them. but military Service Shall not be required of persons religiously Scrupulous of bearing arms.

It so happens that these two proposals were the two earliest incarnations of the framing process that would culminate in the second amendment.  Now, what is immediately interesting between these two proposals is the similarity between their structure.  There is a similar sequence between Sherman's proposal and Madison's: they both begin with an "arms clause" that effectively protects the autonomy of the state militias from congressional infringement, followed by a "militia clause" that reaffirms the importance of Congress's adequate regulation of the militia, then end with a "conscientious objector clause" excusing from militia service those citizens who are conscientious objectors.  Due to the similarity in the subject matter between these proposals, the matching sequence of their respective clauses, and also the chronological proximity in terms of when these proposals were written, we can presume that these two proposals are essentially the same provision, only written by different people using different verbiage.  

However, one notable difference between these versions is that Sherman's version appears more clear and direct in its language.  It is considerably easier to read the Sherman proposal and determine exactly what the provision was meant to accomplish.  By contrast, James Madison's proposal appears much more clunky and ambiguous in its language.  

Both of the conscientious objector clauses are relatively straightforward and are easy enough to understand.  But Madison's arms clause is notably less clear.  It uses the more unclear passive voice rather than the clearer active voice which Sherman uses; it makes no explicit reference to the militia, as does Sherman's version; and Madison's passive voice essentially omits the subject of the clause (i.e. who or what shall not infringe upon the people's right), whereas Sherman's version makes very explicit the purpose of the clause (i.e. to prevent the operation of state militias from being infringed upon by the federal government).

Also, Madison's militia clause is unclear, nearly to the point of being downright cryptic.  It goes: "a well armed, and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country . . . ."  The clause is ambiguous: Is it just a declarative statement stating a fact, or is it some kind of imperative statement that is mandating something?  Why is it framed grammatically as a subordinate clause rather than as an independent clause, as in Sherman's version, i.e. "Such rules as may be prescribed by Congress for their uniform organisation & discipline shall be observed in officering and training them"?  Why does Madison's militia clause -- in contrast to Sherman's -- not clearly reference the agent of the militia's regulation, i.e. Congress?

The Virginia Declaration of Rights

My understanding is that at least part of the reason that James Madison's militia provision is written as it is, is because of an attempt to integrate verbiage into the provision from an entirely separate document.  That document is the Virginia Declaration of Rights.  This was an influential document that was written in 1776, and even predated the Declaration of Independence.  Its purpose was not unlike that of the Declaration of Independence; instead of stipulating specific statutes or rules of government, its purpose was instead to establish the fundamental principles and responsibilities of good government.  The Virginia Declaration of Rights influenced the framing of declarations of rights from many other states, and it even influenced the framing process of some of the amendments in the Bill of Rights.  For example, Section 12 of the Declaration goes:

That the freedom of the press is one of the great bulwarks of liberty, and can never be restrained but by despotic governments.

While James Madison’s first draft of the what would become the first amendment included the following:

The people shall not be deprived or abridged of their right to speak, to write, or to publish their sentiments; and the freedom of the press, as one of the great bulwarks of liberty, shall be inviolable.

You can clearly see the usage of the specific phrase “one of great bulwarks of liberty” in both provisions.  That wording is far too specific for Madison to have come up with the same thing by coincidence.  He clearly borrowed it word for word from the Virginia Declaration.

An even stronger example of this borrowing process is in regards to Section 9 of the Virginia Declaration, which says:

That excessive bail ought not to be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

And this is virtually identical to this provision by Madison which would ultimately become the eighth amendment:

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted. 

Section 13 of the Virginia Declaration was the militia provision, which goes as follows:

That a well-regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defense of a free state; that standing armies, in time of peace, should be avoided as dangerous to liberty; and that in all cases the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.

As he had done with Section 9 and Section 12, it is fairly obvious here that James Madison used and reworked language from this section of the Virginia Declaration.  However, only the first clause is employed in this draft.  Madison omits the phrase "composed of the body of the people, trained to arms"; yet he retains nearly the exact opening phrase "a well-regulated militia", adding to it the phrase “well armed”.  Although Madison's first draft uses the alternate phrase "free country", this was obviously reverted in later revisions back to the Virginia Declaration's verbiage of "free state".  Madison also appears to have truncated the Virginia Declaration's somewhat wordy verbiage "the proper, natural, and safe defense", to the more concise phrasing "best security".  

Outside of Madison's first draft, there were additional inclusions from the Virginia Declaration in the second amendment’s framing history.  For example, the phrase "composed of the body of the people" from the first clause, and virtually the entirety of the second and third clauses of the document, which were omitted from Madison's proposal, were actually included in a proposal by Aedanus Burke in the House on August 17, 1789 (borrowed language is highlighted in italics):

A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, being the best security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, but no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms.  A standing army of regular troops in time of peace, is dangerous to public liberty, and such shall not be raised or kept up in time of peace but from necessity, and for the security of the people, nor then without the consent of two-thirds of the numbers present of both houses, and in all cases the military shall be subordinate to the civil authority.

And a similar framing was proposed by an unknown member of the Senate on September 4, 1789:

A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the People, being the best security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed, but no one religiously scrupulous of bearing arms, shall be compelled to render military service in person.  That standing armies, in time of peace, being dangerous to Liberty, should be avoided as far as the circumstances and protection of the community will admit; and that in all cases the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by the civil Power. That no standing army or regular troops shall be raised in time of peace, without the consent of two thirds of the Members present in both Houses, and that no soldier shall be inlisted for any longer term than the continuance of the war.

In addition, the phrase "trained to arms" from Section 13’s first clause appears in a House proposal from Elbridge Gerry:

A well regulated militia, trained to arms, composed of the body of the people, being the best security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; but no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms.

Gerry’s commentary

Speaking of Elbridge Gerry, it so happens that within the same debate in which Gerry makes the above proposal, he also gives commentary upon the militia clause, giving us a rare shedding of light on how the Framers understood its purpose:

Mr. Gerry objected to the first part of the clause, on account of the uncertainty with which it is expressed. A well regulated militia being the best security of a free State, admitted an idea that a standing army was a secondary one. It ought to read, "a well regulated militia, trained to arms;" in which case it would become the duty of the Government to provide this security, and furnish a greater certainty of its being done.

Gerry believed that the phrasing "being the best security of a free state" could potentially cause the amendment to be construed to mean that a standing army ought to be viewed officially as a secondary security behind a well-regulated militia. Presumably, this could potentially create the danger of Congress deliberately neglecting the training of the militia as a pretext to rendering it inadequate and thus justifiably resorting to this "secondary security".  Gerry believed that the addition of the phrase "trained to arms" into the militia clause would have the effect of exerting a duty upon the government to actively preserve the militia through the maintenance of such training.  This brief comment by Gerry affirms that he saw the militia clause as having essentially the same effect as the militia clause from Roger Sherman’s proposal.  However, while Sherman’s militia clause was quite clear and direct, Madison instead makes this clunky and confusing attempt at borrowing a clause from a completely different document, awkwardly reworking its language, and then shoehorning the butchered clause into an entirely new provision which has a different purpose than the provision from which the verbiage was borrowed.  

Incidentally, Gerry’s concerns about the ambiguity of the phrase “the best security of a free state” were conceivably part of the reason the Senate later chose to replace the phrase “the best” with the phrase “necessary to the”, which ultimately appears in the final version.  But again, the need for such edits to the amendment in order to progressively refine its murky language could have been easily avoided by simply using Sherman's provision to begin with.

Independent clause to subordinate clause

It seems like most of the confusion regarding the second amendment’s militia clause stems from its construction as a subordinate clause within the sentence.  As previously established, the militia clause has its origin in the first clause of the Virginia Declaration’s section 13:

That a well-regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defense of a free state.

Which James Madison took and then essentially reworked into this:

A well regulated militia is the best security of a free country.

But, notably, Madison’s first proposal opts not to use the straightforward conjugation “is”, but instead uses the present participle “being”.  The present participle takes what could have been a straightforward independent clause and turns it instead into a subordinate clause and a nominative absolute:  

A well regulated militia being the best security of a country . . . .

But if this nominative absolute construction of the clause is essentially the same as the independent clause form, then why change its grammar in this way?  Doesn’t this only make the clause more confusing?  Well, my interpretation is that the nominative absolute construction was chosen -- ironically -- for clarification purposes.  The nominative absolute does not change the clause's meaning from its independent clause construction, but it does change how the clause may be interpreted within the context of the amendment.  

Grammar technicalities

Going now from Madison's first proposal to the amendment's final version, the amendment looks like this when the militia clause is phrased as an independent clause:

A well regulated Militia is necessary to the security of a free State, [and] the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. 

It so happens that a number of grammatical and stylistic problems arise from this construction of the amendment.  First, what we have here is two independent clauses next to each other.  When there is a sentence that has two or more independent clauses listed within the same sentence, often the implication is that these sentences serve a similar function.  An example is the fourth amendment, whose first clause says:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated.

And then the second clause says:

And no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. 

Each of the above clauses is an independent clause involving an explicit stipulation that imposes restrictions upon the power of Congress.  Though they stipulate different ideas, they are essentially identical in their fundamental function: each is a negative imperative statement.

Another example is the sixth amendment, which goes as follows:

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.

With the above amendment, it starts with an independent clause involving an affirmative imperative statement -- "the accused shall enjoy the right" -- rather than a negative one, as with the fourth amendment.  Then what follows after is a list of additional predicates, additional affirmative imperatives, and prepositional phrases that all serve as qualifying extensions of the initial affirmative imperative statement.

With the exception of the second amendment, this is how each of the amendments is written.  It involves one or more independent clauses, which each involves an imperative statement, which are either all negative or all affirmative, with all subordinate clauses serving only to qualify an independent clause.  

However, this is not the case with the second amendment version above where the militia clause is framed as an independent clause: the two clauses serve completely different functions.  The second clause is an imperative stipulation that imposes a restriction upon Congress: that it shall not infringe upon the people’s right to keep and bear arms.  However, the first clause is not an imperative stipulation upon Congress.  Congress’s power over the regulation of the militia had already been clearly stipulated in Article 1, Section 8, Clause 16 of the Constitution; thus for the second amendment to stipulate a power of militia regulation would be redundant.  This militia clause instead only serves to reinforce the duty of Congress in regards to the militia’s regulation -- as was commented by Elbridge Gerry.  All of the other amendments -- such as the fourth and sixth amendments above -- consist of a straightforward list of imperative stipulations upon Congress.  But the second amendment is a kind of “mixed amendment”, combining a statement of stipulation with a statement of reinforcement for a previously-established stipulation.

Another way in which the two clauses serve different functions is simply in the extreme distinction between the two clauses regarding what exactly is being expected of Congress.   The militia clause consists of a statement of what Congress must do -- i.e. adequately regulate the state militias.  However, the arms clause consists of a statement of what Congress must not do -- i.e. infringe upon the people’s right to keep and bear arms.  Hence, to put both clauses next to each other within the same amendment would only create confusion between what Congress is expected to do and what it is expected to avoid doing.

Yet another distinction involves the fact that the two clauses each culminate in a predicate nominative.  The militia clause culminates in the predicate nominative “necessary”, while the arms clause culminates in the predicate nominative “infringed”.  However, the distinction between these predicate nominatives is that the militia clause involves an affirmative predicate nominative, while the arms clause involves a negative predicate nominative.  In other words, let’s say we were to designate the predicate nominative for the militia clause as “A”, and we designate the predicate nominative for the arms clause as “B”.  In this case, the militia clause would essentially say “A well regulated militia is A”, while the arms clause would say “the right of the people to keep and bear arms is not B.”  This distinction also causes confusion.  When read carefully, there may not be too much of an issue; but when the amendment is read hastily, one could potentially confuse which predicate nominative is meant to be the affirmative one, and which is supposed to be the negative one.  Essentially, one could potentially misread the amendment to say: “A well regulated Militia is not necessary to the security of a free State, [and] the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall be infringed.” 

The solution of the nominative absolute

The final framing of the second amendment avoids all of these aforementioned causes of confusion by making one simple alteration: altering the independent clause framing of the militia clause into a subordinate “nominative absolute” framing.  The clause, for all intents and purposes, means exactly the same thing, however the distinction of grammar prevents the confusion that would ensue with the juxtaposition of two independent clauses which have too many important functional differences between them.  Any nominative absolute is grammatically a subordinate clause, yet is one which expresses a complete thought, as if it were virtually a complete sentence unto itself.  Such a framing allows the militia clause to be virtually identical in function to its independent clause framing, while simultaneously being grammatically distinct enough from the independent clause framing of the arms clause such that the two clauses cannot be confused with each other.  Hence, the two clauses are so grammatically different that no one will accidentally mistake the militia clause for being a negative statement, or the arms clause for being a positive statement; no one will mistake the arms clause for being a statement of reinforcement, or mistake the militia clause for being a prohibition.  

Why do things the hard way?

It is indisputable that there was an effort on the part of James Madison -- and the other Framers from the House and the Senate -- to infuse various bits and pieces from the Virginia Declaration of Rights into the Bill of Rights.  We can see a phrase borrowed from Section 12, and grafted into Madison’s first draft of the first amendment.  And we can see virtually the entirety of Section 9 used to form the eighth amendment.  Likewise, we see the first clause of Section 13 being lifted and reworked into ultimately becoming the militia clause of the second amendment, with other bits and pieces of Section 13 being employed here and there by proposals from various members of Congress.  

But the primary question here is: why?  What was the need for Congress to take a declaration of rights designated for one state -- namely Virginia -- borrow certain sections and phrases from it, and then rework and reformulate those elements in order to repurpose them for use by the United States Congress?  It just seems like such a needlessly awkward process to progressively rework preexisting state provisions in order to shoehorn them into the new federal provisions, instead of simply creating entirely original federal provisions from scratch.  

However, this is exactly what Roger Sherman had already done.  Merely a month after James Madison had presented his first draft of the federal militia provision, Roger Sherman created one that appeared to be completely original, unburdened by any extraneous connections, and tailored specifically for the US Congress.  And instead of the more grandiose and stilted verbiage taken from the Virginia Declaration of Rights, his proposal instead used a much more clear, prosaic language that expressed unequivocally what the federal militia provision was intended to express.  So it boggles the mind why Congress swiftly abandoned Sherman’s proposal, and instead opted to establish James Madison’s unwieldy draft as the basis from which the lineage of all subsequent debates and proposals regarding the amendments would derive.  There must be a reason why Congress chose to bend over backwards to integrate the Virginia Declaration of Rights as much as they could into their new federal Bill of Rights, instead of just expressing their intentions using unburdened language.  

Do you have any thoughts about this?  Why did Congress feel it was so important to keeping drawing language from the Virginia Declaration of Rights?  And why didn't they just use Roger Sherman's militia provision in order to avoid all of the editing necessary to force Section 13 of the Virginia Declaration into the amendment?

Additional resources

Here is a useful resource from the National Constitution Center, which gives an easy-to-understand visual representation of the various precursors, proposals, and drafts which led up to the eventual creation of each of the amendments in the Bill of Rights. The drafting history of the second amendment is quite helpful in understanding its historical context and underlying purpose.

In addition, here is a transcript of Roger Sherman’s entire draft of the Bill of Rights, including his version of the militia provision (i.e. second amendment).

It can be legislation for states or the federal level. Basically, policies/legislation that would advance a gun rights agenda.

I do not own guns, but I strongly believe in the second amendment as a force the citizenry can use against government tyranny given a worst case scenario. My wife does not like the second amendment, because she believes it leads to mass shootings. I accept a small micro-percentage of deaths due to mass shootings as the price of freedom. It is terrible, and I would be devastated if it happened to my own family, but I see it as an unavoidable consequence we have to live with if we want to be free.

I don't even want to have this discussion with my spouse, but when she brings up the topic I don't want to pretend I agree with her. I'm not looking for debate points, just curious if anyone has run into conflict around this issue and is able to navigate it away from interpersonal conflict when the person you have a relationship with brings up the topic.

The Second Amendment states:

" 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**."**

Several key components (aside from the ENTIRETY of the amendment) seem to be continually ignored or confused:

1. "keep" Arms - this word is not 'fluff' and was added by the authors for purpose. This is distinctly and intentionally separate from "bear Arms". This seem to be the actual point of focus of most anti-2A, gun control advocates - the restriction (or "infringement') on the actual ownership and possession of Arms, including the requirement of tax penalties as a form of infringement.

2. "bear Arms" - this, again, is intentionally different from "keep" Arms. Bearing Arms is about putting them to their intended purpose of defending of protecting and being in a state of readiness - i.e. locked and loaded. This MUST inherently include any ammunition or other related items or accessories required to make the Arms functional in this defense or protection action.

3. Arms - yes, it is capitalized. At the time of the writing on the 2nd Amendment, the term "Firearms" had been in use for some time (coined around 1640), so the lack of the use of the term "firearms' is telling in relation to the scope of permitted arms (much more VAST). The term "Arms" is old English, originating from the old French "Ares" which means "weapons of a warrior". That means cannons, ballista, rifles, machine guns, pistols, knives and swords, grenade launchers, tanks, etc.

4. Infringed - again a deliberate use of wording by the authors indicating that no amount of disallowance is to be permitted. They could have said "shall not be denied" but this could easily become quantified is a single weapon were permitted, closing the loophole. "Shall no be infringed" mean no amount of restriction is permitted.

​

We need to remind our lawmakers, the executive branch and the judicial branch SERVANTS that work for We The People of these facts and squash the gun-control language that purposefully obfuscates these facts. ANY gun control, including that which is already law, stands in repugnance to the Second Amendment.

There has been a lot of controversy surrounding the actual meaning of the text of the second amendment. When attempting to interpret the amendment, many arguments have been made by utilizing dictionary definitions of certain words or phrases, or arguing over technicalities of grammar.
But I think it is important to understand what matters most when interpreting any text: a text ultimately means nothing more than what its authors intended for it to mean. It doesn't really matter what pro-gun people or gun-control people or DC v Heller think the second amendment means; what matters is the purpose for which the authors created the amendment, and how it was meant to be employed. And the best way to determine that is to look at their available writings that are most pertinent to the topic. Here is the transcript of a debate held in the House of Representatives on the 17th and 20th of August 1789. The debate concerned an early draft of what would become the second amendment, worded as follows:

"A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, being the best security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; but no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms."

The entire debate is very informative to understanding the intent behind the second amendment. It is very notable that the entire discussion centers around militia duty, and not a single word is spoken about hunting, self-defense, sport shooting, or any other civilian gun use. One particular part of the discussion is illuminating in understanding the militia clause of the second amendment:

Mr. Gerry objected to the first part of the clause, on account of the uncertainty with which it is expressed. A well regulated militia being the best security of a free State, admitted an idea that a standing army was a secondary one. It ought to read, "a well regulated militia, trained to arms;" in which case it would become the duty of the Government to provide this security, and furnish a greater certainty of its being done.

This quote indicates that the militia clause of the second amendment is more than just a mere preface or intro to the following clause, but that the clause itself reinforces a certain duty upon the newly-formed national government. The militia clause in the second amendment apparently reinforces Congress's duty to regulate the state militias, as already established in the US Constitution, and with the added purpose of perserving the security and liberty of the individual states. This statement does not necessarily establish any new legal principle or stipulate any specific injunction, but serves as a kind of reminder or statement of duty to the newly formed national government in order to secure the confidence of the states who ratified the Constitution. This kind of statement is unique in the Bill of Rights, but not within the draft history of the second amendment. There exist other similar statements of purpose and duty of the government, such as this phrase that, in a Senate debate on September 4, 1789, was proposed to be added to the second amendment:

. . . that standing armies, in time of peace, being dangerous to Liberty, should be avoided as far as the circumstances and protection of the community will admit; and that in all cases the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by the civil Power.

The above phrase, like the militia clause, does not declare any specific command or stipulate any specific law. But the entire original purpose of the Bill of Rights was to limit the power of the national government for the reassurance of the individual states, and such statements of congressional duty -- although anomalous in the Bill of Rights -- are fully consistent with that purpose.

Now one might ask: why does this reinforcement of the duty of Congress to regulate the militia need to be made in the first place? Particularly when the power to regulate the militia had already been clearly conferred upon Congress in Article 1, Section 8, Clause 16 of the Constitution? Well, I think one important clue is in another founding debate, found here. This is the transcript for a debate in the Virginia ratifying convention on June 14, 1788. It is rather lengthy, but probably the most relevant part is the first paragraph which is spoken by George Mason:

[Mr. Mason.] No man has a greater regard for the military gentlemen than I have. I admire their intrepidity, perseverance, and valor. But when once a standing army is established in any country, the people lose their liberty. When, against a regular and disciplined army, yeomanry are the only defence,--yeomanry, unskilful and unarmed,--what chance is there for preserving freedom? Give me leave to recur to the page of history, to warn you of your present danger. Recollect the history of most nations of the world. What havoc, desolation, and destruction, have been perpetrated by standing armies! An instance within the memory of some of this house will show us how our militia may be destroyed. Forty years ago, when the resolution of enslaving America was formed in Great Britain, the British Parliament was advised by an artful man, who was governor of Pennsylvania, to disarm the people; that it was the best and most effectual way to enslave them; but that they should not do it openly, but weaken them, and let them sink gradually, by totally disusing and neglecting the militia. [Here Mr. Mason quoted sundry passages to this effect.] This was a most iniquitous project. Why should we not provide against the danger of having our militia, our real and natural strength, destroyed? The general government ought, at the same time, to have some such power. But we need not give them power to abolish our militia. If they neglect to arm them, and prescribe proper discipline, they will be of no use. I am not acquainted with the military profession. I beg to be excused for any errors I may commit with respect to it. But I stand on the general principles of freedom, whereon I dare to meet any one. I wish that, in case the general government should neglect to arm and discipline the militia, there should be an express declaration that the state governments might arm and discipline them. With this single exception, I would agree to this part, as I am conscious the government ought to have the power.

I think the part in bold is the most important point here. It is my interpretation that the "express declaration" that Mason is referring to is the second amendment. The US Constitution declared that Congress would possess the power to organize, arm, discipline, and govern the militia, but it was left uncertain to what extent the respective states still retained the power to do the same with their own militias. Mason also had the fear that the national government may neglect its stated powers of regulating the militia as per the Constitution, and ultimately abuse or utterly neglect the militia, to the detriment of the states. The second amendment as a whole seems to rectify this ambiguity and uncertainty, declaring that Congress shall not infringe upon the people's right to arm themselves for militia duty (i.e. "keep arms") and to perform militia duty (i.e. "bear arms"); and the militia clause in particular asserts the purpose of Congress to adequately regulate the militia, rather than allow it to fall into disuse or neglect to the detriment of the individual states.

The arms clause of the second amendment is primarily about the keeping of arms and bearing of arms. The 1789 House debate that I linked to contains a statement by Thomas Scott which actually employs both of these terms, and strongly suggests their militia-related meaning:

Mr. Scott objected to the clause in the sixth amendment, "No person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms." He observed that if this becomes part of the constitution, such persons can neither be called upon for their services, nor can an equivalent be demanded; it is also attended with still further difficulties, for a militia can never be depended upon. This would lead to the violation of another article in the constitution, which secures to the people the right of keeping arms, and in this case recourse must be had to a standing army. I conceive it, said he, to be a legislative right altogether. There are many sects I know, who are religiously scrupulous in this respect; I do not mean to deprive them of any indulgence the law affords; my design is to guard against those who are of no religion. It has been urged that religion is on the decline; if so, the argument is more strong in my favor, for when the time comes that religion shall be discarded, the generality of persons will have recourse to these pretexts to get excused from bearing arms.

The way that Thomas Scott uses "keeping arms" suggests it means more than mere civilian firearm use, since the term is being used in a militia context: the diminution of rigor regarding the militia would purportedly violate the article of the Constitution which secures the right of keeping arms, and such a violation of this right would then necessitate the establishment of a standing army. "Keeping arms" in this context could only be referring to a function of the militia, as purely civilian gun possession would not make any sense in this context.

And furthermore, "bearing arms" can only have a militia-related meaning as it appears in the context above, as it would make no sense for anyone to adopt a pretext of religiosity in order to be excused from the mere freedom of carrying a gun for civilian purposes. And moreover, the phrase "bear arms" (or "bearing arms") is mentioned multiple times in the House debate, and it invariably and unambiguously possesses a military meaning.

Hence, regardless of arguments to the contrary that are frequently made by the pro-gun community, according to the very men who helped create the second amendment, the amendment is clearly about militia duty, and not about civilian gun use. What are your thoughts about this?

Does anyone know where this stands as far as if someone were to acquire a medical marijuana card (prescribed, from a licensed doctor) & Florida is now a Constitutional Carry State… ??? Can the medical card &/or gun possession be nullified by the other? Does anyone know where exactly you can find/read FL statute regarding this?

I don't live in America, but I have relatives that do, my nephew is in elementary and I'm fearful that one day, I'll get a call from my brother that he was a victim of another school shooting.

In one of Jim Carrey's movies, I believe it's "Yes Man," Jim's character innocently purchases a lot of fertilizer and gets on the local authorities radar because they suspect he might be building an explosive with all that fertilizer.

Now, why can't that apply to guns as well, especially assault style guns? That when someone purchases a lot of firearms and ammo, why can't that someone be on the radar of the local authorities? And what I mean by radar is that your social media accounts will be reviewed by the authorities, now, I'm not advocating for an assault style guns ban, that would be a violation of the 2nd amendment, so yes, you can buy as many guns as you like, but be prepared to be questioned by the local authorities if you do. Now, for me, the only people that would be against the local authorities snooping on them when they buy lots of guns and ammo, especially assault style ones, are those with something to hide, those with criminal records, if you are a law abiding citizen with no criminal record, then you'd welcome the authorities looking you up, because you have nothing to hide.

There's nothing in the 2nd amendment that says what I'm suggesting is a violation. Having and owning a gun is a big responsibility, in fact, you have God's power when you wield a gun, because God has the power to take someone's life, and you as a gun owner have that power too, and as Spider-Man says, "With great power comes great responsibility," and I feel like most Americans take that power for granted.

Gun laws and regulations in the United States have historically exhibited systemic biases that disproportionately affect minority Americans, constituting a form of institutional racism. Despite being ostensibly neutral, these laws have had adverse effects on minority communities, perpetuating socio-economic disparities and unequal treatment in access to firearms. One of the most glaring examples dates back to the Jim Crow era when laws were enacted explicitly to disarm African Americans.

Throughout the late 19th and early 20th centuries, several Southern states passed Black Codes and Jim Crow laws that restricted African Americans from owning firearms. These laws aimed to reinforce racial segregation and suppress the rights of Black individuals. In particular, the 1870s and 1880s saw Mississippi and South Carolina passing laws banning the sale of handguns to African Americans. Such measures were part of a broader effort to disempower Black communities and maintain white supremacy.

Even in contemporary times, the enforcement and application of gun laws tend to disproportionately impact minority groups. Stricter background checks and licensing requirements may inadvertently hinder law-abiding citizens in minority communities from obtaining firearms for self-defense or sport. Moreover, aggressive policing in these areas often leads to heightened scrutiny and arrests for minor infractions related to firearms possession.

The legacy of discriminatory gun laws highlights a persistent pattern of inequality within the legal framework, undermining the Second Amendment rights of minority Americans. To address this issue, policymakers must acknowledge and rectify the historical and present-day racial biases embedded in gun regulations.

The 2 amendment is ABSOLUTE. Gun laws are racist. Those who want to take them away do so under the disguise of "saftey". In reality they are just happy you don't have them. Or use it as an excuse to now make you a criminal and send you into the system.

Let's join together to end the ATF. End the devide in America, let's all stand against something.

I have recently published an essay online which I have written; it is entitled: "The Language and Grammar of the Second Amendment". It is a 62-page essay that analyzes in detail the language of the second amendment. The amendment is a matter of great confusion for many people. There doesn't seem to be any real consensus among Americans as to what it actually means. The grammar is rather confusing, and some of the terms used in it are antiquated. My essay focuses primarily on the language itself, rather than delving so much into the historical background of the amendment. The essay uses a mixture of linguistic knowledge and historical context regarding the amendment's terminology in order to clarify what exactly the amendment means. Recent Supreme Court cases such as DC v Heller assert that the main purpose of the second amendment is self-defense, and that the amendment guarantees Americans the right to own guns. However, my thesis is that this is profoundly false. I argue in my essay that the second amendment is primarily about little more than what is explicitly stated in the first clause -- to ensure the right of Americans to militia service.

The essay can be accessed here.

I welcome any comments, questions, or criticisms you may have about the essay.

So I noticed my post was deleted by the moderator of the gun control community, not shocked. so that makes my link in my original thread here in this community; poo. BUT, I was able to copy and save it before hand. I wish I had a screen shot of the amount of views it had for proof that the community did read it, and that the comments were still available.

Free Speech online is only free if a moderator agrees with you.

This is the post unaltered.

It is long, and a little winded, I can admit. But I did try to show how if the gun control community wants to win more people over they have to start addressing the stuff they constantly avoid. At the end where I mentioned the US Code; it was only to show that a well-intentioned law is double-edged and does more to prevent a free people from protecting themselves from a corrupt government; I can see how someone would want to twist it to look like a conspiracy theory and it was unnecessary of me looking back to even mention it.

Take care, and if you read it, cheers to you.

I am curious as to how well gun control advocates understand the Second Amendment supporters overall.

I like to try and be as realistic as possible with hot topics such as this one. Because both sides I think deep down mean well, but when people on either side of this issue or any issue have an all-or-nothing approach and are unwilling to compromise ( which means no side gets exactly what they want ) then to me all that happens is thick minded people are constantly playing grabass with each other for no real purpose other than to be in an echo chamber and go at it with each other.

The positive side of gun control laws is that they are designed in theory to prevent criminals from being able to easily purchase guns, and those who are mentally unstable from owning or being able to purchase them as well, on top of lowering or preventing mass shootings.

What I have always wanted to know from gun control advocates, is this. Everyone is well aware of the Second Amendment, the main issue that arises for those wanting to protect the Second Amendment is the phrase " shall not be infringed upon ". That phrase right there was not put in by accident. The founding fathers were not fools, who only thought about the present that they were in, and did not consider what the future might look like. The truth about that phrase is easy to grasp for anyone who can read what the definition of the word infringe means. Same as simple words such as, stop, or go. They are words with direct meaning that do not put an asterisk on the word that reads " with possible exceptions ". So my question is, if gun control is so important to those who believe in it; why not bring up a vote to change that verbiage/phrase in the Second Amendment?

My next thought is do gun control advocates know about what gun control laws are already in place? Every time there is a mass shooting, there are demands and calls for more gun control, but the truth is, there are already a lot of gun control laws in place, that have been created after a mass shooting. There is the Castle Doctrine Law, the Duty to Retreat law, the famous or infamous Stand Your Ground law, laws limiting magazine sizes, laws preventing the use of bump stocks,
and laws against altering a rifle or pistol to do something it was not originally manufactured or intended to do, age limits to buying firearms; laws regarding hunting, and laws against " ghost guns ". So in the eyes of people who support the Second Amendment, and feel that every American does not need permission to conceal or open carry; because the founding fathers were not fools when they created that law, they look at the laws that gun control advocates have on the board already, and wonder why should there be more.

If you can not put yourself in someone else's shoes to see where they are coming from, how can you expect them to want to listen to you?

Another issue I constantly see is not being able to answer to the pro-Second Amendment community is this. How do gun control advocates, prove something they can not, which is this, if the Government decides to use the National Guard or the Army or Marines illegally against the populace or lawfully uses them against the populace but the military gets out of hand; and the police obviously can only do so much, what are the rest of us supposed to do to protect ourselves.? How are citizens to protect themselves during a riot when rioters are using firearms you do not want out in the public.? The answer, oh that will never happen by our government and our military would never do such a thing to their fellow countrymen, is not realistic, nor even close to being a good answer. So if you as a gun control advocate, can not give a factual guaranteed answer as to how or why such things will never happen now or 5 years from now, you have to realize this is why Second Amendment supporters never want to budge.

If you are honest, you have to realize that it could happen, and you have to make some kind of compromise that in the case of such an event, citizens can have readily accessible and equal firearms to defend themselves.

There is also the opinion of some gun control advocates that, if you take away all the guns ipsofacto problem is solved. The problem with that is, have you seen the size of America? Can you even begin to calculate how many good and bad people own a firearm,? Now come up with an acceptable way to disarm all the bad guys, and protect the good guys from the bad guys who won't turn over their firearms and are now using them on the good people. Also, consider that the local police have been defunded. Next, you have to make every possible way of creating a gun or bullet illegal and impossible to ever be done again. After that, you have to figure out how to prevent the illegal gun trade from getting firearms into the USA and being used on Americans; so let's say you manage to figure all of that out along with convincing Americans that their Government and Military will never turn against them, and manage to get the free world to follow suit. Now you have to convince Second Amendment supporters why countries that want to destroy America and terrorists, will never invade the USA, and if they do, there is no way they are going to use a pistol or rifle against the populace, and even if they did, there would be protection. This is for the all-or-nothing mindset of those gun control advocates who want the elimination of all guns; to answer. If the answer is to stop being paranoid or some passive-aggressive answer; then you have to realize you have not given any reason to Second Amendment supporters to change their minds.

There is nothing wrong with wanting to save lives, to want to prevent people who honestly should not have a firearm from owning one, the problem goes back to the phrase " shall not infringe upon" which means mentally ill or not, everyone until the Second Amendment is changed is technically and legally allowed to own a firearm of any kind, and to open carry or conceal carry even though laws are in place that do prevent that, that in turn means those laws like it or not, are a blatant violation of the Second Amendment; strictly because of that phrase, and even if part of the populace wants it; even if the Supreme Court says it is okay, but just because the Supreme Court says something is okay, doesn't mean they are infallible the Supreme Court is never the final word on a subject. We the People who created the government are in charge, we have the final say on whether we agree with the Supreme Court or not, and the Supreme Court does not.

The same way Freedom of Speech is used, and misused, and how we as a nation, as the voters, as the people who are in charge of the government not controlled by the government, allow that law to be interpreted when it best suits someone's agenda.

Also here is a fun fact, it is illegal to threaten the President of the USA, but what happens if the President becomes a dictator and convinces all three branches of government to follow him or her? Well then obviously it is okay to make threats! Well no, because it is still a law that says you can not. Well then we will just over throw the government if it gets too bad! Well sorry that is illegal as well because of

18 U.S. Code § 2385 - Advocating the overthrow of Government

We the People, have created a Code that has effectively given the US Government to legally become a dictatorship any time they want and there is nothing we the voters can do legally about it, because of this Code. It also means if a town or city in the USA becomes corrupt and the government is too lazy to do anything about it, no one can legally stop that city or town's leadership by force of any kind.

On top of that, we no longer have the means to take back our freedom because we have willingly given up our firearms and refused to compromise, we just gave up and said okay fine, let's get rid of all our firearms enough is enough. Or we just gave up certain firearms, which now only our military has, that has in turn given them the edge over us, and now the government controls the military.

With all the talk about banning "assault rifles" would now be a good time to purchase my AR or can I wait a fee months to save up?