Loading …A single attacker, armed with a rifle, a shotgun, and a pistol. The horrific event in Minneapolis, like so many before it, immediately forces a wrenching national question: Why does our Constitution protect private access to such an arsenal?
The debate that follows these tragedies often boils down to a seemingly simple distinction – between weapons for “defense” and weapons for “attack.”
But the constitutional reality, rooted in 200 years of history and evolving Supreme Court precedent, is far more complex. To understand the modern fight over guns in America, we must go back to the beginning and ask a difficult, foundational question: What did the Founders actually intend?
Discussion
This is a tough one, isn't it? Our Founders had the foresight to embed certain freedoms like the right to bear arms into our Constitution, likely envisioning a society capable of defending its liberty. But current events make me question if we’re respecting their intentions or drifting away? Our nation needs to find balance…
I think the founding fathers understood that we needed to defend ourselves. What I don't think is that the founding fathers would have agreed with automatic weapons that shoot a hundred rounds a minute. That's not defending oneself, that's annihilation. And was this Minneapolis shooter defending himself against kids? Praying in a church? I don't think so. I think background checks, why somebody needs a semi-automatic weapon, and mental health checks should be done before anybody gets weapons, es
Semi-automatics like AR 15 only shoot 1 bullet with each pull of the trigger. Minnesota has back ground checks and the shooter had a shotgun, a pistol and a rifle, yet undefined so we don't know what he had
The 2nd does infact give the right to "bear arms, that shall NOT be infringed upon" It does not give the right for someone to gun people down. The government has no ability to change anything. It boils down to the individual. While it is a freedom, that comes with it's own problems. For the better or worse. This has been a societal problem for years.
The Founder's didn't leave any questions as to what weapons! They stated that the people should have sufficient weapons to stop a Tryanical Government should that become necessary! Simply put the people should not be outgunned by the Government!
Founders knew we need guns to defend ourselves from tyrants and radical leftists!
Our president is headed toward absolute control did we not fight the British for taxation with out representation against government???
The weapons are NOT the issue. The issue is the drastic amount of people that are falling into these societal traps and people are simply sheep. Each and every year we are trying to alter what is morally right and acceptable. Teaching our kids that certain EVILS are ok. Our founding fathers would never have supported abortion, trans people in different bathrooms, drag queens teaching children (or reading them gay books in libraries)!!! Our country was founded on biblical principles! For a reason
The problem I see with the second amendment is that the words under a national emergency was not added. The founding fathers didn't have the benefit of hindsight. Maybe there will come a time when a council of peers could review and amend the amendment.
When the founding fathers gave us the right to bear arms they new what they were doing . We have a right to have a AR 15 .They are not military standard they are one step above a twenty two. The Democrats want complete control and to do it they have to Take our guns .
Voting not working
Damn right the meant for us to have the RIGHT to bear arms, I'm an in-country Viet vet, I look at what has happened to that country since we left it makes me MAD as hell when I think about those who fell beside me over there, and realize what a bunch of cowardly bastards we have around us now.
Leave a Comment
Leave a Comment
At a Glance: The Second Amendment Debate
- The Core Debate: Does the Second Amendment protect all firearms, or only those suitable for traditional “self-defense”?
- The Modern Interpretation (Heller, 2008): The Supreme Court affirmed an individual right to own common firearms for lawful purposes like self-defense in the home, separate from militia service.
- The Historical Context: In the founding era, the line between a “militia” weapon and a “civilian” weapon was virtually non-existent. The citizen-soldier was expected to own a military-grade firearm.
- The Unresolved Question: The Court has stated the right is “not unlimited” and does not protect “dangerous and unusual weapons,” but has never clearly defined where that line is drawn for modern firearms like AR-15s.
- The Constitutional Issue: A deep national conflict over the original meaning of the Second Amendment and how it applies to 21st-century technology.
The Words on the Page: The Second Amendment’s Two Clauses
The entire debate is rooted in a single, famously ambiguous sentence:
“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.”
For centuries, the core legal argument was over these two clauses. Gun control advocates focused on the first part, the “Militia Clause,” arguing that the right was a collective one, intended only for organized, state-run militias.
Gun rights advocates focused on the second part, the “Operative Clause,” arguing that “the right of the people” meant it was an individual right, just like the right to free speech or religion.
The Supreme Court Weighs In
For most of American history, the Supreme Court was largely silent on the issue. That all changed in 2008.
In the landmark case District of Columbia v. Heller, the Supreme Court, in a 5-4 decision authored by Justice Antonin Scalia, decisively settled the core debate. The Court ruled that the Second Amendment protects an individual’s right to possess firearms for traditionally lawful purposes, most notably for self-defense within the home.
The militia, the Court argued, was a citizens’ militia, composed of individuals who were expected to bring their own private arms to service. The right was not collective; it was individual. This decision fundamentally reshaped the gun debate, centering it on the right to self-defense.
“The Supreme Court’s 2008 Heller decision fundamentally reshaped the gun debate, affirming for the first time that the Second Amendment protects an individual’s right to own a gun for self-defense.”
The Founders’ Arsenal: A Blurred Line
So what kind of “Arms” did the Founders intend to protect? Here, history gets complicated.
In the late 18th century, the distinction we make today between a “military” weapon and a “civilian” weapon was virtually meaningless. The standard infantry weapon of the day was the musket, a single-shot, long-barreled firearm. This was the exact same weapon that a farmer would have over his mantle for hunting, protecting his home, and, if called upon, for militia duty.
“To the Founders, the idea of a separate class of ‘military-style’ weapons would have been confusing. The entire point of the citizen militia was that the people possessed the same types of ‘Arms’ as the infantry to serve as a check on a professional, standing army.”
From a purely historical perspective, the arms the Founders intended to protect were the common military-style weapons of their era.
The Unresolved Question of ‘Dangerous and Unusual’ Weapons
This is where the modern debate becomes so fierce. How does that historical reality apply to the firearms of today?
Justice Scalia, in his Heller opinion, included a crucial caveat. He wrote that the Second Amendment right is “not unlimited.” He affirmed that the government could, for example, continue to ban “dangerous and unusual weapons” not in common use.
The entire modern fight over so-called “assault weapons” is a battle over that definition.
Gun control advocates argue that firearms like the AR-15 are the modern equivalent of the cannon or the machine gun – exceptionally dangerous weapons of war that are “unusual” for civilian life and can be banned.
Gun rights advocates counter that the AR-15 is the “modern musket.” They argue it is in “common use” by millions of law-abiding Americans for lawful purposes like self-defense and is therefore exactly the kind of firearm the Second Amendment protects.
A Debate Between Two Histories
The tragic shooting in Minneapolis forces this debate to the forefront once again. But the constitutional conflict remains unresolved.
The Supreme Court, particularly in its 2022 Bruen decision, has made it clear that history and tradition are the only tests for gun laws. But as long as Americans look at the same history and draw two profoundly different conclusions, the constitutional battle over the Second Amendment – and the meaning of our past – will continue.
The founders knew exactly what they were doing with the Second Amendment. It's about freedom, plain and simple. Dems just wanna control us, take away our rights, and disarm the good folks. Stand strong, MAGA! Don't let fake news twist the truth.