The 2nd Amendment actually REQUIRES gun regulation

(1) The 2nd Amendment actually REQUIRES gun regulation. Keep reading this & see!

(2) The 2nd Amend. says: “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.”

(3) The Supreme Court said that the Founding Fathers used “the ordinary definition of the militia as all able-bodied men.”

(4) So, the “militia” referred to in the 2nd Amend. just means all the gun owners in each state.

(5) The 2nd Amendment does not refer to “an UNregulated Militia” but instead refers to “a well REGULATED Militia.”

(6) Thus, the Founding Fathers expected that the governments of each state would regulate the guns in each state, & not just regulate guns, but “well regulate” them. In other words, the regulations would be strong, effective, & fulsome.

(7) So, the 2nd Amend. authorizes, expects, & requires strong regulation of guns.

(8) Now, the 2nd Amend. does state that possession & use of guns “shall not be infringed.”

(9) But since the 2nd Amend. also says that gun ownership shall be “well regulated,” it logically follows that ALL gun regulations do NOT constitute an infringement of the right to own guns.

(10) So, as an example, a regulation requiring each gun owner to pay $1 for a gun license & background check would not be an infringement, but requiring each gun owner to pay $1,000 for a gun license & background check would be an infringement.

(11) Thus, anyone who supports the 2nd Amend. must support laws that make sure that guns are “well regulated.”

(12) So, those who promote reasonable gun regulation are the true upholders of the Second Amendment, and those who oppose all gun regulation are repudiators of the Second Amendment.


Anyone who agrees with this well-reasoned argument above, please do give it a “like”.

This argument needs a show of consensus to have the proper impact!!!


Second Amendment Does Not Guarantee the Right To Own a Gun (From Gun Control, P 99-102, 1992, Charles P Cozic, ed. – See NCJ-160164)

NCJ Number



W E Burger

Date Published



4 pages


Former Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court Warren Burger argues that the sale, purchase, and use of guns should be regulated just as automobiles and boats are regulated; such regulations would not violate the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.


The Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution guarantees a “right of the people to keep and bear arms.” However, the meaning of this clause cannot be understood apart from the purpose, the setting, and the objectives of the draftsmen. At the time of the Bill of Rights, people were apprehensive about the new national government presented to them, and this helps explain the language and purpose of the Second Amendment.

It guarantees, “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 need for a State militia was the predicate of the “right” guarantee, so as to protect the security of the State.

Today, of course, the State militia serves a different purpose. A huge national defense establishment has assumed the role of the militia of 200 years ago. Americans have a right to defend their homes, and nothing should undermine this right; nor does anyone question that the Constitution protects the right of hunters to own and keep sporting guns for hunting anymore than anyone would challenge the right to own and keep fishing rods and other equipment for fishing.

Neither does anyone question the right of citizens to keep and own an automobile. Yet there is no strong interest by the citizenry in questioning the power of the State to regulate the purchase or the transfer of such a vehicle and the right to license the vehicle and the driver with reasonable standards.

It is even more desirable for the State to have reasonable regulations for the ownership and use of a firearm in an effort to stop mindless homicidal carnage. …

Why the Second Amendment protects a ‘well-regulated militia’ but not a private citizen militia

Published: June 14, 2021

When a federal judge in California struck down the state’s 32-year-old ban on assault weapons in early June 2021, he added a volatile new issue to the gun-rights debate.

The ruling, by U.S. District Court Judge Roger Benitez, does not take effect immediately, because California has 30 days to appealthe rejection of its assault weapons ban.

Most coverage has focused on Benitez’s provocative analogy between an AR-15 and a Swiss army knife. But the case raises troubling questions about the meaning and proper role of “militias” under the Second Amendment. …


We do not need guns, unless it is to hunt, which I won’t be a party to either, as a vegetarian, but I realize some people out in remote areas still hunt. There is no need to own a gun otherwise.

Its those new dangerous deer that have evolved that require an AR to take them down don’t want to face them with one shot.

So you’ve been out here in the San Juan Mtns, eh?

courtesy of the San Juan Horseshoe

:joy: :rofl: :joy: :rofl: :joy: :rofl: :joy: :rofl: Bam*Bo! Too funny! This vegetarian loves it! seal of vegetarian approval

  1. When someone tells you that the Second Amendment is their basis for opposing various proposed new gun regulations (e.g., banning assault rifles, requiring a universal background check), I recommend that you ask that person to tell you what is the meaning of the phrase “well regulated” in the Second Amendment.
  2. The Second Amendment is quite short. I recommend memorizing the Second Amendment to all those who want to see new, reasonable gun regulations, and who want to win some of the fellow American over to the cause of reasonable gun regulations.
  3. Here is the full text of the Second Amendment:
  4. “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.”
  5. The Supreme Court’s Heller decision did proclaim that the Second Amendment does give each citizen a right to possess and use firearms for purposes of self defense.
  6. But right wing activists usually fail to mention that the Heller decision also proclaimed that the Second Amendment does permit the government to impose reasonable gun regulations for purposes of public safety.
  7. Those of us who want to see new, reasonable gun regulations need to reclaim the Second Amendment as OUR ALLY in this.
  8. Right wing activists and politicians have been spreading a fake Second Amendment which falsely says that that all regulations on guns are forbidden.
  9. They get away with this fakery because most of the people who say that they love and stand by the Second Amendment have never even read the Second Amendment.
  10. Many who want new gun regulations are reluctant to embrace the Second Amendment because they don’t want to acknowledge that there is a right of all citizens to bear arms for purposes of self-defense.
  11. But this opposition to the right of all citizens to bear arms, and this reluctance to embrace and use the Second Amendment, just cedes the authority of the Second Amendment (and the whole of the Constitution, really) to the Right Wing.
  12. And this just keeps things frozen; new gun regulations can never gain wide enough support to be enacted into law.
  13. This lets the Right depict gun regulation promoters as being opposed to the Constitution and as being anti-American.
  14. I recommend, unlike Right Wingers, that we love (or at least accept for the time being), follow, embrace, and promote BOTH KEY PARTS of the Second Amendment, both “THE RIGHT of the people to keep and bear Arms” part and the “WELL REGULATED” part.
  15. In other words, let us be the ones who actually READ the Second Amendment!
  16. I believe that this is the way to get assault rifles banned, and the way to get universal background checks, and to get some other reasonable regulations that help with public safety.
  17. The only way the Right to Bear Arms and the Right to Religion (two constitutional rights that some Progressives don’t like; recall Obama’s famous quip, “they cling to guns or religion”) could be completely eliminated would be by constitutional amendment.
  18. But, in the meantime (for those who want a society without these rights, as per John Lennon’s “Imagine”), the government can impose reasonable regulations on these rights, particularly when matters of public safety are involved.

#6 and #10 are the key contradiction to me. I like the strategy.