Bill of Rights

Section 5. No law shall be made respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.

• What is the explanation of bill of rights section 2

The free exercise and enjoyment of religious profession and worship, without discrimination or preference, shall forever be allowed. No religious test shall be required for the exercise of civil or political rights.

Because they believed that an armed populace, organized into a well regulated militia, was a good way to defend the country without a large professional army and that it would give the people the ability to defend their liberties if the government ever became tyrannical. Look at modern Switzerland. That is the kind of model that our founders were thinking of.

Michael Montagne

I figure it is partly due to the fact that British forces marched into Lexington and Concord with the intent to seize the militia's arms. This imprinted into the American mind a direct relationship between firearms and freedom.

It is'NT even conjectural as many made coment on it. Not for self protection, not for hunting, not even to protect from foreign invaders. Simply that the people, the militia, be able to wrest power from a government, overtly or insideously, removing power form the people. Every political figure knows that to impose the governments will on the people you must disarm them. Our second amendment has been broken already with the 1934 nfa and all subsequent gun control. They are convincing the sheeple of Amereica that they need protecting from themselves. Don't let it happen.

The Second Amendment allowed for state militias on the cheep, by using citizens arms. It also was a counter balance to the power of the federal government. But the Second Amendment has been an anachronism for over 150 years. State Militias , now known as the National Guard, issue arms to its members. In addition, the most significant arms in the modern military include fighter jets, misiles, artillery, heavy weapons and such, not the kind of things most parents want floating around the neighbor. To allow anyone to own such arms by right is completely uncivilized and not the kind of world most sane people would want to raise a family in.

The 2nd Amendment was intended as a final check of government authority

The militia interpetaion...that some how the National Guard constitutes a "well regulated militia" is ridiculous...any force who ultimately is completely controlled by the regular federal armed forces is in no way securing the right of the people to keep and bear arms...even if the governor can call on them to help with hurricane relief...it still in no way means that they are the kind of militia that the Founders had in mind

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." - Thomas Jefferson

"The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government." -Thomas Jefferson

The Second Amendment to the Constitution of The United States reads 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 capitalisation and punctuation are as the original version passed by Congress

Now the issue here it seems is largely what is meant by 'Militia' but before I address that consider this. When the amendments were written and passed by congress they and the constitution they amended were intended to be read in conjunction with and to provide the means to defend both the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence.

The drafters of the Declaration of Independence had experience of the use of a standing army to oppress the people.

A standing army is a tool of government and can be used by a government to enforce its rule in defiance of the wishes of the people.

A standing army tends to be distanced from the people and its members are often not from the locality in which they are stationed. They do not have much of a connection with the locals making their use against the local population much easier.

The drafters of the second amendment were fully aware of this. They had seen standing armies in Europe used against their own people when those people objected to government oppression or indifference.

Their intention was that there would be no standing army in their new country to prevent a future government using such an army against its own people.

The defence of the country was to be carried out by the armed citizens who would form a Militia as and when needed for that purpose. And should a government become oppressive to the people, to provide the means for the people to remove the government and replace it.

So despite arguments to the contrary from some. The term 'Militia' does not mean the National Guard nor does it mean the regular military forces which are under the direct control of the federal government.

The meaning of 'Militia' intended by the drafters of the Declaration of Independence, The Constitution of The United States, and The Bill of Rights, of which the Second Amendment is a part is, literally, THE PEOPLE. The individuals who make up the population of the United States.

When the Second Amendment is read, as it should be read, in conjunction with the Declaration of Independence and The Constitution of The United States. The meaning of the word 'Militia' intended by the founders of the United States is clear and unambiguous.

Brian Thwaites LL.B (Hons)