At the risk of setting off a firestorm I would like to offer a view of the Second Amendment and solutions to some of the issues surrounding it.

I have come to believe that the Second is only about having a well-regulated armed militia. The War started when the Brits "came after" their guns. The nation had just had an armed revolution and I think that the Founding Fathers viewed the possibility of armed rebellion to be a Constitutional Right. I believe that we could/should have local armed militias (with appropriate training).

Now, that leaves hunting, recreational shooting, and personal protection out in the cold. When the Constitution was written, these were viewed as simply rights held by the states/people. We need two more amendments to guarantee these rights. Since the Constitution granted the non-enumerated tasks to the States, then each state would have the responsibility to regulate these uses. They already do so for hunting with minimum caliber/gauge, magazine capacity, etc. They could do the same for self defense, with the river-arching statement in the two new amendments that while the states can regulate the uses, the regulations must be reasonable and can't infringe on the person's reasons ability to hunt, shoot, or defend themselves.

Thankfully it was written very simple and direct so we don’t have to debate what it means or what it protects,, it just is and cant and will never be changed…

says “Right to bear arms,, Shall not be infringed”

The gun laws and regulation we already have are indeed an infringement..

Eventually there won’t be any gun laws or regulations because that was the intent of the founding fathers…. any regulation is government over reach clearly as stated by the bill of rights and constitution…

The government does not have the power under the Constitution to regulate the bill of rights… The constitution was written to restrict government not the people…

CM,

Your interpretation is far from correct. “The right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” This isn’t intended to be simply for the sake of maintaining a militia. The founders were pretty clear on this as being a basic right, especially for personal protection as mentioned below. Hunting was also a primary means for food at that time which required firearms and went without saying and still meant to be protected. People maintained the power and rights to firearms whether it is protecting against government, personal protection, hunting, or for Toff to stick up his rear to self-pleasure.

"A free people ought not only to be armed, but disciplined..."
George Washington, First Annual Address, to both House of Congress, January 8, 1790

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms."
Thomas Jefferson, Virginia Constitution, Draft 1, 1776

"The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes.... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man."

Thomas Jefferson, Commonplace Book (quoting 18th century criminologist Cesare Beccaria), 1774-1776

"The Constitution of most of our states (and of the United States) assert that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed."

Thomas Jefferson, letter to to John Cartwright, 5 June 1824

There is no doubt whatsoever about the intent of the founding fathers. The Militia is comprised of the People, and each militiaman individually has the right to keep and bear arms. It’s been clearly intended to be a right of the people and not just for the sake of a maintaining a militia but also for personal protection or whatever else. The Supreme Court has also interpreted it similarly. Your argument has been around a while and has been dismissed. You didn’t reinvent the wheel with a new perspective on the 2nd amendment.


Streamer

nailed it rich. The peoples right to defend against government tyranny.

I agree with the above arguments against CM but I'd like to add one more as a sidebar, the Washington State Constitution, specifically Article I, Section 24, states:

"The right of the individual citizen to bear arms in defense of himself, or the state, shall not be impaired, but nothing in this section shall be construed as authorizing individuals or corporations to organize, maintain or employ an armed body of men."

This clause explicitly protects the right of individual citizens to bear arms for self-defense and defense of the state, not solely as members of a militia. The language emphasizes personal self-defense as well as state defense, distinguishing it from a collective or militia-only interpretation. However, it also clarifies that this right does not extend to forming private armed groups. This interpretation aligns with court rulings, such as State v. Gohl (1907), where Washington courts have recognized the individual right to bear arms for self-defense, subject to reasonable regulations. The clause’s focus on "the individual citizen" makes your argument wrong, at least in Washington State.

Oh and I know we live in Washington State but our constitution is one of the longer State constitutions to make the same natural law concepts as codifed in the 2nd Amendment more clear and precise so there are no mistakes like yours Carcassman. So as written in Washington State I have an individual right to bear arms to protect myself and I guess the state if I want to and that right shall not be impaired which means diminished, damaged, or weakened.

And as I proposed, the State regulates self defense. You are agreeing with me, FP.

You said "I have come to believe that the Second is only about having a well-regulated armed militia," in Washington State the right to bear arms is an individual right as per our constitution, nothing to do with militia membership. In Washington State, the militia is defined by state law under RCW 38.04.030. The militia consists of: "All able-bodied citizens of the United States and all other able-bodied persons who have declared their intention to become citizens of the United States, residing in this state, who are between the ages of eighteen and forty-five years, and who are not exempt by law, shall be members of the militia of the state of Washington." So like even then, you are still part of the militia. But you don't have to be part of the militia to have a right to bear arms for your individual defense in Washington State.

Fine. That doesn't cover the rest of the US.

Sorry this is a Washington fishing forum so I didn't notice your Californian/USness.

The federal definition of the militia in the United States is codified in 10 U.S.C. § 246 , Unorganized militia: This includes all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and (except as provided in 32 U.S.C. § 313) under 45 years of age who are citizens of the United States or have declared their intention to become citizens, as well as female citizens who are members of the National Guard. Ok this is slightly different from the Washington State definition but largely the same,

California's definition of the militia is outlined in the California Military and Veterans Code, Division 2, Chapter 2 (The Militia), particularly §§ 120–130. The unorganized militia includes able-bodied citizens of California who are not enrolled in the organized militia. While the federal definition (10 U.S.C. § 246) specifies males aged 17 to 45 (and certain females in the National Guard), California's definition is less explicit about age and gender but generally aligns with the federal standard, encompassing citizens capable of bearing arms in defense of the state. These individuals are not actively trained, organized, or called to service under normal circumstances but can be summoned by the state in extreme situations, such as during a declared emergency, invasion, or insurrection, as outlined in the state's authority under the California Constitution and Military and Veterans Code.

Ok so like it looks like according to Federal Law, Washington State Law and California State Law it is covered. I think you misunderstand the "Federal" in Federal Law.

We have been under a Police State since the treaty 1871 when we were placed back under a fuedalist system of slavery and debt/interest... Have not been a free people since 1871 officially...

Taxation without representation,, no property ownership attack on our ability and right to protect ourselves...

If you pay taxes on unrealized capitol gains it means you actually do not own any property,, you just pay annual fee's to the government entity to inhabit or use it..

The Banking Cartel and government own everything,, including your physical flesh and bones... That is why we are issued a birth certificate and SSN,, because we are property of the Central Bank...

When did the the 2A claim we had the right to hunt and feed ourselves with firearms ?

To me, that’s some anti 2a’s bizarre interpretation of the 2a , allowing firearm ownership with some equally bizarre adminocrap laws that have nothing to do with your personal self defense...

The last, or latest, official word on the 2nd Amendment was the SCOTUS ruling of Heller v. Washington D.C., 2008, written by conservative Justice Alito. The court clarified that the 2A right to bear arms is both an individual right as well as for the organized "well regulated" militia. The 2A is not a free for all right, as RichG seems to suggest, where even convicted felons (like Donald J Trump) and mentally incompetent persons have the right to bear arms. Alito noted that the 2A, like anything else, is subject to reasonable regulation. The popular reference is to William O. Douglas' exception to the First Amendment of free speech; you cannot falsely yell "Fire!" in a crowded theater and subject the people there to trampling and other hazards.

The ongoing legitimate debate seems to be what regulations are "reasonable," as understood and interpreted by the SCOTUS. As in, is it reasonable to restrict ownership and possession of AR style rifles and carbines? If so, why? If not, why not? Is a 30-round magazine an inalienable right for a legal firearm not capable of fully automatic fire? (What about 80 and 100-round magazines? - they actually exist.)

Generally, I don't feel limited or affected by WA's 10-round magazine regulation - except that the Springfield 10mm pistol comes with (in other states) a 15-round magazine. There was the incident 3 years ago of a Montana elk hunter who was nearly attacked by a grizzly bear. He fired 10 of his 15 rounds before stopping that bear. I think about what if the bear was still coming after the 10th shot, and my WA legal pistol was out of ammo. (Sure, the story could be amended, and what if the bear was still coming after the 15th shot? My answer is that the bear is now on top of me, and I'm SOL.) I mention this example because it represents the only incident I know of where WA's 10-round magazine limit just might not be "reasonable."

If magazines capable of holding more than 10 rounds are unreasonable for citizens then why are they not unreasonable for police and law enforcement? They are trained to shoot to kill. They should be able to put someone down quickly if needed and do so with only a few shots. They don’t need militarized weapons either then. The intent of 2A is that people can have equal power and weaponry (although I think tanks and aircraft might be a bit excessive).

I’m okay with some felons and some mentally ill having firearms. Trump, for example, isn’t really a felon anyway and it was for non-violent offenses. There are many non-violent felons that would be okay having firearms. Some people are mentally ill with anxiety, depression, bi-polar (without psychotic features) ADHD, or even some personality disorders that pose 0 risk of harm to others. All of the research points to an individual’s history of personal violence or exposure to violence as being the biggest predictive factors.


Streamer