Im getting tired of all the gun politics of late, so i want to know what are your opinions on our bill of rights, mainly the right to bare arms. What do you think our forefathers meant by this as a term to be used throughout the ages in the usa

The obvious intent was to aid the citizen-militia and preserve the age old tradition of private ownership of firearms.


However, the most important provisions of the Bill of Rights are the 9th and 10th amendments which clarify and basically state in a nutshell what the Constitution of the United States does.

It's not written in Latin.

It was written to mean what it says - "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

So that we could easily overthrow the government when needed.
Of course, we don't want to do that, unless they get out of control.

That, and provide as the last line of defense for our family, country, and ourselves if the need ever came.

ETA: It damn sure wasn't to put meat on the dinner table more efficiently.

Red the Federalist Papers.

Like TodaysTomSawyer posted "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

In every instance in the Bill of Rights the phrase "the people" individual rights.  There are those that would have you believe that this is the case with the exception of the 2nd Amendment.

Amendment I Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances. Amendment II 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. Amendment III No soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law. Amendment IV 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 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. Amendment V No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation. Amendment VI 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. Amendment VII In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise reexamined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law. Amendment VIII Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted. Amendment IX The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. Amendment X The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

I think the Constitution is also very much misundertood by the public at large.  Many think that it grants these rights to the individual, it does not insomuch as it restricts the government from infringing upon them.  It says "Congress shall make no law..."  It does not say, "the people have the right to..."  In essence, the Constitution in this way, is being interpreted backwards.  Also, as mentioned above, there are other rights that are not enumerated, that also any under the protection of the Constitution as 1Andy2 alluded to in Amendments 9 and 10.

Quoted: I think the Constitution is also very much misundertood by the public at large.  Many think that it grants these rights to the individual, it does not insomuch as it restricts the government from infringing upon them.  It says "Congress shall make no law..."  It does not say, "the people have the right to..."  In essence, the Constitution in this way, is being interpreted backwards.  Also, as mentioned above, there are other rights that are not enumerated, that also any under the protection of the Constitution as 1Andy2 alluded to in Amendments 9 and 10.

You got it.

Here is the Constitution in a nutshell:

All power of any sort is held by the people unless delegated to the Federal Government by the people through their elected representatives in their State Legislature by way of Constitutional Amendment.

eta: And Burt Badnarik is right; every Senator and congressman should have to take a course on the constitution before they can serve.

Another thing that gets me is how concise that Constitution and its amendments are compared to the monster of US Code.  I mean how hard could the Supreme Court's job be here?  Read the law in question, find the section of that Constitution that deals with it, and see if the law complies with the Constitution.

Quoted: Another thing that gets me is how concise that Constitution and its amendments are compared to the monster of US Code.  I mean how hard could the Supreme Court's job be here?  Read the law in question, find the section of that Constitution that deals with it, and see if the law complies with the Constitution.

Maybe they need a yes/no legal diagnostic flow chart?  

The whole reason we have arguments about what it means is because some people "the enemy" dont beleive people should be able to own arms and are just being ignorant on purpose.

They are lucky they have the first amendment and can say as they wish.

It is bad when politicians are ignorant though.    If I was POTUS I would probably have them tried for treason.  "aiding and abetting the enemy by trying to supress our right to bear arms".  But the POTUS is too much of a pussy with no love for his country with no balls and principal to do anything about it.  I guess he doesnt care people in positions of legislation dont support the 2nd amendment.  That is enough for me to go into war mode and want to do everything in my power to  have them jailed and tried for treason.

Quoted: Another thing that gets me is how concise that Constitution and its amendments are compared to the monster of US Code.  I mean how hard could the Supreme Court's job be here?  Read the law in question, find the section of that Constitution that deals with it, and see if the law complies with the Constitution.

If the Supreme Court were to take that on... my God.  It would take them months. Maybe years to go though each and every unconstitutional law/action made by congress or any of the alphabet agencies (BATFE, IRS, FEMA, etc).   The end result, if they ruled in favor of constitutionally limited government, would politically be like sending our country back to the 1850s.

All the socialists in this country (and it IS a vast majority) would revolt.  There would be armed insurrection by people demanding their welfare, social security, labor protection, federal work safety laws, etc.

The sad truth is that Americans have grown USED to socialism and Federal Nannyism.  They WANT to be told what to do by the government.  They want safety nets.  Even the conservatives do.  The progressive/socialist revolution was less subtle here than it was in Russia but it damn sure is longer lived.  Progressivism is an institution now.