TexasCHLforum.com

canvasbck wrote:Since Sandy Hook, I have been doing alot of research on the history and background of the second amendment and how it came into being. Unfortunately, I did not do this before because I took the amendment as written and assumed that no further research was needed.

Due to my previously ignorant state, I could not accurately articulate what was meant by the framers when they said "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state". Antis will argue that the 2A only applies to a militia. Turns out that's right, the 2A does only apply to the militia, it does not apply to the military. When it was written, the militia was every able bodied person who was capable of bearing arms. Both the federalists and antifederalists agreed that if the government had the power to raise a standing army then it was critical for the people to serve as a militia to avoid oppressive rule by a military state, they recognized that for the militia (which was every citizen) to be effective, they had to be well armed. Hence the phrase; "A well armed militia being necessary to the security of a free state". Several states made it clear when they ratified the constitution that the militia was essential and that the militia consisted of all able bodied citizens.

We always emphasize the second part of the 2A during debates, but once you understand what was meant by the first part it is just as important in explaining the intent of the second amendment.

Amazing what I can learn when I actually read!