If the founders of the Constitution knew what was going to happen, would there be an 2nd Amendment?

[Stuart G]

My opinion is............. NO!.
The founders had no idea of the future. Remember, there were no police forces in large cities
then, and I think there was no army to protect against invasion in the 1790s when this was proposed. Was there?

Instead of police forces, there was the 2nd Amendment. Just my opinion.

The founders of the U.S. Constitution were very smart people. I am not sure that they could have even thought what
the United States has become. From the beginning the founders would have outlawed slavery if the Civil War could
have been envisioned. Or maybe, if that were the case, and they tried to outlaw slavery, there would be .."No United
States of America. It would be something else.

[DURHAM D]

1. The 2nd Amendment as written by the founders has absolutely nothing to do

with an individual's right to own weapons.

[Stuart G]

4. I think you are totally wrong....Below is the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution

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.

Look at the last 14 words....those are the killers that the founders had no idea would be..KILLERS!!!!

[Emile]

5. Are all gun owners in a Well Regulated Militia?

[Ray Bruns]

7. No.

[wryter2000]

9. US v Miller

Probably almost ago...

The founders did not want a standing army. They wanted to defend the country by calling up militias. The militias would require people to bring their own guns. If guns were banned, there could be no militias. The sole purpose of the second amendment was to enable well-regulated militias.

[orwell]

10. If I were an "originalist"...

...which I am not, the key words are "being necessary to the security of a free State".

That puts in context the 14 words that follow.

This was clearly crafted in the context of state or national defense, not a cruise missile defense system owned by Jeff Bezos to keep infidels from storming the gates.

It is only misconstrued, like all laws, to fit the preordained belief of whomever holds the power to legally interpret those words.

That is why our system of "justice" is a complete sham, including the "Supreme Court".

Stare decisis indeed...

[ProfessorGAC]

16. Agreed!

I will add that it suggests nothing about defense from governmental tyrrany. Yet, the literalists somehow add their interpretation. Not sure how interpretation & literal go together.
Also, the word security is paramount. Taking up arms against one's own government doesn't seem assure "security".
Finally, it specifically mentions the security of the state. The literalists should not be extending it to the individual, because it literally says the opposite.

[relayerbob]

2. It is one of the most poorly formed sentences in any official document

They fought over that wording, and it was the expected result of committee groupspeak. It means one thing, but lends itself to completely different interpretations as a result. Good luck getting anyone now to agree to change it.

[Ray Bruns]

6. Agreed. They should have written as the right of the states to form, regulate and arm militias.

That was the original intent. If they had, we wouldn't have this mess we have now.

[relayerbob]

15. yep

[Hortensis]

3. As said. There would have been because the federal government's

role needed to be addressed, but I imagine they would have agreed on better wording while still empowering the states to decide.

Remember, rights and sovereignty of the common man were new ideas and respect for their ability to handle them wisely not exactly common among the long-established upper classes who wrote it. Disrespect and fear of the mob were.

[anarch]

8. I think they were mainly concerned with defending against the indigenous population of "savages"

No police forces, and no standing army, so yeah, the colonial settlers would have had "self defense" against the people who were annoyingly living in their soon-to-be tobacco or cotton plantation or whatever as a high priority at the time it was written.

I think as a whole they were mostly OK with the slavery and all that entails; they couldn't envision someone thinking of those "savages" and so on as having the same kind of rights that a U.S. Citizen was supposed to have; that would have just been outlandish--they were "savages"

[mobeau69]

11. Slavery, "The Peculiar Institution", was grudgingly agreed to in order

to get slave areas to sign on to the proposed Constitution. They delayed dealing with it for decades. A very high price would inevitably be paid.

[ck4829]

12. If you could go back in time and describe today's weapons to them, they would have laughed at you

[JustAnotherGen]

13. Yes - but with more clarity

I believe Madison would have clarified 'why' we needed a militia force.

AntiFederalists were leery of a standing central military. After the Shay's rebellion - that changed the game.

I don't think Madison could have envisioned either the Civil War as a result of the southern states forming a new country - The CSA - or a world every day average Americans were running around with their hair on fire in fear that the government would take their guns away. *sigh*

[sanatanadharma]

14. Only two possible answers to the question, yes or no

Yes, the founders would change nothing about the 2ns amendment even if they knew what today would be like.
In which case, the founders would be sociopaths and psychopaths and thus we can reject them.
OR
No, the founders would not allow this to happen and thus we now must fix the mistake they never intended, to honor them.

[lpbk2713]

17. They couldn't see into the future.

They had no idea so many people could have "hunting rifles" (so called)
capable of firing 40 or so deadly military grade rounds per minute.

[Buckeyeblue]

18. Would there still be a Senate with equal representation for each state?

Regardless of each states population.

[UTUSN]

19. Well, the "militias" were to catch runaway slaves.

[themaguffin]

20. Of course, gotta patrol the slaves