American Small Business Owned & Operated! Based in Edison, NJ

Explained: The Second Amendment in Simple Terms

Posted by Justin on

These days, there’s plenty of confusion about the Second Amendment, what it actually states, and what it means for modern Americans.

Let’s break down the Second Amendment in simple terms so you know exactly what to argue against when some liberal claims Americans shouldn’t own guns.

The Background of the Second Amendment

The important thing to recognize when discussing the Second Amendment is why the Founding Fathers were so focused on ensuring that it made it into the Bill of Rights.

You see, back when the Constitution was being drafted, America had just come out of a war with England.

In those days, English soldiers would frequently force American citizens to give up their homes for their own shelter needs, and the American Revolution was largely fought with the Continental Army comprised of people who brought their own guns to the fight.

In short, America's Founding Fathers recognized the importance of citizens being able to arm themselves in case they needed to overthrow an illegitimate government or defend themselves from invaders.

This hasn't been needed in our country's modern history, of course, but that is the context in which the Second Amendment was written.

2nd Amendment Hat

100% Made in USA


What Does the Second Amendment Mean?

The Second Amendment spells out exactly what it means in clear terms. It describes, verbatim:

“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”.

Translated into simpler language, this means that the people of the United States have the right to keep and bear arms and form well-regulated militias in order to stand up to a potentially tyrannical government.

This right shall not be infringed in any way.

So, yes, this does mean that American citizens should be able to own firearms in some way, shape, or form.

But exactly what this works out to in real life is what has led to disputes about gun control in the modern era.

Modern Interpretations

Many people focus primarily on the “well-regulated militia” part of the Second Amendment.

A militia by definition is a group of citizens devoted to the security and protection of their communities. Militias may use lethal force to provide that protection if necessary.

In this way, some people claim that regular Americans shouldn’t be allowed to own many types of firearms unless they are part of an official militia organization.

Others are utterly wrong and think Americans shouldn’t be able to own firearms whatsoever.

In truth, the Second Amendment is pretty clear: people can and should own guns and form groups to ensure that the US government can never become tyrannical the way England was during our founding.

Hold The Line

With the rumblings about possible attacks on the Second Amendment making waves on the news, it’s important to remember that no matter what a liberal pundit might say, the Second Amendment does give you the right to bear arms.

Remember to always vote for your representatives and keep the conversation going – the fight to ensure the Second Amendment is not removed is far from over!

Justin, Author
Right Wing Gear

2nd Amendment Flag

Durable & Made to Last


Newer Post

1 comment

  • Justice Amy Coney Barrett Second Amendment dilemma

    In some 229 years neither law professors, academic scholars, teachers, students or congressional legislators after much debate have not been able to satisfactorily explain or demonstrate the Framers intended purpose of Second Amendment of the Constitution. I had taken up that challenge allowing  Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett’s dilemma to understand the true intent of the Second Amendment.

    I will relate further by demonstration, the intent of the Framers, my understanding using the associated wording to explain. The Second Amendment states, “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.”

    Militia, a body of citizens organized for military service.

    If, as some may argue, the Second Amendment’s “militia” meaning is that every person has a right to keep and bear arms, the only way to describe ones right as a private individual is not as a “militia” but as a “person.” (The individual personality of a human being: self)

    The Article of Confederation lists eleven (11) references to“person/s.” The Constitution lists “person” or “persons” 49 times to explicitly describe, clarify and mandate a constitutional legal standing as to a “person” his or her constitutional duty and rights, what he or she can do or not do.

    It’s not enough to just say “person/s” is mentioned in the United States Constitution 49 times, but to see it for yourself (forgo listing), and the realization was for the concern envisioned bt the Framers that every person be secure in these rights explicitly spelled out, referenced and understood how these right were to be applied to that “person.”

    Whereas, in the Second Amendment any reference to “person” is not to be found. Was there a reason? Which leaves the obvious question, why did the Framers use the noun “person/s” as liberally as they did throughout the Constitution 49 times and not apply this understanding to explicitly convey the same legal standard in defining an individual “persons” right to bear arms as a person?

    Justice Amy Coney Barrett dissent in Barr v Kanter (2019) Second Amendment argument acquiesced to 42 references to “person/s, of which 13 characterize either a gun or firearm. Her Second Amendment, “textualism” approach having zero reference to “person/s. Justice Barrett’s  view only recognizes “person/s” in Barr, as well in her many other 7th circuit rulings. It is her refusal to acknowledge, recognize or connect the U.S. Constitution benchmark legislative interpretive precept language of “person/s,” mandated in our Constitution 49 times, to the Second Amendment.
    Leaving Supreme Court Justice Barrett’s judgment in question.

    In the entire U.S. Constitution “militia” is mentioned 5 times. In these references there is no mention of “person” or “persons.” One reference to “people” in the Second Amendment. People, meaning not a person but persons in describing militia.

    Now comes the word “shall” mentioned in the Constitution 100 times. SHALL; ought to, must ..

    And interestingly, the word “shall” appears in the Second Amendment. “A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, and shall not be infringed.”

    “[S]hall not be infringed.” Adding another word “infringed” to clarify any misunderstanding as to the intent of the Second Amendment. Infringe. To encroach upon in a way that violates law or the rights of another;

    The condition “Infringe” has put a stop as to any counter thoughts regarding the Second Amendment, as you shall  not infringe or encroach  on beliefs other to what is evident as to the subject “Militia.”

    Finally, clarifying “..the right of the people to keep and bear arms…
    People. Human beings making up a group or assembly or linked by common interest.

    In closing, I am not against guns, everybody has them. I’m against using the Second Amendment illogically as a crutch. If it makes those feel better so be it. Just what it deserves, use it with a wink.

    William Heino Sr.

    William Heino Sr. on

Leave a comment

Please note, comments must be approved before they are published