Full Text of the 2nd Amendment to the US 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
What is the 2nd Amendment?
The Second Amendment is a single sentence with a broad and lasting impact. It is also known as the “right to bear arms” amendment.
What Right Does the Second Amendment Give Citizens?
As part of the Bill of Rights, this amendment protects the right of Americans to bear arms.
What Is a Well-Regulated Militia?
At the end of the eighteenth century, ‘militia’ referred to any group of citizens who had joined together to protect their communities. Militias were also organized to protect towns, cities, and the new states.
Why Was the 2nd Amendment Created?
Distrust of Centralized Power
Previous experience made people distrustful of centralized government and reluctant to give it too much power.
Soldiers had seen how the British government had kept control of the American colonies, so they did not want the new United States federal government to have similar powers.
The Second Amendment was designed to prevent the federal government from disarming state militias. This means that the states still had the means to protect themselves against any form of oppression.
Creation of a National Army
A strong body of opinion held that the federal government should not create a permanent national army.
Instead, a national army should only be established when there are real foreign threats to the United States.
However, the Constitutional Convention of 1787 did grant the federal government authority to raise and maintain a national army.
Different Interpretations Over Time
Over the years, people have debated what the Second Amendment truly means. Some saw it as protecting only militias, while others believed it gave every citizen the right to own weapons.
The Right To Bear Arms
The arguments about exactly what it meant began as soon as the 2nd Amendment was ratified as part of the Bill of Rights on December 15, 1791. Some argued that, because it mentions explicitly ‘militias,’ the right to bear arms applied only to those who were part of an organized militia.
Others argued that the right to bear arms applied to every citizen. This interpretation that individuals have the right to own firearms is the one recognized by the Supreme Court today.
Interpreting the Second Amendment as protecting individuals who wish to bear arms has sparked much debate over how strictly the principle should be applied.
Powerful voices on both sides of the argument have spoken out.
Support for Gun Control
Those in favor of gun control argue that many gun owners are not fit to own guns and that there should be more gun control and fewer gun rights.
They want a stricter vetting system so that those deemed to have criminal records or mental health problems are denied the right.
The Brady Bill of 1993 was a significant victory for them, as it introduced background checks on purchasers of handguns.
Opposition to Gun Control
Those who oppose gun control include the National Rifle Association, founded in 1871, which has been vociferous in campaigning for gun rights.
Supreme Court Interpretations
The Supreme Court has issued several major rulings that define how the Second Amendment applies to both individuals and states. These cases have clarified what limits, if any, the government can place on gun ownership.
Gun Ownership Legal Rulings
In 1886, the Supreme Court stated that the Second Amendment applied only to the federal government, and the individual states could control gun ownership.
The Court ruled that neither the federal government nor the states could completely ban gun ownership, though some restrictions are allowed.
In doing this, they established the principle that self-defense was a basic human right and that gun ownership was a part of that right.
The Supreme Court did suggest areas where limitations were reasonable, and court cases continue to this day that challenge those suggestions.
Modern Debate on Gun Rights
Gun rights and gun control remain some of the most divisive issues in the United States today. Each new case of gun violence renews calls for reform, while supporters of gun rights argue that restrictions violate the Constitution.
Citizens Still Have the Right To Bear Arms
Gun rights supporters continue to defend the right to bear arms, even after many mass shootings.
These have outraged many citizens about gun safety. Still, supporters of gun ownership argue that gun control laws and gun regulation are an abuse of their constitutional rights and an individual’s right.
Those constitutional rights to own firearms remain in place, as they have since the 18th century.
Conclusion
The Second Amendment continues to shape American law and culture. While the right to bear arms remains protected, the debate over how to balance that right with public safety is still one of the country’s most divisive issues.
Resource about the 2nd Amendment:
Second Amendment – United Utah Party
Explains the party’s position on the Second Amendment and why it remains central to debates over individual rights and government power.
The History Behind the Second Amendment – GovFacts.org
Provides historical context for why the Second Amendment was created, including early distrust of centralized government and the need for militias.
Constitution of the United States (1787) – National Archives
The original text of the U.S. Constitution, the foundation from which the Bill of Rights and the Second Amendment were later added.
Court Affirms Individual Right to Own Firearms – PBS NewsHour (2008)
Covers the 2008 Supreme Court decision (District of Columbia v. Heller) that confirmed the Second Amendment protects an individual’s right to own firearms.
S.1785 – Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act Amendment (1993)
Documents the 1993 bill that strengthened background checks on gun buyers, marking a key victory for gun control advocates mentioned in the article.
About NRA-ILA – National Rifle Association of America (2025)
Describes the NRA’s political and advocacy arm, which plays a leading role in opposing gun control laws and defending the Second Amendment.
Presser v. Illinois (1886) – U.S. Supreme Court Case
A landmark case explaining that the Second Amendment limited only the federal government, not the states, shaping early interpretations of gun rights.
Get Smarter on US News, History, and the Constitution
Self-Defense Is a Basic Human Right – NRA-PVF (2008)
Outlines the NRA’s argument that gun ownership is tied to the fundamental right of self-defense, echoing themes discussed in the article.
24 Responses
It is very simple! The words were chosen carefully and for good reason. The right of the people to bear arms was created to provide the people with a means of protecting themselves from anyone or anything that infringed upon their rights. Of life freedom and the PURSUIT of happiness. And in the beginning of the sentence it makes clear that the people not only can but is deemed NECESSARY to form a militia to protect a FREE state.
It is clear the word ”state” is not limited to real property but also the people within. That means everyone.
Nowhere does it say that we should be limited to the arms available at the present time or restricted from any particular newly invented firearms in the future. To do so will eliminate the peoples ability to defend.
The only way to stop a bad person or people with a gun/arms is with a gun/arms of equal or greater efficiency.
“These rights shall not be infringed”. . PERIOD
American patriot, Phillip Trueblood
Phillip,
While we are not necessarily on opposite sides, there are statements in your argument that are nonsensical and don’t help the cause.
Restricting “any particular newly invented firearms in the future. To do so will eliminate the peoples ability to defend.” Simply a false statement. Restricting me from owning a fully automatic weapon or a bazooka has not eliminated my ability to defend. My 12 gauge is quite sufficient for home defense and doesn’t endanger my neighbors, as an assault rifle with a 2200 ft/sec + muzzle velocity would. In public I can carry my concealed 45, for which I am licensed and trained. I personally choose not to for purely statistical reasons.
“The only way to stop a bad person or people with a gun/arms is with a gun/arms of equal or greater efficiency.” This is an old, simple minded cliche that suggests if all “good” guys carried guns, “just in case”, that society would be safer. Decades of statistics, and evidence from virtually every nation on Earth (including super independence minded Australia), shows that this is simply not the case. More guns, widely distributed, has proven to result in a much more dangerous society. The numbers are there if you just take the time.
The concept of an individual’s unfettered right to bear arms, ostensibly as set out in Article II of the Constitution, as envisioned by Its’ signatories, and as freely ignored and, moreover, referenced as the legal basis and authority for an argument to own and discharge one’s personal weapon against another for any perceived injustice against the person ranging from money and other exchange, and including but not limited to, intimacy with one’s partner, gang killings over thrusts for power and control, damage to one’s automobile, hostility resulting from drunken stupidity and/or drug intoxication, arguments over mask-wearing during a global pandemic, being compelled to wait in a line, squabbles related to purchasing gasoline, hating a cashier for doing her/his job, killing for a ‘laugh’, etc. contributes nothing to ‘We the People’, but rather creates a condition of civil war.
In a nation founded on principles of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, where the judicial process and the Courts exist to adjudicate impropriety of conduct, internecine killing for vengeance is an absurdity of unimaginable proportions.
Mr. Malone’s assertions and argument are well worth considering at length, inasmuch as his letter stands as an excellent starting point for the legislators to initiate practical, effective weapons control.
One final point, if I may. Toronto is essentially gun-free. In a city of some 7.5 million people, we have suffered on the order of some 47 murders this year to date, shootings . How is this possible? Our freedom subsists on the desire to live in peace, and to treat each other with courtesy and respect.
Would that my dear American nay-saying friends pick up on these two basic principles of freedom.
Michael D. Pappas, C.E.T.
.TORONTO.
Your statements are not true, and have no facts to back them up.
1. So you suggest that new forms of media and the means of delivering them are not protected by the first amendment?
2. “Assault Rifles” are heavily regulated and nearly impossible to obtain due to the NFA and the Hughes Amendment. Both restricted machine guns. “Assault Weapons” is a made up political term that has no bearing on actual arms. Civilian owned AR-15 and AKs are semi auto and functional no different than any other modern rifle made since 1890.
3. A 12 gauge shotgun with buck shot or a 12 gauge slug will over penetrate more than a 55 grain 5.56mm AR-15 round which is designed to fragment on any hard surface. Buckshot will penetrate through as much as 5 sheets of drywall, 55gr 5.56 won’t make it through one sheet. A 9mm pistol round wil go through about 5 as well. You are perpetuating a FUDD myth. I was an actual soldier and I can tell you know nothing about firearms. Which is consistent with most who support such bans.
I have a shotgun I’ve never fired. Clean it now again, rag’s & oil. Reminds me of my younger, more sure days as a young paratrooper. Did’nt have to fire a more deadly designed assault weapon. Had it ready and never shot less than 38. Knew that weapon better than my… I’d feel better if a very fundamental non-recorded class on basic firearms blah,blah. I’ve seen to many fantasy fubar rambos out and about to dismiss people’s concerns about “weapon” safety as an attempt to force me to rely upon another’s life and death decision. I wish..hold out two hands &….tough topic,
The Second Amendment was written to appease “national government” skeptics with a guarantee that state militias were legally protected, so that the representatives of “slave state ” would sign the Constitution. The (mainly southern) state Democrats were not sold on the idea of a “Federal” assumption of power over residents of states, which might question growing opposition to the use of slave labor. The Civil War resolved the issue, and the 2nd Amendment is now meaningless.
Ha ha. Wishful thinking John. 2nd amendment is alive and well. But it is Sad that only five of the nine judges in the Supreme Court will vote to protect this right.
“It is clear the word “state” is not limited to real property but also to the people within. That means everyone”.
Well as long as you were white. Slaves of course couldn’t own guns or any other weapon for that matter. In fact, part of the reasoning behind the 2nd Amendment was for white people in a state to put down slave revolts and insurrections, because it could take too long for the federal government to raise and dispatch troops to put it down. Hence the need for whites to have guns. Many southern states had slave patrols that were required of all able-bodied men age 18-40. They had to spend a couple of weeks a year going around to the forced labor camps (i.e. plantations) looking for weapons slaves might have hidden in their quarters.
Criminals DO NOT obey the law!!! So, if we the law abiding citizens, have our right to bear arms taken away from us, we become defenseless! This must never happen! We must do everything in our power to make sure of it!
The right to bear arms to keep a free state…We, in my opinion, are past the point where our laws and government have ceased to protect citizens from oppression. I think the reason the FBI goaded attack on Jan. 6th is being framed more harshly than the year of violence, destruction and murder in cities all across this country is to scare people from the constitutional duty to protect our freedom when the threat is from our own government. Every member of the three branches of government take a sworn oath…what they are now calling a “affirmation” to uphold the constitution and protect from foreign and domestic enemies. From day one of this administration is seems they’re doing the opposite. How long do we have before our currency is completely devalued, some cities are already distroyed…we have been humiliated and weakened on the global stage…and if it’s not glaringly obvious that someone besides our “elected” president is running the country now, you are blind. This..the second amendment is, or was, our stopgap to prevent things from ever getting to where we are now. If our Republican lawmakers won’t start pushing back with articles of impeachment, criminal charges(which there is evidence for so many) something! I personally am fed up with hearing the latest infraction and having zero done! Our lawmakers should not be above the law and they have to start being held accountable! I’m sure this will get me flagged and put on some list, but I don’t care. I live in America and I refuse to cower and act otherwise..we have free speech. I will exercise that right as long as I’m breathing.
,
The Second Amendment is not so clearly defined, The gun loving public just leaps over this part… “A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State” Time has taught us a very painful lesson, not everyone should be given the right to own a firearm. Those that are the most adamant about allowing any and all people gun ownership, probably should not own one themselves. Why would any rational individual be against stronger gun control? As a Marine Corps Viet Nam veteran I am 100% for taking a closer look at our existing laws both State and Federal.
Once you allow any regulation, or modification, it’s just a matter of time until all your rights are taken. Ask Australia
And…Let’s compare the mass homicides in the United States to those of Australia. You have the right to slaughter children with automatic weapons here in he USA.. That’s what you call freedom?
I’m with you, Frank, 100%. — John A. Phillips (PhD).
A well- regulated militia, back then would be no different than a group of skeptical us citizens.. The anti- federalist are the ones who made majority of these well-regulated militia’s.. They didn’t want a strong federal government , they wanted a weak government, and stronger states, they had experienced firsthand by the British.. So we have to think of how it was back when it was written..The way ppl talked back then was different, plus they spoke and worded things according what they had experienced.. I don’t see how it benefits all these big cities who have gun free zones, all this does is make it easier for the criminals and in by doing this they cherry pick the constitution to fit their agenda.. This has been argued since it was written and will be till The Good Lord comes back.. Thanks for your service sir
Good comment Frank !
so how can the courts strip your gun rights away if you are found guilty on a felon charge. if its a nondangers charge. doesn’t the constitutioun over seed any law passed by the courts.
I have only two questions for those that stand on the concept of unbridled ownership of any weapon or magazine of any size and that question is. ” Would you still feel the same if one the children that died in Uvalde Texas was your child?” “When you went in to the corner’s office to identify the tattered body of your child, would you still be able to go to the NRA and say thanks for allowing use to have military weapons and magazines without care or responsibility.
Yes I would, I have 5 children and 10 grandchildren. Tell me if a drunk driver runs over one of your children and kills that child do you believe that the type of automobile or brand of alcohol should be outlawed. No, you would want that person prosecuted. Since there has been mass murders by automobiles over the years, cars are still legal and so is the consumption of alcoholic drinks. It’s the person that kills not the weapons even though the weapon is used to kill it’s the person that controls the weapon. When they outlaw alcohol and automobiles then I’ll give thought about guns.
The sole purpose of guns is to cause injury or death, whether for food, murder, or self defense. Vehicle’s intended purpose is to get you from one place to another. There are regulations for the use of alcohol and vehicle. But it comes to guns, gun lovers think anyone should be able to have guns, whether they are responsible. So what is wrong with being responsible gun owners who can follow some reasonable rules to keep everyone safe?
AMEN Zoe! And if I may add, in spite of all those regulations on alcohol and vehicles, there is obviously no shortage of either!!!!! Nor accessibility.
Effectiveness of Mothers Against Drunk Driving; the MADD campaign has helped to get over 1,000 new laws involving alcohol passed on both a local and national level, including laws regarding server liability, the setting up of sobriety checkpoints, and raising the minimum drinking age. According to the CDC, since 1984, when the MLDA was changed to 21 years old, there has been a 16% decline in alcolhol related accidents. This was one of 1000 new laws put into place.
The point being, as long as we make this an all-or-nothing conversation, we will continue to fail treacherously at protecting the unarmed citizens of this country from the constant and reckless threat of armed citizens.
Wow, some really woke comments in here. Let’s stay on topic, the right for citizens to bear arms. The fact actually is… guns don’t kill people. People kill people. Back when this article was established, they shot the town loonies. No need to waste tax payer money to lock them up for life, they did away with the trash of their time. We should learn from that 😉 We need more reform as our country’s mental illness has evolved exponentially and beyond reproach! The mentally ill that this country has been told to coddle is disgusting at best. Back then, they never dealt with mental illness running rampant like this! Again I repeat, guns don’t kill people. PEOPLE KILL PEOPLE. This isn’t a gun issue, it’s a mental health crisis that we need to address.