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.
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. - Second Amendment to the Constitution An armed society is a polite society.
The Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press, or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms.
To disarm the people... was the best and most effectual way to enslave them.
To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of people always possess arms.
The great object is that every man be armed.
That the said Constitution shall never be construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press or the rights of conscience.
Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed, as they are in almost every country in Europe.
The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed.
What country can preserve its liberties if its rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms.
Laws that forbid the carrying of arms . . . disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes . . . Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.
For an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.
I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people except for a few public officials.
Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom of Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretence, raised in the United States.
Are we at last brought to such humiliating and debasing degradation that we cannot be trusted with arms for our defense? Where is the difference between having our arms in possession and under our direction, and having them under the management of Congress? If our defense be the real object of having those arms, in whose hands can they be trusted with more propriety, or equal safety to us, as in our own hands?
Laws that forbid the carrying of arms disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes.
The constitutions of most of our States assert that all power is inherent in the people; that... it is their right and duty to be at all times armed.
Are we at last brought to such an humiliating and debasing degradation, that we cannot be trusted with arms for our defense?
Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are inevitably ruined.
All power is inherent in the people.
or simply:
