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.
I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people except for a few public officials.
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.
Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed, as they are in almost every country in Europe.
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.
For an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.
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.
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.
All power is inherent in the people.
Laws that forbid the carrying of arms disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes.
Are we at last brought to such an humiliating and debasing degradation, that we cannot be trusted with arms for our defense?
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?
Arms, like laws, discourage and keep the invader and plunderer in awe and preserve order.
A militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves... and include all men capable of bearing arms.
The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered as the palladium of the liberties of a republic.
or simply:
