Why have so many Americans forgotten why the Second Amendment was created and placed in the #2 spot???

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.

Meaning - Because a regulated militia is needed to keep a free state secure, the people (of the state) have the right to keep and bear arms and it won't be messed with.

So anyone who said that militia isn't necessary, we the people are protectors of our freedoms. We protect against both foreign and domestic enemies against the US Constitution.

I think you need to be a little more transparent in what you are saying. The second amendment is quite simply so the citizens can rise up in revolution against tyranny by the government and restore liberty and freedom. We don't like to think in those terms because we don't believe "we" would ever have to do such a thing again, yet look all around and people all over the world are fighting and dying to escape oppression and tyranny. The only real question is what's the breaking point for the masses?

How do you know they were listed in order of importance?

Anyway, the current construction of the 2nd amendment entitles the right to bear arms, only in regards to a well regulated militia. You do not have a fundamental freedom to own a gun as the 2nd amendment has never been incorperated into the 14th and thus binding on the states.

So until the Court decides otherwise, restricting guns is allowable under the constitution.

BUT! the Supreme Court is currently hearing a case which could give you a fundamental freedom to bear arms. (see District of Columbia v. Heller) http://www.oyez.org/cases/2000-2009/2007/2007_07_2...

The second amendment clearly says, "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."

The "PEOPLE" have the right to keep and bear arms, not the militia. Every right in the BILL OF RIGHTS is an individual right. You would have to be completely retarded to try and argue that the right of the people to keep and bear arms is not an individual right.

We have this right to secure all other rights. It is necessary to the security of a FREE STATE. The MILITIA consists of THE PEOPLE. There was no national guard or coast guard when the second amendment was written. They meant for the militia to consist of every able-bodied male that could fight. When we are left with no other choice we can resist tyranny in government by the means of another revolution.

"Firearms stand next in importance to the Constitution itself. They are the American people’s liberty teeth and the keystone under independence." - George Washington

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms. The strongest reason for people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government." –Thomas Jefferson

"A militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves...and include all men capable of bearing arms." – Richard Henry Lee

"I ask you sir, who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people." – George Mason

"A well regulated militia, composed of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country." – James Madison

"I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for few public officials." - George Mason

The best way to explain it is to use the arguements that arose when discussing this in the first place.

People have a right to their property, don't they? But they don't have a right to be a policeman.

The right to bare arms is noted in relation to a Militia. It is not an individual right to bare arms. So, one could argue that gun ownership can be strictly regulated for safety and Militia purposes. So, for instance, you can only be allowed to carry certain types of arms, require safety checks, and be a responsible citizen. This type of gun control seems perfectly consistent with the 2nd amendment.

I agree that people have forgotten why it was created.

However, it was not about individual citizens, but rather in order to create a "well-regulated militia."

The "militia" was not, as the gun lobby will often claim, simply another word for the populace at large. Indeed, membership in the 18th century militia was generally limited to able-bodied white males between the ages of 18 and 45 - hardly encompassing the entire population of the nation.

The U.S. Constitution established a permanent professional army, controlled by the federal government. With the memory of King George III's troops fresh in their minds, many of the "anti-Federalists" feared a standing army as an instrument of oppression.

State militias were viewed as a counterbalance to the federal army and the Second Amendment was written to prevent the federal government from disarming the state militias.

I am generally opposed to too much gun control. i am a gun ower who doesn't ever want that right taken away. Now though I do see that it appears as though something needs to be done about the mentally ill getting guns. I know that there are some laws about that already but apparently something needs to be revised. From what I've read about the VT killer it sounds like the ball was dropped along the process of reporting that he had a mental illness to his background check. That needs to be fixed.

It's because we've become so comfortable with our present government and its protections over us that most of us can't imagine needing to defend ourselves with guns.

However, the erroneous assumption that lies at the heart of the gun control argument is that people are only able commit violent crimes because they have access to guns. As we saw in Japan this past week, that is not the case; almost anything can be used as a deadly weapon by someone who wishes to commit murder. People don't suddenly decide to go out and kill people because they own a gun. Making guns illegal just makes things a little harder for murderers and a lot harder for law-abiding citizens to defend themselves.

Because they listen to the drive by media, and were "educated" in liberal schools. I always like to ask anti-gun liberals why they don't have a big sign in their yard that says "NO GUNS IN THIS HOUSE". The reason the anti-gun liberals are safe is because the bad guys (who have guns of course) aren't sure if a house belongs to an anti-gun liberal (since they won't put a sign up), or to a right-wing gun-nut like me. We gun owners are making it safe for everyone.

Gun ownership was more relevant during times of the Revolution. That's why it was up there.

People should be able to own guns, but there should be modest controls for the general safety of America's citizens.