Current interpretation of "The right to bear arms shall not be infringed" and why Heller Vs. was a b

[Rustic]

Here's the 2nd :

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.


Basically " to have a good army we need to have guns " . At the time we didn't have a standing army to defend the country .

Na, not really.
Put it in context, and you will have your answer. Dumba$$

 

[Missourian]

A literal interpretation of the 2nd Amendment, adhering as much as possible to the words of it and their usage, would be that:

Militias are essential, therefore the arming of militias cannot be prohibited.

Within that strict, literal interpretation, any gun laws that did not affect a militia's having its own arsenal, and using it in the conduct of militia operations, would not infringe on the 2nd Amendment.

What a crock of shit.

 

[BluesLegend]

Yes, the Second Amendment is SIMPLE for the time it was written - but it's now a confusing antique.

The 2nd was written during a time of government corruption and tyranny, when the people in many countries had been disarmed and were at the mercy of these corrupt bastards. The founders brilliantly anticipated corrupt scumbags like present day gun control assholes may try the same shit so they gave us the 2nd amendment. I love throwing the 2nd in their face and telling them to pound sand.

 

[Iceweasel]

No one is out to ban guns . But to say the 2nd doent allow for gun control is rediculous .

We have gun control, that isn't in dispute. What's new is blaming guns for violence.

We have shit for gun control in 1/2 of the states . That pollutes the Other states attempts at gun control .

Obviously those states disagree with you, as do I.

 

[Iceweasel]

Then clearly the 2nd Amendment makes it unconstitutional to prevent children from owning machine guns.

Excellent reasoning there. lol

It's obvious at this point that nothing is clear to you. Children can't vote either. Now take a break from command central and try to figure out why that would be.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Yes, the Second Amendment is SIMPLE for the time it was written - but it's now a confusing antique.

Sorry to hear you must be a moronic imbecile to be confused by "Shall not be infringed"

 

[Skull Pilot]

Why don't right wingers ever quote the whole amendment ? It's not that long .

All you see is the "infringed " line .


How about if I do this : what part of "well regulated" don't you understand ?

You do realize that the term well regulated does not imply government control don't you?
Meaning of the phrase "well-regulated"

The following are taken from the Oxford English Dictionary, and bracket in time the writing of the 2nd amendment:

1709: "If a liberal Education has formed in us well-regulated Appetites and worthy Inclinations."

1714: "The practice of all well-regulated courts of justice in the world."

1812: "The equation of time ... is the adjustment of the difference of time as shown by a well-regulated clock and a true sun dial."

1848: "A remissness for which I am sure every well-regulated person will blame the Mayor."

1862: "It appeared to her well-regulated mind, like a clandestine proceeding."

1894: "The newspaper, a never wanting adjunct to every well-regulated American embryo city."

The phrase "well-regulated" was in common use long before 1789, and remained so for a century thereafter. It referred to the property of something being in proper working order. Something that was well-regulated was calibrated correctly, functioning as expected. Establishing government oversight of the people's arms was not only not the intent in using the phrase in the 2nd amendment, it was precisely to render the government powerless to do so that the founders wrote it.

 

[Skull Pilot]

A literal interpretation of the 2nd Amendment, adhering as much as possible to the words of it and their usage, would be that:

Militias are essential, therefore the arming of militias cannot be prohibited.

Within that strict, literal interpretation, any gun laws that did not affect a militia's having its own arsenal, and using it in the conduct of militia operations, would not infringe on the 2nd Amendment.

The peoples' right to bear arms not the militia's right to arm people

 

[Skull Pilot]

and the Left ignores that the right was given to the people, not the militia

Wrong.

“The left' does no such thing, this is another ridiculous lie from the right.

The Left keeps telling us being the a militia is a requirement.

A strict and literal reading of the 2nd Amendment says so. That is why the judiciary has the power of interpretation.

A strict and literal reading of the 2nd Amendment says so.

a 'strict and literal reading' will inform you that the right was given to the people, not the militia.

Then why mention Militia ?

All a militia is is a group of people

The people ARE the militia

 

[Wildman]

(Breyer seems to be unaware that it was perfectly legal to own cannons)

hells belles, i knew that!!

i own one! .............

 

[Wildman]

...confusing antique.

"Little-Turdle-Squawboy", the only thing that is a "confusing antique" is the demorat party.

and YOU!!

 

[Theowl32]

No one is out to ban guns . But to say the 2nd doent allow for gun control is rediculous .

You do not want to ban guns? Fucking liar.

Whenever you pathetic hypocritical socialist pawns get crushed you claim you don't want to ban guns.

There are already laws and gun control. The places (cities and states) which have the strictest gun control laws just happen to have the worst gun violence.

This is never about safety and protecting the public. This is about the socialists using useful idiots like you to push the socialist (communist ) agenda.

You stupid fucking hypocritical asshat.

 

[Wildman]

...what part of "well regulated" don't you understand ?

what part of it do you UNDERSTAND????

go play on the railroad tracks........

 

[Wildman]

But to say the 2nd doent allow for gun control is rediculous .

can you be any more stupid (e.g., doent) "...shall not be infringed," IS the anti gun control provision.

 

[Geaux4it]

Why don't right wingers ever quote the whole amendment ? It's not that long .

All you see is the "infringed " line .


How about if I do this : what part of "well regulated" don't you understand ?

And regulation by whom? Certainly not the government. The people are waiting for the leader to emerge that will fight this government tyranny and oppression of our civil rights. Just for awareness, the States of Wisconsin, Michigan, etc. alone sold more hunting licenses than troops are in the military

=Geaux
=========================

That number pales in comparison to the 750,000 who hunted the woods of Pennsylvania and Michigan’s 700,000 hunters, all of whom have now returned home safely. Toss in a quarter million hunters in West Virginia and it literally establishes the fact that the hunters of those four states alone would comprise the largest army in the world. And then add in the total number of hunters in the other 46 states. It’s millions more.

The point? America will forever be safe from foreign invasion with that kind of home-grown firepower. Hunting, it’s not just a way to fill the freezer; it’s a matter of national security. That’s why all enemies, foreign and domestic, want to see us disarmed. Food for thought, when next we consider gun control.

Overall it’s true, so if we disregard some assumptions that hunters don’t possess the same skills as soldiers, the question would still remain, what army of 2 million would want to face 30, 40, 50 million armed citizens? For the sake of our freedom, don’t ever allow gun control or confiscation of guns.

American Hunters – The World’s Largest Army

 

[Wildman]

a 'strict and literal reading' will inform you that the right was given to the people, not the militia.

that is the biggest obstacle, a mountain, libertards fail to get over into the land of "RIGHTS"

 

[NYcarbineer]

A literal interpretation of the 2nd Amendment, adhering as much as possible to the words of it and their usage, would be that:

Militias are essential, therefore the arming of militias cannot be prohibited.

Within that strict, literal interpretation, any gun laws that did not affect a militia's having its own arsenal, and using it in the conduct of militia operations, would not infringe on the 2nd Amendment.

The peoples' right to bear arms not the militia's right to arm people

If that's the Court's interpretation, so be it. But that is not what the 2nd Amendment says.

 

[NYcarbineer]

(Breyer seems to be unaware that it was perfectly legal to own cannons)

hells belles, i knew that!!

i own one! .............

We know. You shoot it off here every day. Do you own the livestock that provide the ammo, too?

 

[NYcarbineer]

Wrong.

“The left' does no such thing, this is another ridiculous lie from the right.

The Left keeps telling us being the a militia is a requirement.

A strict and literal reading of the 2nd Amendment says so. That is why the judiciary has the power of interpretation.

A strict and literal reading of the 2nd Amendment says so.

a 'strict and literal reading' will inform you that the right was given to the people, not the militia.

Then why mention Militia ?

All a militia is is a group of people

The people ARE the militia

The people are the military too. Can you own a nuclear weapon legally?

 

[jon_berzerk]

Why don't right wingers ever quote the whole amendment ? It's not that long .

All you see is the "infringed " line .


How about if I do this : what part of "well regulated" don't you understand ?

timmy timmy timmy


the right of who shall not be infringed

the the right of the what shall not be infringed