2aguy
Diamond Member
- Jul 19, 2014
- 112,253
- 52,474
- 2,290
The Second Amendment represents what it is today… The absolute right for individual to own personal firearms. The only one that can fuck that up is the individual themselves.Leave the second amendment as it is, Technology has no bearing on individual rightsBecause the deep state/career politicians react with emotion rather than common sense.
No amount of bleeding heart frivolous gun control laws will change crazy people
Then you admit that the 2nd amendment needs updated. Okay, fine, now back to the 64,000 dollar question, who makes that determination?
I did state amended. And you should have the right to keep and bear arms. What is lacking is the laws that have passed in the background that have actually changed the 2nd amendment like the 1934 Federal Firearms Act and such. These should be part of the 2nd amendment or the 2nd amendment should have a clause that allows these types of things. The 1934 Federal Firearms Act, by definition, is Unconstitutional as it was done by the Feds and not the States.
Tell me, what good is an Organized Militia? Can the state afford such a thing? Does each state of the trillions of dollars to support, equip and man an Organized Militia in the intent of the Founding Fathers? When you can answer that to satisfaction then I will agree with you.
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State seems to be left out by you. And the last clause has also been outdated. Only 5 words still apply and even that is questionable.
From Heller.....
But apart from that clarifying function, a prefatory clause does not limit or expand the scope of the operative clause. See F. Dwarris, A General Treatise on Statutes 268–269 (P. Potter ed. 1871) (hereinafter Dwarris); T. Sedgwick, The Interpretation and Construction of Statutory and Constitutional Law 42–45 (2d ed. 1874).3 “‘It is nothing unusual in acts . . . for the enacting part to go beyond the preamble; the remedy often extends beyond the particular act or mischief which first suggested the necessity of the law.’” J. Bishop,
--------------------
3As Sutherland explains, the key 18th-century English case on the effect of preambles, Copeman v. Gallant, 1 P. Wms. 314, 24 Eng. Rep. 404 (1716), stated that “the preamble could not be used to restrict the effect of the words of the purview.” J. Sutherland, Statutes and Statutory Construction, 47.04 (N. Singer ed. 5th ed. 1992). This rule was modified in England in an 1826 case to give more importance to the preamble, but in America “the settled principle of law is that the preamble cannot control the enacting part of the statute in cases where the enacting part is expressed in clear, unambiguous terms.” Ibid.
-----------------------------------
c. Meaning of the Operative Clause. Putting all of these textual elements together, we find that they guarantee the individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation. This meaning is strongly confirmed by the historical background of the Second Amendment. We look to this because it has always been widely understood that the Second Amendment, like the First and Fourth Amendments, codified a pre-existing right.
-----
3. Relationship between Prefatory Clause and Operative Clause We reach the question, then:
Does the preface fit with an operative clause that creates an individual right to keep and bear arms? It fits perfectly, once one knows the history that the founding generation knew and that we have described above. That history showed that the way tyrants had eliminated a militia consisting of all the ablebodied men was not by banning the militia but simply by taking away the people’s arms, enabling a select militia or standing army to suppress political opponents. This is what had occurred in England that prompted codification of the right to have arms in the English Bill of Rights. The debate with respect to the right to keep and bear arms, as with other guarantees in the Bill of Rights, was not over whether it was desirable (all agreed that it was) but over whether it needed to be codified in the Constitution. During the 1788 ratification debates, the fear that the federal government would disarm the people in order to impose rule through a standing army or select militia was pervasive in Antifederalist rhetoric. See, e.g., Letters from The Federal Farmer III (Oct. 10, 1787), in 2 The Complete Anti-Federalist 234, 242 (H. Storing ed. 1981). John Smilie, for example, worried not only that Congress’s “command of the militia” could be used to create a “select militia,” or to have “no militia at all,” but also, as a separate concern, that “[w]hen a select militia is formed; the people in general may be disarmed.” 2 Documentary History of the Ratification of the Constitution 508–509 (M. Jensen ed. 1976) (hereinafter Documentary Hist.). Federalists responded that because Congress was given no power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, such a force could never oppress the people. See, e.g., A Pennsylvanian III (Feb. 20, 1788), in The