The definitive guide to the 2nd Amendment

[Rustic]

The second amendment in a nutshell, personal firearm ownership shall not be infringed

Within the framework of a "Well Regulated Militia"

You’re taking it out of the context... Firearm ownership is an Individual right

Here's the entirety of the Amendment

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 "context" is the militia

And for the record...that well regulated militia is describes in elsewhere in the Constitution and it's NOT what the gun huggers claim.

Article 1 Section 8

You got to read it like it was then not now, the context is all about the individual. The founding fathers told England to fuck off, the Second Amendment is all about telling an overbearing government to fuck off

In other words...you like Scalia...are making it up as you go along

Na, It doesn’t get any clearer than shall not be infringed

 

[Lesh]

Within the framework of a "Well Regulated Militia"

You’re taking it out of the context... Firearm ownership is an Individual right

Here's the entirety of the Amendment

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 "context" is the militia

And for the record...that well regulated militia is describes in elsewhere in the Constitution and it's NOT what the gun huggers claim.

Article 1 Section 8

You got to read it like it was then not now, the context is all about the individual. The founding fathers told England to fuck off, the Second Amendment is all about telling an overbearing government to fuck off

In other words...you like Scalia...are making it up as you go along

Na, It doesn’t get any clearer than shall not be infringed

It doesn't gt any clearer than
"A Well Regulated Militia Being Necessary..."

 

[Rustic]

You’re taking it out of the context... Firearm ownership is an Individual right

Here's the entirety of the Amendment

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 "context" is the militia

And for the record...that well regulated militia is describes in elsewhere in the Constitution and it's NOT what the gun huggers claim.

Article 1 Section 8

You got to read it like it was then not now, the context is all about the individual. The founding fathers told England to fuck off, the Second Amendment is all about telling an overbearing government to fuck off

In other words...you like Scalia...are making it up as you go along

Na, It doesn’t get any clearer than shall not be infringed

It doesn't gt any clearer than
"A Well Regulated Militia Being Necessary..."

Basically it means a well armed society being necessary... And shall not be infringed

 

[Cecilie1200]

The Second Amendment BEGINS

"A Well Regulated Militia Being Necessary...."

That phrase is in that very spare Amendment for a reason. It tells us WHY what follows is there.

Absent a "well regulated militia"...there is no Constitutional right to "bear arms".

We do not currently HAVE a "well regulated militia". At best...we have an "unorganized militia" that ONLY has MALES under 45 as potential members

Does that mean we don't have the right to own guns? We do within the confines of our state and local laws....

No....What you need to do is read the Supreme Court Decision, D.C. v Heller, it breaks down each part of the 2nd Amendment and explains it both legally and historically.....that will put you on the right track.

You're referring to Scalia's insane claim that what the 2A says isn't what it means.

Just a tip: what you think it means isn't what it means. It's a result of your illiteracy, not a result of the words used. Go slap your high school English teacher for socially promoting you before you learned anything.

 

[Cecilie1200]

You’re taking it out of the context... Firearm ownership is an Individual right

Here's the entirety of the Amendment

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 "context" is the militia

And for the record...that well regulated militia is describes in elsewhere in the Constitution and it's NOT what the gun huggers claim.

Article 1 Section 8

You got to read it like it was then not now, the context is all about the individual. The founding fathers told England to fuck off, the Second Amendment is all about telling an overbearing government to fuck off

In other words...you like Scalia...are making it up as you go along

Na, It doesn’t get any clearer than shall not be infringed

It doesn't gt any clearer than
"A Well Regulated Militia Being Necessary..."

Look up "prefatory clause", assuming it doesn't have too many syllables for you to handle.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

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.

Leave the second amendment as it is, Technology has no bearing on individual rights

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.

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.

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.

The second amendment in a nutshell, personal firearm ownership shall not be infringed

It's already been infringed. The 1934 Firearms Act that still stands today infringes in regards to the Full Automatic weapons. And again in 1968 and again over and over. All done at the Federal level. The fact that you have to have a FFL to purchase a M-203 and then pay 200 bucks per round for it could also be considered an infringement. There isn't one part of the 2nd amendment that hasn't been stomped all over already at the federal level. Now, why are you hanging on to the thing so hard when it's pretty apparent that it needs to be updated to todays standards.

 

[Lesh]

Here's the entirety of the Amendment

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 "context" is the militia

And for the record...that well regulated militia is describes in elsewhere in the Constitution and it's NOT what the gun huggers claim.

Article 1 Section 8

You got to read it like it was then not now, the context is all about the individual. The founding fathers told England to fuck off, the Second Amendment is all about telling an overbearing government to fuck off

In other words...you like Scalia...are making it up as you go along

Na, It doesn’t get any clearer than shall not be infringed

It doesn't gt any clearer than
"A Well Regulated Militia Being Necessary..."

Look up "prefatory clause", assuming it doesn't have too many syllables for you to handle.

A prefatory clause is a precursor to the operative clause. The operative clause states what must be done. The prefatory clause states why it should be done. For example, the second amendment to the United States Constitution is a prefatory clause followed by an operative clause. The first part of the amendment states ''a well-regulated militia, being necessary to the condition of a free state.'' This is the prefatory clause. The second part of the amendment states ''the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.'' This is the operative clause.

WHY IT SHOULD BE DONE. Without the "why" the rest makes no sense

 

[P@triot]

So you have the right to own a machine gun?

Yes, dumb ass. And I have friends who literally do own "machine guns". The government is not granted the power to tell me what I can and cannot own.

 

[P@triot]

It's already been infringed.

Yes it has. Nothing to be proud of. Violating the U.S. Constitution is a tragedy. Not something to be celebrated.

 

[P@triot]

It's already been infringed.

And women have already been raped. By your "logic" we should just accept it and legalize rape.

 

[P@triot]

It's already been infringed.

And banks have already been robbed. By your "logic" we should just accept it and legalize bank robbery.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

And I suppose you are a proponent to not allow White People to sit in the front of the bus or sit at the counters? What does this have to do with the 2nd amendment? You are sounding like a complete idjit on this one.

What my post demonstrates is that states cannot make laws that violate individual Rights of citizens.... so you saying they can make laws violating the Right to keep and bear arms is stupid......considering you would use the same argument to say that democrat states could keep blacks from sitting in the front of the bus because they are state laws and states get to make laws....


You are wrong on both counts...

Yes, you have an individual right to own a pistol or handgun. But the State can require you to get special licensing to own, possess or carry the handgun even in your home. You may have to meet certain requirements. Or the state can just say that it's your right to have a handgun in your home without special licensing like most do, but not all. In DC, you have to have a special license to have a fully functional handgun in your home and meet certain requirements. This is what came out of Heller V DC.

And those will be challenged as unConstituitonal....since Poll Taxes on the Right to vote were unConstitutional, and in Murdock v Pennsylvania, any tax on the Exercise of a Right is unConstitutional so any tax or fee on the exercise of your 2nd Amendment Rights is unConstitutional...

Heller V DC already upheld the special license to have a fully operational handgun in your home. It's already been contested and failed. It's deemed constitutional. You can scream "Unconstitutional" till your head explodes but the state has that right. And, in case you don't know, in case of levels, the Government of DC is equal to a State in most ways.

There you go again. Equaling gun rights to the first amendment rights and a few other amendment rights which none of them are contained in the 2nd amendment. When are you going to learn. They day that the Government accepts that the Gun is a Higher Being, this might be true. And in your mind, you might think so. But it just ain't going to happen. The rules for Religion and Voting are completely different than gun rights. I guess you think enough time has passed that you think that we will have forgotten the discussion we already have had over and over again. Hope you got that ass velcroed since I am just about ready to hand it back to you once again.

No, it hasn't. The state doesn't have that Right, ask the democrats if they had the Right to require a Poll Tax on voting. The rules for religion and voting are not different from owning a gun, they are all Rights, and not to be blocked by states or the Feds.

You don't know what you are talking about.

Poll taxes are illegal, sure. But they are different than gun regulations. For instance, I support the requirement of showing a picture ID to vote as long as access to those IDs are made freely to all citizens of the community who can present proper birth certificates. The problem with the way your side wants to do the Picture ID is that there is a charge on the service and various county clerks can play whacka-a-mole with the services to inhibit those that they don't like. That is also a poll tax and worse.

But it's not the same as common sense gun regulations.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

It's already been infringed.

And women have already been raped. By your "logic" we should just accept it and legalize rape.

Men have also been raped. What's your point here? Did you just lose your ass once again and are not trying to dig yourself out of that hole? When you find yourself in a hole, stop digging.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

It's already been infringed.

And banks have already been robbed. By your "logic" we should just accept it and legalize bank robbery.

dig yourself out of that hole? When you find yourself in a hole, stop digging

 

[Daryl Hunt]

What it means is that the 2nd amendment badly needs to be updated to a more modern law.

And that is a very fair opinion to have. But that is the key. Until the 2nd Amendment is legally and properly amended, I have a right to keep and bear arms.

Within Reason. Always within reason. And it's up to the various States to come up with the "Within Reason" and we all have to live with that ruling.

That may be the dumbest thing you have ever said. The U.S. Constitution does not say “within reason”. It says my right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Period. Without exception. And your “within reason” is an infringement.

Basically, you’re pissed off that you can’t get the votes you want to amend the constitution. That’s normal for you fascists.

No, it doesn't say, "Within Reason". But in a way it does. Using the other Amendments, it leaves it up to the states to put the "Within Reason" into the law. Relying on just the 2nd amendment for or against gun control doesn't make a whole lot of sense since it doesn't have anything to do with either case.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

So you have the right to own a machine gun?

Yes, dumb ass. And I have friends who literally do own "machine guns". The government is not granted the power to tell me what I can and cannot own.

Now, that's quite a blanket statement. No, the Federal Government doesn't have that right. They can require you to have to acquire a special license to buy, own and store it. But the Local Governments can outright ban a fully automatic weapon on their own. Some do, some don't. Another case of Due Process of the Law and States Rights.

 

[Lesh]

So you have the right to own a machine gun?

Yes, dumb ass. And I have friends who literally do own "machine guns". The government is not granted the power to tell me what I can and cannot own.

Now, that's quite a blanket statement. No, the Federal Government doesn't have that right. They can require you to have to acquire a special license to buy, own and store it. But the Local Governments can outright ban a fully automatic weapon on their own. Some do, some don't. Another case of Due Process of the Law and States Rights.

The Firearm Owners' Protection Act.made it illegal to own a machine manufactured after 1986 so....

 

[Daryl Hunt]

So you have the right to own a machine gun?

Yes, dumb ass. And I have friends who literally do own "machine guns". The government is not granted the power to tell me what I can and cannot own.

Now, that's quite a blanket statement. No, the Federal Government doesn't have that right. They can require you to have to acquire a special license to buy, own and store it. But the Local Governments can outright ban a fully automatic weapon on their own. Some do, some don't. Another case of Due Process of the Law and States Rights.

The Firearm Owners' Protection Act.made it illegal to own a machine manufactured after 1986 so....

Pottrit is snowballing you. There is one class of person that can buy new full autos and that is the FFL/SOTs class licensed dealers. But the deal here is, that license will cost you 500 bucks a year and you must show you are a gun dealer by selling guns. But the Catch is, you can only sell the new fully autos to the Federal Approved Buyers like Government Agencies and Police Forces. But you can sell the pre 1986 full autos to those regular folks with the proper FFL licensing as well.

 

[Lesh]

So you have the right to own a machine gun?

Yes, dumb ass. And I have friends who literally do own "machine guns". The government is not granted the power to tell me what I can and cannot own.

Now, that's quite a blanket statement. No, the Federal Government doesn't have that right. They can require you to have to acquire a special license to buy, own and store it. But the Local Governments can outright ban a fully automatic weapon on their own. Some do, some don't. Another case of Due Process of the Law and States Rights.

The Firearm Owners' Protection Act.made it illegal to own a machine manufactured after 1986 so....

Pottrit is snowballing you. There is one class of person that can buy new full autos and that is the FFL/SOTs class licensed dealers. But the deal here is, that license will cost you 500 bucks a year and you must show you are a gun dealer by selling guns. But the Catch is, you can only sell the new fully autos to the Federal Approved Buyers like Government Agencies and Police Forces. But you can sell the pre 1986 full autos to those regular folks with the proper FFL licensing as well.

Which demonstrates that the claim that the 2A is absolute is not at all true

 

[2aguy]

What my post demonstrates is that states cannot make laws that violate individual Rights of citizens.... so you saying they can make laws violating the Right to keep and bear arms is stupid......considering you would use the same argument to say that democrat states could keep blacks from sitting in the front of the bus because they are state laws and states get to make laws....


You are wrong on both counts...

Yes, you have an individual right to own a pistol or handgun. But the State can require you to get special licensing to own, possess or carry the handgun even in your home. You may have to meet certain requirements. Or the state can just say that it's your right to have a handgun in your home without special licensing like most do, but not all. In DC, you have to have a special license to have a fully functional handgun in your home and meet certain requirements. This is what came out of Heller V DC.

And those will be challenged as unConstituitonal....since Poll Taxes on the Right to vote were unConstitutional, and in Murdock v Pennsylvania, any tax on the Exercise of a Right is unConstitutional so any tax or fee on the exercise of your 2nd Amendment Rights is unConstitutional...

Heller V DC already upheld the special license to have a fully operational handgun in your home. It's already been contested and failed. It's deemed constitutional. You can scream "Unconstitutional" till your head explodes but the state has that right. And, in case you don't know, in case of levels, the Government of DC is equal to a State in most ways.

There you go again. Equaling gun rights to the first amendment rights and a few other amendment rights which none of them are contained in the 2nd amendment. When are you going to learn. They day that the Government accepts that the Gun is a Higher Being, this might be true. And in your mind, you might think so. But it just ain't going to happen. The rules for Religion and Voting are completely different than gun rights. I guess you think enough time has passed that you think that we will have forgotten the discussion we already have had over and over again. Hope you got that ass velcroed since I am just about ready to hand it back to you once again.

No, it hasn't. The state doesn't have that Right, ask the democrats if they had the Right to require a Poll Tax on voting. The rules for religion and voting are not different from owning a gun, they are all Rights, and not to be blocked by states or the Feds.

You don't know what you are talking about.

Poll taxes are illegal, sure. But they are different than gun regulations. For instance, I support the requirement of showing a picture ID to vote as long as access to those IDs are made freely to all citizens of the community who can present proper birth certificates. The problem with the way your side wants to do the Picture ID is that there is a charge on the service and various county clerks can play whacka-a-mole with the services to inhibit those that they don't like. That is also a poll tax and worse.

But it's not the same as common sense gun regulations.

No...Poll Taxes are not different from taxes on guns..... they are both meant to inhibit the exercise of a Right.

Name common sense gun regulation which would be differnent from the 300 or so gun laws already on the books.

We have all the gun laws we need, with the primary gun law....you can't shoot people except for self defense. There, done, Drop the Mic.....