The Right To Bear Arms

[Dick Tuck]

 

[Harry Dresden]

An oppressive government is more afraid of your vote than your gun

That explains why oppressive governments always take the guns before they take the votes.

They first move to dictatorships and abolish the vote

But guess what? The US is not a dictatorship regardless of what rightwing propaganda says.

if you thought it was it was coming to that RW...........would your opinion change about that "Propaganda"?.......just askin.....

 

[Too Tall]

It's amazing to me that so many don't know about Heller.

Doesn't surprise me at all. Precedent? Schmecedent!! Pack the court with new justices!!!

Dem/Prog/Lib/Socialist/Commies see the Constitution as a "living" document, subject to constant reinterpretation.....Obama thinks it is "flawed"......This is America today.

I just hope that moron Ginsberg remains alive until after January 2017.

Don't worry about Ginsberg. She is already a flaming liberal and would be replaced by another flaming liberal by Obama. Worry about Scalia, Thomas and the other conservatives still on the SC. Lose one of those and it becomes a solid 5-4 liberal court.

 

[Lakhota]

 

[Baron]

The Second Amendment preserve Freedom of Americans, no one Kenyan communist can abolish it.

 

[Lakhota]

 

[Harry Dresden]

Since the word "militia" is no longer applicable in the 2nd Amendment, there is no right to keep and bear arms.

and this Jerk says he is for reasonable gun control and "owns" guns....fucking lying sack of shit.....

 

[YoungRepublican]

The Second Amendment preserve Freedom of Americans, no one Kenyan communist can abolish it.

Solid input to the discussion. Your quote is irony at its finest. Yes, he can take that right away, and thats why it is such a big issue. If the conservative SC judges leave the bench under Obamas watch it could mean serious trouble for the interpretation of the second amendment. I believe we have better lawyers, but the fact that it is an issue is nothing to step lightly over.

 

[Abatis]

The 2nd Amendment is simply whatever SCOTUS says it is. SCOTUS has redefined it before and will redefine it again.

SCOTUS has never wavered in its determinations / explanations of the right to arms and the 2nd Amendment (two distinct, separate things).

SCOTUS has never held that the right has any dependency on the 2nd Amendment (or "interpretation" of it) because the Court has always held that the right pre-existed the Constitution thus is not granted, given, created or established by the Constitution . . . In the words of the Court:

• "[T]he right of the people to keep and bear arms is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence."

So the obvious question is, why do you persist in inventing conditions, qualifications, restrictions and constraints on the right from words that have absolutely no effect on the right? (besides the obvious reasons, profound ignorance (at best) or unabashed hostility for the Constitution (at worst))

Even more to the point, after nearly 140 years of holding that the right to arms does not "in any manner" depend on the words of the 2nd, what makes you think that the Court will do a 180° switcheroo?

 

[Contumacious]

Is the Second Amendment obsolete?

Yes, of course it is.

In 1787 Americans wanted Liberty - now they want security .

In 1785 they adopted in a Libertarian Constitution.

In the 2012 election our choices for president were a Hawaiian Socialist and a Massachusetts Liberal.

In 1785 bearing arms was a right. In 2012 bearing arms is a Pho King privilege subject to the discretion of federal bureaucrats.

1n 1787 Americans could not be deprived of their rights without due process of law.

Now Americans can be collectively punished by the federales. Americans just grin and bear it.

.

 

[Lakhota]

The 2nd Amendment is simply whatever SCOTUS says it is. SCOTUS has redefined it before and will redefine it again.

SCOTUS has never wavered in its determinations / explanations of the right to arms and the 2nd Amendment (two distinct, separate things).

SCOTUS has never held that the right has any dependency on the 2nd Amendment (or "interpretation" of it) because the Court has always held that the right pre-existed the Constitution thus is not granted, given, created or established by the Constitution . . . In the words of the Court:

• "[T]he right of the people to keep and bear arms is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence."

So the obvious question is, why do you persist in inventing conditions, qualifications, restrictions and constraints on the right from words that have absolutely no effect on the right? (besides the obvious reasons, profound ignorance (at best) or unabashed hostility for the Constitution (at worst))

Even more to the point, after nearly 140 years of holding that the right to arms does not "in any manner" depend on the words of the 2nd, what makes you think that the Court will do a 180° switcheroo?

Things change. Shit happens. People evolve...

 

[Lakhota]

There are two problems with the Second Amendment. First, under any circumstance, it is confusing; something that an English teacher would mark up in red ink and tell the author to redo and clarify. Secondly, there are actually two versions of the Amendment; The first passed by two-thirds of the members of each house of Congress (the first step for ratifying a constitutional amendment). A different version passed by three-fourths of the states (the second step for ratifying a constitution amendment). The primary difference between the two versions are a capitalization and a simple comma.

DETAILS: Confusion -- the wording of the Second Amendment | Occasional Planet

 

[Avatar4321]

Not confusing at all if you know how to read.

 

[Lakhota]

It is confusing to intelligent people.

 

[Avatar4321]

It is confusing to intelligent people.

So you understand it perfectly?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

The 2nd Amendment is simply whatever SCOTUS says it is. SCOTUS has redefined it before and will redefine it again.

SCOTUS has never wavered in its determinations / explanations of the right to arms and the 2nd Amendment (two distinct, separate things).

SCOTUS has never held that the right has any dependency on the 2nd Amendment (or "interpretation" of it) because the Court has always held that the right pre-existed the Constitution thus is not granted, given, created or established by the Constitution . . . In the words of the Court:

• "[T]he right of the people to keep and bear arms is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence."

So the obvious question is, why do you persist in inventing conditions, qualifications, restrictions and constraints on the right from words that have absolutely no effect on the right? (besides the obvious reasons, profound ignorance (at best) or unabashed hostility for the Constitution (at worst))

Even more to the point, after nearly 140 years of holding that the right to arms does not "in any manner" depend on the words of the 2nd, what makes you think that the Court will do a 180° switcheroo?

Things change. Shit happens. People evolve...

Fake Indians don't evolve.

 

[Avatar4321]

The 2nd Amendment is simply whatever SCOTUS says it is. SCOTUS has redefined it before and will redefine it again.

SCOTUS has never wavered in its determinations / explanations of the right to arms and the 2nd Amendment (two distinct, separate things).

SCOTUS has never held that the right has any dependency on the 2nd Amendment (or "interpretation" of it) because the Court has always held that the right pre-existed the Constitution thus is not granted, given, created or established by the Constitution . . . In the words of the Court:

• "[T]he right of the people to keep and bear arms is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence."

So the obvious question is, why do you persist in inventing conditions, qualifications, restrictions and constraints on the right from words that have absolutely no effect on the right? (besides the obvious reasons, profound ignorance (at best) or unabashed hostility for the Constitution (at worst))

Even more to the point, after nearly 140 years of holding that the right to arms does not "in any manner" depend on the words of the 2nd, what makes you think that the Court will do a 180° switcheroo?

Things change. Shit happens. People evolve...

The devolve too.

Words penned in ink don't change though. They still mean what they have always meant.

 

[Rinata]

The 2nd amendment allows us the right to bear arms. How is that a misinterpretation?

What it actually says is:

“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.”

This does not give individuals the right to bear arms. It is giving militias the right to bear arms. How is this at all relevant today??

sorry Rinata.....the PEOPLE are the Citizens of this Country.....this Country has "Zero Tolerance" for this and that.....maybe they should start having "Zero Tolerance" for Violence against people and start putting violent people away for a long time with no time off for good behavior......you serve every minute of your sentence.....

I agree.

 

[Rinata]

The 2nd amendment allows us the right to bear arms. How is that a misinterpretation?

What it actually says is:

“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.”

This does not give individuals the right to bear arms. It is giving militias the right to bear arms. How is this at all relevant today??

You are 100% wrong, The 2 phrases can be taken independently. The founders realized that militias aren't a permanent entity. They may be raised, disbanded and become necessary again at a later time.
When, in the future, a citizen militia may be needed again, it will need arms. A oppressive government isn't about to arm its opposition.

I just posted what the amendment says exactly. Everybody interprets it in their own way. Maybe the two phrases can be taken independently but we will never know if that was the intent.

In any case, militias do not need guns. I've never seen anything like it!!! The right wing bat crap crazies will say and do anything just to be contrary and fight about keeping their damn guns. Now you are throwing militias into the mix.

Read about the militia movement. I was not the least bit surprised to see who is behind it and why.

The Militia Movement -- Extremism in America

According to the ADL, the militia movement has embroiled themselves since 1994 in a variety of other bombing plots, conspiracies and serious violations of law. Their extreme anti-government ideology, along with their elaborate conspiracy theories and fascination with weaponry and paramilitary organization, lead many members of militia groups to act out in ways that justify the concerns expressed about them by public officials, law enforcement and the general public.

Just great.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Your Second Amendment rights are not unlimited — never have been and never will be – Applesauce - Rockford, IL - Rockford Register Star

I train once a month so yes I am well regulated.