The Right To Bear Arms

[Ernie S.]

ISIS is conservative, I guess,

ISIS believes in small government, freedom, personal responsibility,and the right to do pretty much anything you want except violate the rights of others?

And they PRACTICE that???

Not even close to correct.

Only in their religious views. I think I made a clear distinction.

 

[IlarMeilyr]

NaziCons are the greatest danger to our future gun rights.

In the babbling world of Dorkhota speak, "NaziCons" might mean (a) anybody who disagrees with Chief Shitting Bull, (b) anybody who is a conservative or (c) any other theoretical thing, group or entity who Shitting Bull happens to dislike.

Beyond those things, his post is of course quite lacking in meaning, coherence and anything much in the way of interest.

 

[Grizz]

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

Did you want to try and grab my guns Sobbing Brave?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

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

Did you want to try and grab my guns Sobbing Brave?

No one is going to try to 'grab your guns.'

And it is also a fact of Constitutional law that although inalienable, the rights enshrined in the Second Amendment are not unlimited, they are indeed subject to reasonable restrictions by government.

 

[regent]

Is the second amendment the only bill of right that also gives the reason for its existance?

 

[IlarMeilyr]

There are those (including some late not so great but highly over-rated SCOTUS Justices) who maintain that the First Amendment guarantee of the Freedom of Speech is an absolute.

It isn't.

And on that basis, I am willing to admit that the Second Amendment guarantee of the Right to Bear Arms is also subject to rational and reasonable limitations.

But such a limitation is never supposed to erase the very right to which it applies.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

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

Did you want to try and grab my guns Sobbing Brave?

You just lay awake at nights worrying about this. And make sure you buy more ammo.

 

[BreezeWood]

.

... the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

- however Arms in reference to Firearms shall be defined as:


lever or bolt action, six round capacity non detachable magazine.


as prescribed for both public (law enforcement) and private use.

.

See post 2769

.

Bullshit! The founders wanted us to have weapons that we could use to throw off a tyrannical government as they had done a few years earlier.

such as ballistic missiles - your argument has been refuted by SCOTUS already ...


Firearms: lever or bolt action, six round capacity non detachable magazine.


as prescribed for both public (law enforcement) and private use - is perfectly Constitutional and in unison with the majority of the Founding politicians of that time.

.

No, I don't need ballistic missiles. I can't afford more than a couple anyway.
Please explain your justification for limiting me to "Firearms: lever or bolt action, six round capacity non detachable magazine.

.

Firearms: . lever or bolt action, six round capacity non detachable magazine.

it is a reasonable limitation for a dangerous weapon in the hands of both private and public figures.

the amendment by politicians is deliberately written - Firearms are not mentioned, intentionally.

.

 

[Ernie S.]

.

... the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

- however Arms in reference to Firearms shall be defined as:


lever or bolt action, six round capacity non detachable magazine.


as prescribed for both public (law enforcement) and private use.

.

See post 2769

.

Bullshit! The founders wanted us to have weapons that we could use to throw off a tyrannical government as they had done a few years earlier.

such as ballistic missiles - your argument has been refuted by SCOTUS already ...


Firearms: lever or bolt action, six round capacity non detachable magazine.


as prescribed for both public (law enforcement) and private use - is perfectly Constitutional and in unison with the majority of the Founding politicians of that time.

.

No, I don't need ballistic missiles. I can't afford more than a couple anyway.
Please explain your justification for limiting me to "Firearms: lever or bolt action, six round capacity non detachable magazine.

.

Firearms: . lever or bolt action, six round capacity non detachable magazine.

it is a reasonable limitation for a dangerous weapon in the hands of both private and public figures.

the amendment by politicians is deliberately written - Firearms are not mentioned, intentionally.

.

1, Reasonable to who? You? Who the hell are you? What gives you the right to dictate what kind off "arms" I can have?
2. Arms are mentioned unqualified as to type, but with the phrase, "Shall not be infringed"
Just in case you don't know the meaning of the word "infringe", here ya go.

infringe
See definition in Oxford Advanced Learner's Dictionary
Syllabification: in·fringe
Pronunciation: /inˈfrinj/

Definition of infringe in English:
verb (infringes, infringing, infringed)
[with object]
Actively break the terms of (a law, agreement, etc.): making an unauthorized copy would infringe copyright
limit or undermine (something); encroach on: his legal rights were being infringed [no object]: I wouldn’t infringe on his privacy

 

[ChrisL]

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

Did you want to try and grab my guns Sobbing Brave?

You just lay awake at nights worrying about this. And make sure you buy more ammo.

Our rights should be of concern to everyone. It is beyond stupid to allow the GOVERNMENT to infringe on our 2nd amendment or any other rights, considering the Bill of Rights is to protect us from governmental tyranny.

 

[frigidweirdo]

There are those (including some late not so great but highly over-rated SCOTUS Justices) who maintain that the First Amendment guarantee of the Freedom of Speech is an absolute.

It isn't.

And on that basis, I am willing to admit that the Second Amendment guarantee of the Right to Bear Arms is also subject to rational and reasonable limitations.

But such a limitation is never supposed to erase the very right to which it applies.

And what is that right?

The reality of the 2A is that it's a restriction on the US govt, rather than giving a right.

It prevents the US govt from stopping individuals having arms. If you have a gun, then the US govt hasn't stopped you from getting arms. Beyond that it doesn't stop much.

As for the right to bear arms, that's a right to be in the militia. Most people are automatically in the militia anyway, due to the Dick Act. So, it's hardly worth much now anyway in terms of fighting over. People can't claim the US govt is taking away their right to bear arms, as it specifically made an unorganised militia to deal with this issue.

 

[frigidweirdo]

.
- however Arms in reference to Firearms shall be defined as:


lever or bolt action, six round capacity non detachable magazine.


as prescribed for both public (law enforcement) and private use.

.

See post 2769

.

Bullshit! The founders wanted us to have weapons that we could use to throw off a tyrannical government as they had done a few years earlier.

such as ballistic missiles - your argument has been refuted by SCOTUS already ...


Firearms: lever or bolt action, six round capacity non detachable magazine.


as prescribed for both public (law enforcement) and private use - is perfectly Constitutional and in unison with the majority of the Founding politicians of that time.

.

No, I don't need ballistic missiles. I can't afford more than a couple anyway.
Please explain your justification for limiting me to "Firearms: lever or bolt action, six round capacity non detachable magazine.

.

Firearms: . lever or bolt action, six round capacity non detachable magazine.

it is a reasonable limitation for a dangerous weapon in the hands of both private and public figures.

the amendment by politicians is deliberately written - Firearms are not mentioned, intentionally.

.

1, Reasonable to who? You? Who the hell are you? What gives you the right to dictate what kind off "arms" I can have?
2. Arms are mentioned unqualified as to type, but with the phrase, "Shall not be infringed"
Just in case you don't know the meaning of the word "infringe", here ya go.

infringe
See definition in Oxford Advanced Learner's Dictionary
Syllabification: in·fringe
Pronunciation: /inˈfrinj/

Definition of infringe in English:
verb (infringes, infringing, infringed)
[with object]
Actively break the terms of (a law, agreement, etc.): making an unauthorized copy would infringe copyright
limit or undermine (something); encroach on: his legal rights were being infringed [no object]: I wouldn’t infringe on his privacy

What the US govt cannot infringe on is your right to have arms. You have a gun, then you have not been infringed upon. Or even if you can get a gun your rights aren't being infringed upon.

So, if the feds ban you from getting, say, nuclear weapons, you can still get a gun, so your right is not being infringed upon. Same with assault rifles, same with a lot of things.

The line is difficult to say where it's at.

 

[Ernie S.]

The second amendment doesn't limit the type of arms in any way. It says simply that the right is not to be limited/infringed

The law has generally been interpreted to refer to single user weapons. There is a ban on full automatic weapons made after 1986, but basically any weapon the fires a single bullet type (non explosive) projectile every time the trigger is pulled is legal.
I could legally purchase a (>31 year old) 50 caliber heavy machine gun from a shop a mile and a half from my house and have it in my home within a day or 2. I would just have to go see the sheriff and show him my CCP and $200 for the transfer stamp.

Would that piss you off? I'm not sure that alone is worth 12 grand, but get Joe and the Chief on board and I'm in.

 

[frigidweirdo]

The second amendment doesn't limit the type of arms in any way. It says simply that the right is not to be limited/infringed

The law has generally been interpreted to refer to single user weapons. There is a ban on full automatic weapons made after 1986, but basically any weapon the fires a single bullet type (non explosive) projectile every time the trigger is pulled is legal.
I could legally purchase a (>31 year old) 50 caliber heavy machine gun from a shop a mile and a half from my house and have it in my home within a day or 2. I would just have to go see the sheriff and show him my CCP and $200 for the transfer stamp.

Would that piss you off? I'm not sure that alone is worth 12 grand, but get Joe and the Chief on board and I'm in.

Again, it's about understand what the 2A is.

The 2A is not a right. It's something that protects rights being infringed by the federal govt (well now the state govts too).

What the feds can't do is stop people having arms. This means that the feds CAN stop people having certain arms as long as people can, before due process, own arms.

The first part of the Amendment is about the militia. It's generally accepted that this means that the weapons need to be "militia weaponry". This would mean that the weapons need to be modern. However it's the type of weaponry that an individual would keep at home and use in the militia in times of need.
This does not include tanks, nukes. Assault rifles and other such things are borderline, it's really up to the people who are making the rules.

 

[BreezeWood]

.
- however Arms in reference to Firearms shall be defined as:


lever or bolt action, six round capacity non detachable magazine.


as prescribed for both public (law enforcement) and private use.

.

See post 2769

.

Bullshit! The founders wanted us to have weapons that we could use to throw off a tyrannical government as they had done a few years earlier.

such as ballistic missiles - your argument has been refuted by SCOTUS already ...


Firearms: lever or bolt action, six round capacity non detachable magazine.


as prescribed for both public (law enforcement) and private use - is perfectly Constitutional and in unison with the majority of the Founding politicians of that time.

.

No, I don't need ballistic missiles. I can't afford more than a couple anyway.
Please explain your justification for limiting me to "Firearms: lever or bolt action, six round capacity non detachable magazine.

.

Firearms: . lever or bolt action, six round capacity non detachable magazine.

it is a reasonable limitation for a dangerous weapon in the hands of both private and public figures.

the amendment by politicians is deliberately written - Firearms are not mentioned, intentionally.

.

1, Reasonable to who? You? Who the hell are you? What gives you the right to dictate what kind off "arms" I can have?
2. Arms are mentioned unqualified as to type, but with the phrase, "Shall not be infringed"
Just in case you don't know the meaning of the word "infringe", here ya go.

infringe
See definition in Oxford Advanced Learner's Dictionary
Syllabification: in·fringe
Pronunciation: /inˈfrinj/

Definition of infringe in English:
verb (infringes, infringing, infringed)
[with object]
Actively break the terms of (a law, agreement, etc.): making an unauthorized copy would infringe copyright
limit or undermine (something); encroach on: his legal rights were being infringed [no object]: I wouldn’t infringe on his privacy

.

1, Reasonable to who?

to whoever sets the speedlimit on our nations highway ....

Arms are mentioned unqualified as to type ...

anotherwords, politically firearms are not an exclusive category protected unto themselves ....


Firearms: bolt or lever action, six round capacity non detachable magazine

"Shall not be infringed"

owning a Firearm, the right to bare Arms is not being infringed.

.

 

[ChrisL]

See post 2769

.

Bullshit! The founders wanted us to have weapons that we could use to throw off a tyrannical government as they had done a few years earlier.

such as ballistic missiles - your argument has been refuted by SCOTUS already ...


Firearms: lever or bolt action, six round capacity non detachable magazine.


as prescribed for both public (law enforcement) and private use - is perfectly Constitutional and in unison with the majority of the Founding politicians of that time.

.

No, I don't need ballistic missiles. I can't afford more than a couple anyway.
Please explain your justification for limiting me to "Firearms: lever or bolt action, six round capacity non detachable magazine.

.

Firearms: . lever or bolt action, six round capacity non detachable magazine.

it is a reasonable limitation for a dangerous weapon in the hands of both private and public figures.

the amendment by politicians is deliberately written - Firearms are not mentioned, intentionally.

.

1, Reasonable to who? You? Who the hell are you? What gives you the right to dictate what kind off "arms" I can have?
2. Arms are mentioned unqualified as to type, but with the phrase, "Shall not be infringed"
Just in case you don't know the meaning of the word "infringe", here ya go.

infringe
See definition in Oxford Advanced Learner's Dictionary
Syllabification: in·fringe
Pronunciation: /inˈfrinj/

Definition of infringe in English:
verb (infringes, infringing, infringed)
[with object]
Actively break the terms of (a law, agreement, etc.): making an unauthorized copy would infringe copyright
limit or undermine (something); encroach on: his legal rights were being infringed [no object]: I wouldn’t infringe on his privacy

.

1, Reasonable to who?

to whoever sets the speedlimit on our nations highway ....

Arms are mentioned unqualified as to type ...

anotherwords, politically firearms are not an exclusive category protected unto themselves ....


Firearms: bolt or lever action, six round capacity non detachable magazine

"Shall not be infringed"

owning a Firearm, the right to bare Arms is not being infringed.

.

Yes it is, according to a couple of different SCOTUS decisions. Like the handgun ban in Chi Town for example. That was determined by SCOTUS to be unconstitutional based upon their interpretation of the 2nd amendment.

 

[M14 Shooter]

NaziCons are the greatest danger to our future gun rights.

Oh look -- the village useful idiot, trolling another ancient topic.

 

[Little-Acorn]

ISIS is conservative, I guess,

ISIS believes in small government, freedom, personal responsibility,and the right to do pretty much anything you want except violate the rights of others?

And they PRACTICE that???

Not even close to correct.

Only in their religious views. I think I made a clear distinction.

So in their religious views, they believe in small government, freedom, personal responsibility, and your right to do pretty much anything you want except violate the rights of others?

That's preposterous.

They chop off the heads of people who don't believe in their Islamic religious views.

 

[Little-Acorn]

As for the right to bear arms, that's a right to be in the militia.

(sigh)

Liberals seem to keep bringing up this lie, no matter how many times it's debunked. Maybe they think enough people have forgotten how the liberals have been proven wrong, and that enough time has passed that they can now tart re-statig it as though it had become the truth.

OK, for the 2258th time:


J. Neil Schulman The Unabridged Second Amendment


The Unabridged Second Amendment

by J. Neil Schulman

If you wanted to know all about the Big Bang, you'd ring up Carl Sagan, right? And if you wanted to know about desert warfare, the man to call would be Norman Schwarzkopf, no question about it. But who would you call if you wanted the top expert on American usage, to tell you the meaning of the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution?

That was the question I asked A.C. Brocki, editorial coordinator of the Los Angeles Unified School District and formerly senior editor at Houghton Mifflin Publishers — who himself had been recommended to me as the foremost expert on English usage in the Los Angeles school system. Mr. Brocki told me to get in touch with Roy Copperud, a retired professor of journalism at the University of Southern California and the author of American Usage and Style: The Consensus.

A little research lent support to Brocki's opinion of Professor Copperud's expertise.

Roy Copperud was a newspaper writer on major dailies for over three decades before embarking on a a distinguished 17-year career teaching journalism at USC. Since 1952, Copperud has been writing a column dealing with the professional aspects of journalism for Editor and Publisher, a weekly magazine focusing on the journalism field.

He's on the usage panel of the American Heritage Dictionary, and Merriam Webster's Usage Dictionary frequently cites him as an expert. Copperud's fifth book on usage, American Usage and Style: The Consensus, has been in continuous print from Van Nostrand Reinhold since 1981, and is the winner of the Association of American Publisher's Humanities Award.

That sounds like an expert to me.

After a brief telephone call to Professor Copperud in which I introduced myself but did not give him any indication of why I was interested, I sent the following letter:

"I am writing you to ask you for your professional opinion as an expert in English usage, to analyze the text of the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution, and extract the intent from the text.

"The text of the Second Amendment is, 'A well-regulated Militia, being necessary for the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.'

"The debate over this amendment has been whether the first part of the sentence, 'A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State', is a restrictive clause or a subordinate clause, with respect to the independent clause containing the subject of the sentence, 'the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.'

"I would request that your analysis of this sentence not take into consideration issues of political impact or public policy, but be restricted entirely to a linguistic analysis of its meaning and intent. Further, since your professional analysis will likely become part of litigation regarding the consequences of the Second Amendment, I ask that whatever analysis you make be a professional opinion that you would be willing to stand behind with your reputation, and even be willing to testify under oath to support, if necessary."

My letter framed several questions about the test of the Second Amendment, then concluded:

"I realize that I am asking you to take on a major responsibility and task with this letter. I am doing so because, as a citizen, I believe it is vitally important to extract the actual meaning of the Second Amendment. While I ask that your analysis not be affected by the political importance of its results, I ask that you do this because of that importance."

After several more letters and phone calls, in which we discussed terms for his doing such an analysis, but in which we never discussed either of our opinions regarding the Second Amendment, gun control, or any other political subject, Professor Copperud sent me the follow analysis (into which I have inserted my questions for the sake of clarity):


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Copperud:] "The words 'A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state,' contrary to the interpretation cited in your letter of July 26, 1991, constitutes a present participle, rather than a clause. It is used as an adjective, modifying 'militia,' which is followed by the main clause of the sentence (subject 'the right', verb 'shall'). The to keep and bear arms is asserted as an essential for maintaining a militia.

"In reply to your numbered questions:

[Schulman:] "(1) Can the sentence be interpreted to grant the right to keep and bear arms solely to 'a well-regulated militia'?"

[Copperud:] "(1) The sentence does not restrict the right to keep and bear arms, nor does it state or imply possession of the right elsewhere or by others than the people; it simply makes a positive statement with respect to a right of the people."

[Schulman:] "(2) Is 'the right of the people to keep and bear arms' granted by the words of the Second Amendment, or does the Second Amendment assume a preexisting right of the people to keep and bear arms, and merely state that such right 'shall not be infringed'?"

[Copperud:] "(2) The right is not granted by the amendment; its existence is assumed. The thrust of the sentence is that the right shall be preserved inviolate for the sake of ensuring a militia."

[Schulman:] "(3) Is the right of the people to keep and bear arms conditioned upon whether or not a well regulated militia, is, in fact necessary to the security of a free State, and if that condition is not existing, is the statement 'the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed' null and void?"

[Copperud:] "(3) No such condition is expressed or implied. The right to keep and bear arms is not said by the amendment to depend on the existence of a militia. No condition is stated or implied as to the relation of the right to keep and bear arms and to the necessity of a well-regulated militia as a requisite to the security of a free state. The right to keep and bear arms is deemed unconditional by the entire sentence."

[Schulman:] "(4) Does the clause 'A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,' grant a right to the government to place conditions on the 'right of the people to keep and bear arms,' or is such right deemed unconditional by the meaning of the entire sentence?"

[Copperud:] "(4) The right is assumed to exist and to be unconditional, as previously stated. It is invoked here specifically for the sake of the militia."

[Schulman:] "(5) Which of the following does the phrase 'well-regulated militia' mean: 'well-equipped', 'well-organized,' 'well-drilled,' 'well-educated,' or 'subject to regulations of a superior authority'?"

[Copperud:] "(5) The phrase means 'subject to regulations of a superior authority;' this accords with the desire of the writers for civilian control over the military."

[Schulman:] "(6) (If at all possible, I would ask you to take account the changed meanings of words, or usage, since that sentence was written 200 years ago, but not take into account historical interpretations of the intents of the authors, unless those issues can be clearly separated."

[Copperud:] "To the best of my knowledge, there has been no change in the meaning of words or in usage that would affect the meaning of the amendment. If it were written today, it might be put: "Since a well-regulated militia is necessary tot he security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be abridged.'

[Schulman:] "As a 'scientific control' on this analysis, I would also appreciate it if you could compare your analysis of the text of the Second Amendment to the following sentence,

"A well-schooled electorate, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and read Books, shall not be infringed.'

"My questions for the usage analysis of this sentence would be,

"(1) Is the grammatical structure and usage of this sentence and the way the words modify each other, identical to the Second Amendment's sentence?; and

"(2) Could this sentence be interpreted to restrict 'the right of the people to keep and read Books' only to 'a well-educated electorate' — for example, registered voters with a high-school diploma?"

[Copperud:] "(1) Your 'scientific control' sentence precisely parallels the amendment in grammatical structure.

"(2) There is nothing in your sentence that either indicates or implies the possibility of a restricted interpretation."

Professor Copperud had only one additional comment, which he placed in his cover letter: "With well-known human curiosity, I made some speculative efforts to decide how the material might be used, but was unable to reach any conclusion."

So now we have been told by one of the top experts on American usage what many knew all along: the Constitution of the United States unconditionally protects the people's right to keep and bear arms, forbidding all governments formed under the Constitution from abridging that right.

As I write this, the attempted coup against constitutional government in the Soviet Union has failed, apparently because the will of the people in that part of the world to be free from capricious tyranny is stronger than the old guard's desire to maintain a monopoly on dictatorial power.

And here in the United States, elected lawmakers, judges, and appointed officials who are pledged to defend the Constitution of the United States ignore, marginalize, or prevaricate about the Second Amendment routinely. American citizens are put in American prisons for carrying arms, owning arms of forbidden sorts, or failing to satisfy bureaucratic requirements regarding the owning and carrying of firearms — all of which is an abridgement of the unconditional right of the people to keep and bear arms, guaranteed by the Constitution.

And even the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), staunch defender of the rest of the Bill of Rights, stands by and does nothing.

It seems it is up to those who believe in the right to keep and bear arms to preserve that right. No one else will. No one else can. Will we beg our elected representatives not to take away our rights, and continue regarding them as representing us if they do? Will we continue obeying judges who decide that the Second Amendment doesn't mean what it says it means but means whatever they say it means in their Orwellian doublespeak?

Or will be simply keep and bear the arms of our choice, as the Constitution of the United States promises us we can, and pledge that we will defend that promise with our lives, our fortuned, and our sacred honor?

-------------------------------------------------------

(C) 1991 by The New Gun Week and Second Amendment Foundation. Informational reproduction of the entire article is hereby authorized provided the author, The New Gun Week and Second Amendment Foundation are credited. All other rights reserved.

 

[M14 Shooter]

As for the right to bear arms, that's a right to be in the militia.

(sigh)
Liberals seem to keep bringing up this lie...

The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.

Anyone who argues otherwise is lying.