The Right To Bear Arms

[Abatis]

It is confusing to intelligent people.

That's fucking priceless.

True, so true.

Someday he might realize just how anti-intellectual his position really is.

It is illogical and absurd to argue that the words of the Amendment, upon which the right does not depend, condition, qualify or outwardly restrict the right being recognized and guaranteed. That Lakhota doesn't "get" that only speaks to how profoundly ignorant he is of the most fundamental principles that the US Constitution rests upon.

 

[GuyPinestra]

That's EXACTLY what they want!!

 

[freedombecki]

It's astonishingly clear that "the Second Amendment is a relic of the founding era more than two centuries ago," and "its purpose is long past."

Love this claim. We're supposed to believe that the Bill of Rights, which limits the power of government over the people, includes an amendment that limits the power of the people, to keep and bear Arms.

It's a ridiculous claim.

The uberlibbies are preoccupied with treasury power. When they pull our attention to their disparagement of Bill of Rights freedom, you can bet they're stacking up armored cars outside the US Treasury to pillage while our interests are occupied elsewhere. Shell games are their forte, if you'll pardon my pun. Why else would they be beating this dead nag with a bunch of bull?

 

[Dick Tuck]

Nazi Weapons Act of 1938 (Translated to English)

Classified guns for "sporting purposes".
All citizens who wished to purchase firearms had to register with the Nazi officials and have a background check.
Presumed German citizens were hostile and thereby exempted Nazis from the gun control law.
Gave Nazis unrestricted power to decide what kinds of firearms could, or could not be owned by private persons.
The types of ammunition that were legal were subject to control by bureaucrats.
Juveniles under 18 years could not buy firearms and ammunition.

That sounds like something liberals would push for.

So you're against background checks, restrictions on ownership by convicted felons and the mentally ill, and want minors to be able to buy guns? You're a fucking fruitcake.

 

[NYcarbineer]

If the 2nd amendment were as clear and straightforward and unequivocal in its meaning as some would have you believe,

then the right to own a handgun or a machine gun would be no different than the right to own a shotgun or a deer rifle or a muzzleloader.

Either the amendment is legitimately open to wide and various interpretations, or,

the various interpretations that have upheld the various limitations on some of the above weapons have been incorrect.

 

[GuyPinestra]

Nazi Weapons Act of 1938 (Translated to English)

Classified guns for "sporting purposes".
All citizens who wished to purchase firearms had to register with the Nazi officials and have a background check.
Presumed German citizens were hostile and thereby exempted Nazis from the gun control law.
Gave Nazis unrestricted power to decide what kinds of firearms could, or could not be owned by private persons.
The types of ammunition that were legal were subject to control by bureaucrats.
Juveniles under 18 years could not buy firearms and ammunition.

That sounds like something liberals would push for.

So you're against background checks, restrictions on ownership by convicted felons and the mentally ill, and want minors to be able to buy guns? You're a fucking fruitcake.

Dick(less), your comprehension level is fading....

Nazi Weapons Act of 1938 (Translated to English)

Classified guns for "sporting purposes".

Just like you libs want to do, take away the weapons that are most effective for self-defense.

All citizens who wished to purchase firearms had to register with the Nazi officials and have a background check.

The problem here isn't the background check, per se, it's the registration requirement that gives the government the knowledge of WHERE the guns are, making their confiscation that much easier.

Presumed German citizens were hostile and thereby exempted Nazis from the gun control law.

Guilty without evidence for the general public, yet unlimited access for the Brownshirts. That sounds good to you?

Gave Nazis unrestricted power to decide what kinds of firearms could, or could not be owned by private persons.

Again, restricting ownership to only those guns which are easily defeated in battle.

The types of ammunition that were legal were subject to control by bureaucrats.

Another unreasonable restriction designed to assure the state that they wouldn't be facing any SERIOUS opposition.

Juveniles under 18 years could not buy firearms and ammunition.

This one I don't think is a bad idea, but I do believe that minors should be well-versed in the care and operation of arms, and own their own if their parents so desire. I've owned weapons since I was 10, and in 44 years have never shot ANYONE.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Nazi Weapons Act of 1938 (Translated to English)

Classified guns for "sporting purposes".
All citizens who wished to purchase firearms had to register with the Nazi officials and have a background check.
Presumed German citizens were hostile and thereby exempted Nazis from the gun control law.
Gave Nazis unrestricted power to decide what kinds of firearms could, or could not be owned by private persons.
The types of ammunition that were legal were subject to control by bureaucrats.
Juveniles under 18 years could not buy firearms and ammunition.

That sounds like something liberals would push for.

So you're against background checks, restrictions on ownership by convicted felons and the mentally ill, and want minors to be able to buy guns? You're a fucking fruitcake.

Well shit stain exactly what part of that do you not support?

 

[Darkwind]

It is confusing to intelligent people.

Intelligent people always understand the 2nd Amendment.

You shouldn't out yourself like that.

Here is a good lesson on how to read the Second Amendment.

A Primer on the Constitutional Right to Keep and Bear Arms <<---Link

Here is the opening excerpt.....

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 Second Amendment



The Second Amendment is among the most misunderstood provisions of the U.S. Constitution. That is not because it is particularly difficult to understand. On the contrary, for more than a hundred years after it was adopted, hardly anyone seemed the least bit confused about what it meant. The confusion, and some serious mistakes, only became widespread in the twentieth century, when influential people began to think it was a good idea to disarm the civilian population. Because the plain meaning of the Second Amendment rather obviously creates an obstacle to these disarmament schemes, the temptation to misinterpret this provision of the Constitution became very strong.

Read the rest of it and learn something. Perhaps your confusion will go away and you can actually say you are starting to gain some intelligence.

The confusion became widespread when the NRA switched their previous position and started shilling for gun manufacturers. Throughout most of our history, there was no confusion about the second amendment. Interesting counter to your spin piece:

Sandy Hook massacre: The NRA's gun 'rights' are a fabrication of modern times - CSMonitor.com

Your counter is fear based without real merit. The Second Amendment says what it says, and there was never any confusion on its meaning until those who wished to disarm the citizenry took up the mantle of fear to influence opinion.

Whether the NRA supports gun manufacturers or not has no bearing on a Constitutional right enjoyed by ALL American citizens.

Should a person decide not to own guns, great. That is a personal choice.

Either way, this knee jerk reaction to banning 'certain' guns is just code for "lets get our foot in the door and we'll take the rest of them in smaller increments, later down the road."

If people want a limitation placed upon the 2nd Amendment, then amend the Constitution itself. Good luck with that.

 

[Darkwind]

Intelligent people always understand the 2nd Amendment.

You shouldn't out yourself like that.

Here is a good lesson on how to read the Second Amendment.

A Primer on the Constitutional Right to Keep and Bear Arms <<---Link

Here is the opening excerpt.....

Read the rest of it and learn something. Perhaps your confusion will go away and you can actually say you are starting to gain some intelligence.

The confusion became widespread when the NRA switched their previous position and started shilling for gun manufacturers. Throughout most of our history, there was no confusion about the second amendment. Interesting counter to your spin piece:

Sandy Hook massacre: The NRA's gun 'rights' are a fabrication of modern times - CSMonitor.com

The confusion seems to be over an individual vs collective right. To me the 2nd would seem to be collective in that it mentions "the people" vs amendments like the 5th where the word "person" is used, making it an individual right. Therefore, totally banning guns would be a violation, but requiring things like registration and competency and background checks would not. "The people" also have the right: A) to make sure guns don't get into the wrong hands, i.e. criminals and the insane and B) to know if guns are being stockpiled by whom and where. Remember, just because someone says they're doing it because they don't trust the government, doesn't automatically mean we should trust them. The 2nd amendment isn't a suicide pact.

Did you read the primer I linked to? It explains very clearly why it is an individual right, using commonly accepted language.

 

[LibertyLemming]

Well, good luck fighting tanks, fighter jets, and poisonous gas.

What makes you think the tank crews, and fighter pilots wont side with the Constitution and with that, their fellow citizens?

The real question is why are these means of protection only available to some citizens. I should be able to own these things as well.

 

[Abatis]

I=the various interpretations that have upheld the various limitations on some of the above weapons have been incorrect.

Ding! We have a winner!

The "militia right" and the "state's right" interpretations of the 2nd Amendment were placed into the federal court systems in 1942.

Problem is, for 70 years those lower federal court decisions were used to defeat claims of 2nd Amendment injury by individual citizens and illegitimate laws were upheld.

SCOTUS through Heller re-re-re-re-affirmed what SCOTUS had said previously and unwaveringly on the right to arms and the 2nd Amendment for going on 140 years and invalidated those lower court inventions n 2008.

This is why Heller, in its mention of laws that Heller was not deciding on, said that they were only "presumptively lawful" Until they are challenged under the Heller rule they do remain on the books.

 

[konradv]

The second amendment does give specifics Shall not be infringed is being very specific.
I also noticed you didn't address the last part and even went as far as leaving it out of the quote.

I agree that "shall not be infringed" is specific, but it refers to "the people" not individuals.

As far as the second part goes, I felt it was irrelevant to the topic and a needless distraction.

Idiot, let me help you. 'shall not be infringed' is an adverbial clause describing the state of 'the right of the people to keep and bear arms.'

It modifies the 'right', which is singular.

Very good, you passed grammar. Now where does it say that "the people" refers to an individual rather than a collective right? Wouldn't they have used the word "person" to refer to an individual right? As long as guns aren't banned, the amendment hasn't been violated. That doesn't mean we can't register guns and do background check to make sure felons and lunatics don't have easy access and police have a database to help solve gun crimes.

 

[boedicca]

It is confusing to intelligent people.

No it's not.

 

[konradv]

The confusion became widespread when the NRA switched their previous position and started shilling for gun manufacturers. Throughout most of our history, there was no confusion about the second amendment. Interesting counter to your spin piece:

Sandy Hook massacre: The NRA's gun 'rights' are a fabrication of modern times - CSMonitor.com

The confusion seems to be over an individual vs collective right. To me the 2nd would seem to be collective in that it mentions "the people" vs amendments like the 5th where the word "person" is used, making it an individual right. Therefore, totally banning guns would be a violation, but requiring things like registration and competency and background checks would not. "The people" also have the right: A) to make sure guns don't get into the wrong hands, i.e. criminals and the insane and B) to know if guns are being stockpiled by whom and where. Remember, just because someone says they're doing it because they don't trust the government, doesn't automatically mean we should trust them. The 2nd amendment isn't a suicide pact.

Did you read the primer I linked to? It explains very clearly why it is an individual right, using commonly accepted language.

If it's an individual right, how can felons be barred from owning them? Try again.

 

[boedicca]

The real confusion is actually over the phrase "well regulated" - which in the era it was written mean "properly functioning" and not the modern regulated by the government nonsense the left often promotes.

A felon can be be prohibited from owning a gun based upon his rejection of the law. He give up his right to liberty when he is jailed. Forbidding gun ownership is just another forfeited liberty as a consequence for violating the law.

 

[konradv]

The second amendment does give specifics Shall not be infringed is being very specific.
I also noticed you didn't address the last part and even went as far as leaving it out of the quote.

I agree that "shall not be infringed" is specific, but it refers to "the people" not individuals.

As far as the second part goes, I felt it was irrelevant to the topic and a needless distraction.

So we are back too individuals aren't people?

I didn't say "people" and neither does the amendment. It says "the people". That's a collective group. If you want to talk an individual, that would be a "person".

 

[Charles_Main]

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

You don't know what you are talking about. Do you even know what a comma is? The second part about militias is UN-related to the first. They were not saying we can only have guns as part of a Militia, they were saying we can have guns, and we can only have well regulated militias. (they were actually worried about UN-regulated militias trying to set up their own states on the frontier at the time)

But, even if you were right, your argument is still lame, as it is the Fed that took away any and all "well Regulated Militias" when it Nationalized the State National Guards placing them under the sole control of the Federal Government.

Gotta love when an Ignorant asshole make a post claiming to teach us all how we are wrong about such simple, straight forward, Amendment.

Learn what a comma is you fucking retard.

 

[boedicca]

I agree that "shall not be infringed" is specific, but it refers to "the people" not individuals.

As far as the second part goes, I felt it was irrelevant to the topic and a needless distraction.

So we are back too individuals aren't people?

I didn't say "people" and neither does the amendment. It says "the people". That's a collective group. If you want to talk an individual, that would be a "person".

You really don't grok the Constitution, do you bub?

 

[konradv]

I did not use original intent as a noun. I used it as an adverbial phrase.

No you didn't. 'Intent' is a noun that's the object of the preposition 'by' modified by the adjective 'original'. Nothing adverbial there at all. Try again.

LOL

Educate yourself on dependent adverbial phrases, komrade, and then we can discuss it.

2nd Amendment, with modernized language for Libtards pretending to be confused by the original intent

That's the sentence I was commenting on, which you conveniently edited out. There's no adverbial phrase there. First you rewrite the amendment for our edification and now you're acting like the sentence doesn't exist. HYPOCRITE!

 

[konradv]

So we are back too individuals aren't people?

I didn't say "people" and neither does the amendment. It says "the people". That's a collective group. If you want to talk an individual, that would be a "person".

You really don't grok the Constitution, do you bub?

I don't find "grok" in the Constitution. Please speak Merkin.