The Right To Bear Arms

[Darkwind]

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.

Did you read the primer? Yes or no.

BTW....when you commit horrendous crimes, you lose a lot of rights. Fail again.

Read the link, then get back to Me.

 

[GuyPinestra]

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.

Voting is an individual right, yet felons are routinely debarred from it.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Why do so many 2nd amendment 'experts' readily concede that the right to own automatic weapons is not covered by the 2nd amendment?

Any modern day militia would presumably have them.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

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

Nothing confusing or linguistically bad about the sentence.

The first part with the comma section added tells us the State has a right to have a militia. The second part with the comma section added tells us the PEOPLE have the right to keep and bear arms to form said militia as needed.

 

[hazlnut]

I love this thread.

20 pages and still not valid logical argument as to why the 2nd Amendment is relevant today.

 

[Lakhota]

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.

Justice Scalia says the 2nd Amendment doesn't give you the right to own such things.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I love this thread.

20 pages and still not valid logical argument as to why the 2nd Amendment is relevant today.

Why are any of the Amendments relevant?

Don't like them, pass a new one. Or whine some more......

 

[LibertyLemming]

Telling me the 2nd Amendment isn't valid while it reigns supreme in the world of laws is obnoxious. It's like telling me apples are invalid as I'm giving oral to a turnover.

If you want some reason as to why it should continue to exist well that's easy. Land of free my man!

 

[hazlnut]

I love this thread.

20 pages and still not valid logical argument as to why the 2nd Amendment is relevant today.

Why are any of the Amendments relevant?

Don't like them, pass a new one. Or whine some more......

Again, another failed argument for the 2nd Amendment.

Logic is your friend, pal. Use it. Don't misuse it.

 

[asaratis]

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

Nothing confusing or linguistically bad about the sentence.

The first part with the comma section added tells us the State has a right to have a militia. The second part with the comma section added tells us the PEOPLE have the right to keep and bear arms to form said militia as needed.

In short:


(For whatever reason)...the right of the people to bear arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED!

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I love this thread.

20 pages and still not valid logical argument as to why the 2nd Amendment is relevant today.

Why are any of the Amendments relevant?

Don't like them, pass a new one. Or whine some more......

Again, another failed argument for the 2nd Amendment.

Logic is your friend, pal. Use it. Don't misuse it.

Maybe you could explain why it is irrelevant?
Or whine some more......

 

[Abatis]

Again, another failed argument for the 2nd Amendment.

Logic is your friend, pal. Use it. Don't misuse it.

The law and the fundamental principles of the Constitution are our friends and your enemy.

Point #1 of your idiocy is simply that the right to arms does not depend upon the 2nd Amendment to exist so all this goofiness is just useless.

Point #2 of your idiocy is that the right to arms is an original, pre-existing right that the people fully retained since not a shred of it was surrendered to government. Since no power was ever granted to government to allow it to even compose a thought about the personal arms of the private citizen NONE EXISTS!

Point #3 of your idiocy is that the right to arms is a fundamental right and it isn't any citizen's responsibility to prove to any statist authoritarian that the right remains pertenant today . . . it is your job to prove to us that a legitimate power exists to do what you want to do. See, for fundamental rights laws challenged as being injurious to the right are presumed unconstitutional.

Point #4 of your idiocy is that emotional appeals have zero significance in public policy discussion and even less when we are discussing fundamental principles of the Constitution.

Go get a job willya . . .

 

[GuyPinestra]

I love this thread.

20 pages and still not valid logical argument as to why the 2nd Amendment is relevant today.

It's relevant today because there are dangerous people out there who want to rape, rob and pillage, and I don't plan on allowing them the opportunity to do that to me or my family. Even if I'm not home I know my family is better protected because EVERY member is proficient with multiple weapons, and NONE are afraid to use them.

In a crisis situation, the police will be there just in time to write a report.

 

[asaratis]

Here's another thought on the subject. Notice how carefully the authors referred to "the security OF A FREE STATE" (meaning any particular ONE or more of the United States)

The "free state" is the group of people that call themselves "Missourians", or "Texans", or "the people of {name a state}". It is the security OF THOSE PEOPLE that is being protected against any entity that would take away their freedom, including hypothetical possibilities such as a neighboring rogue state that wants their oil or their own rogue state government that wants to rule them without use of the Constitution. Who knows? We may have to rise up against our own National Guard someday...if a sufficiently maniacal dictator-type becomes the governor.

The right of THE PEOPLE to bear arms shall not be infringed!

 

[westwall]

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

Confusing only if you lack a fundamental grasp of the English language, or are a lawyer seeking to enslave the People.

 

[GuyPinestra]

Why do so many 2nd amendment 'experts' readily concede that the right to own automatic weapons is not covered by the 2nd amendment?

Any modern day militia would presumably have them.

Really? Who has conceded that? We do have the right to own fully automatic weapons, that's why they are for sale at many gun shops around the country.

 

[westwall]

Why do so many 2nd amendment 'experts' readily concede that the right to own automatic weapons is not covered by the 2nd amendment?

Any modern day militia would presumably have them.

"Most" don't. Even the Supreme Court, in its 1934 decision, stated that the only weapons protected by the 2nd Ammendment were military weapons.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Why do so many 2nd amendment 'experts' readily concede that the right to own automatic weapons is not covered by the 2nd amendment?

Any modern day militia would presumably have them.

"Most" don't. Even the Supreme Court, in its 1934 decision, stated that the only weapons protected by the 2nd Ammendment were military weapons.

That would be Miller vs U.S. 1938

 

[Pogo]

You seem to be confused by your imagining there is such a thing as "original intent". That notion presumes that all the Founders had the same intent, a case that would be unique in human history and so statistically remote as to be false on the face of it.

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.

Konrad is 100% correct here.
If "original intent" were an adverbial phrase -- what would it modify?

Very interesting thread, and the distinction between the collective "people" and individual "person" is a fascinating lead. Konrad, you may be the only poster I've seen today who's not only familiar with English but proficient at it. In any case I think we can dismiss grammar lessons from those who deliver them with illuminating gems like "learn what a comma is you fucking retard".

I don't see an issue with the comma there or not there if we're looking at the last one. I don't even see its intended function. Whether militia is capitalized or not has an interesting theory in the link. I would point out that at the time of the writing we were still capitalizing nouns as a holdover from our parent language German, although this was dying out at this time and that may account for the change from majuscule to minuscule. Or it may not. Another fascinating lead.

I would just add that if the intent and interpretation of Amendments were clear prima facie, then we wouldn't need a Supreme Court to address them.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

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.

Konrad is 100% correct here.
If "original intent" were an adverbial phrase -- what would it modify?

Very interesting thread, and the distinction between the collective "people" and individual "person" is a fascinating lead. Konrad, you may be the only poster I've seen today who's not only familiar with English but proficient at it.

I don't see an issue with the comma there or not there if we're looking at the last one. I don't even see its function. Whether militia is capitalized or not has an interesting theory in the link. I would point out that at the time of the writing we were still capitalizing nouns as a holdover from our parent language German, although this was dying out at this time and that may account for the change from majuscule to minuscule. Or it may not. Another fascinating lead.

I would just add that if the intent and interpretation of Amendments were clear prima facie, then we wouldn't need a Supreme Court to address them.

And the Court has addressed this Amendment. Consistently ruling that military type weapons in "common use" are what is protected and that it conveys an INDIVIDUAL right.