The Right To Bear Arms

[Cecilie1200]

By Peter Weber

That's the opinion of Rupert Murdoch's conservative New York Post. And it's not as far-fetched as it may seem.

Well, let's read the text of the Second Amendment, says Jeffrey Sachs at The Huffington Post:

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.​

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."

As Justice John Paul Stevens argues persuasively, the amendment should not block the ability of society to keep itself safe through gun control legislation. That was never its intent. This amendment was about militias in the 1790s, and the fear of the anti-federalists of a federal army. Since that issue is long moot, we need not be governed in our national life by doctrines on now-extinct militias from the 18th century.​

"Fair-minded readers have to acknowledge that the text is ambiguous," says Cass Sunstein at Bloomberg View. Justice Antonin Scalia, who wrote the majority opinion in Heller, was laying out his interpretation of a "genuinely difficult" legal question, and "I am not saying that the court was wrong." More to the point: Right or wrong, obsolete or relevant, the Second Amendment essentially means what five justices on the Supreme Court say it means. So "we should respect the fact that the individual right to have guns has been established," but even the pro-gun interpretation laid out by Scalia explicitly allows for banning the kinds of weapons the shooter used to murder 20 first-graders. The real problem is in the political arena, where "opponents of gun control, armed with both organization and money, have been invoking the Second Amendment far more recklessly," using "wild and unsupportable claims about the meaning of the Constitution" to shut down debate on what sort of regulations might save lives.

More: Is the Second Amendment obsolete? - The Week

More to the point, do I care whether you and The Week think it's obsolete? And do you have any clue as to the proper, legal procedure for handling it if it IS?

 

[Cecilie1200]

Maybe not obsolete but antiquated, out of date...

... it needs to be updated to reflect the times...

... and the threat of overkill firepower...

... for the average citizen.

Fine. Get right on "updating" it to "reflect the times", and let us know if you can get anything like the agreement and support you need through the proper channels to get that accomplished.

 

[Cecilie1200]

I am also a gun lover, but the 2nd Amendment will be changed. It's just a matter of time...

Not if you halfwit leftists keep trying to just define it out of existence, instead of going about it legally.

 

[Frankeneinstein]

By Peter Weber

That's the opinion of Rupert Murdoch's conservative New York Post. And it's not as far-fetched as it may seem.

Well, let's read the text of the Second Amendment, says Jeffrey Sachs at The Huffington Post:

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.​

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."

As Justice John Paul Stevens argues persuasively, the amendment should not block the ability of society to keep itself safe through gun control legislation. That was never its intent. This amendment was about militias in the 1790s, and the fear of the anti-federalists of a federal army. Since that issue is long moot, we need not be governed in our national life by doctrines on now-extinct militias from the 18th century.​

"Fair-minded readers have to acknowledge that the text is ambiguous," says Cass Sunstein at Bloomberg View. Justice Antonin Scalia, who wrote the majority opinion in Heller, was laying out his interpretation of a "genuinely difficult" legal question, and "I am not saying that the court was wrong." More to the point: Right or wrong, obsolete or relevant, the Second Amendment essentially means what five justices on the Supreme Court say it means. So "we should respect the fact that the individual right to have guns has been established," but even the pro-gun interpretation laid out by Scalia explicitly allows for banning the kinds of weapons the shooter used to murder 20 first-graders. The real problem is in the political arena, where "opponents of gun control, armed with both organization and money, have been invoking the Second Amendment far more recklessly," using "wild and unsupportable claims about the meaning of the Constitution" to shut down debate on what sort of regulations might save lives.

More: Is the Second Amendment obsolete? - The Week

Morning rosie...I see you've chosen to forego any pretense of "not trying to take away our second amendment rights", by going with an article that spells out clearly that anyone who says otherwise is lying...kudos for your honesty...there is no cherry picking our constitution, for instance, referring to the 2nd amendment as a "relic" as though it has any meaning in this debate is at the very least misleading as the first amendment is even older and based on "relic theory" would therefore make it even less relevant than the second amendment...and no amendment has been more "recklessly invoked" than the first amendment...but as a constitutionalist I am bound by [as well as pro] first and second amendment championing...as some very wise men once said:


"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."

no one has ever said it better.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Trying to live modern life according to the Constitution is much like trying to live modern life according to the Bible. Both are subject to vast interpretation.

No, no they aren't. You just WANT them to be, because you don't like having legal and moral strictures on your selfish behavior, and you know you have zero chance of actually convincing people to agree with you outright.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Anyone here belong to a militia? Know anyone who belongs to a militia? I don't...

Do you even know what a militia is, in terms of the Constitution? Would you recognize one if it fell on you?

 

[Cecilie1200]

Has human nature changed?

Have people stopped doing evil things and threatening innocent people?

Have politicians learned to respect the sovereignty of the people and stop trying to micromanage their existence?

If not, then of course it isn't obsolete. You'd have to be an idiot to think that or completely ignorant of the purpose of the Second amendment which is to protect our right to self defense and prevent tyranny and oppression.

When the people fear the government, we have tyranny. When the government fears it's people, then we have freedom.

Your NaziCon rant doesn't address the OP. Do you belong to a militia? Why isn't the 2nd Amendment obsolete?

Once again, do you have any clue what the Constitution means by "militia"? Are you so grammatically ignorant that you erroneously think the first phrase of that Amendment is in any way a modifier of the rest of it?

Your second question is easy to answer. It isn't obsolete for the simple reason that it has never been legally changed or repealed. If it was obsolete (ie. the people no longer wanted it), they would have amended the Constitution to get rid of it. They haven't, and aren't going to, so they obviously still want it, ergo it isn't obsolete.

 

[danielpalos]

By Peter Weber

That's the opinion of Rupert Murdoch's conservative New York Post. And it's not as far-fetched as it may seem.

Well, let's read the text of the Second Amendment, says Jeffrey Sachs at The Huffington Post:

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.​

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."

As Justice John Paul Stevens argues persuasively, the amendment should not block the ability of society to keep itself safe through gun control legislation. That was never its intent. This amendment was about militias in the 1790s, and the fear of the anti-federalists of a federal army. Since that issue is long moot, we need not be governed in our national life by doctrines on now-extinct militias from the 18th century.​

"Fair-minded readers have to acknowledge that the text is ambiguous," says Cass Sunstein at Bloomberg View. Justice Antonin Scalia, who wrote the majority opinion in Heller, was laying out his interpretation of a "genuinely difficult" legal question, and "I am not saying that the court was wrong." More to the point: Right or wrong, obsolete or relevant, the Second Amendment essentially means what five justices on the Supreme Court say it means. So "we should respect the fact that the individual right to have guns has been established," but even the pro-gun interpretation laid out by Scalia explicitly allows for banning the kinds of weapons the shooter used to murder 20 first-graders. The real problem is in the political arena, where "opponents of gun control, armed with both organization and money, have been invoking the Second Amendment far more recklessly," using "wild and unsupportable claims about the meaning of the Constitution" to shut down debate on what sort of regulations might save lives.

More: Is the Second Amendment obsolete? - The Week

Morning rosie...I see you've chosen to forego any pretense of "not trying to take away our second amendment rights", by going with an article that spells out clearly that anyone who says otherwise is lying...kudos for your honesty...there is no cherry picking our constitution, for instance, referring to the 2nd amendment as a "relic" as though it has any meaning in this debate is at the very least misleading as the first amendment is even older and based on "relic theory" would therefore make it even less relevant than the second amendment...and no amendment has been more "recklessly invoked" than the first amendment...but as a constitutionalist I am bound by [as well as pro] first and second amendment championing...as some very wise men once said:


"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."

no one has ever said it better.

"I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
— George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on
Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788

 

[Cecilie1200]

Wingnuts haven't said or done anything to convince anyone that assualt weapons are a part of the second ammendment so in that way, yes, it is obsolete.

Translation: "They've said A LOT of things that prove it, but I will NEVER be convinced, even if God Almighty comes down with James Madison and George Mason in tow to tell me otherwise. It is obsolete because I don't want it, so there!"

 

[Frankeneinstein]

By Peter Weber

That's the opinion of Rupert Murdoch's conservative New York Post. And it's not as far-fetched as it may seem.

Well, let's read the text of the Second Amendment, says Jeffrey Sachs at The Huffington Post:

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.​

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."

As Justice John Paul Stevens argues persuasively, the amendment should not block the ability of society to keep itself safe through gun control legislation. That was never its intent. This amendment was about militias in the 1790s, and the fear of the anti-federalists of a federal army. Since that issue is long moot, we need not be governed in our national life by doctrines on now-extinct militias from the 18th century.​

"Fair-minded readers have to acknowledge that the text is ambiguous," says Cass Sunstein at Bloomberg View. Justice Antonin Scalia, who wrote the majority opinion in Heller, was laying out his interpretation of a "genuinely difficult" legal question, and "I am not saying that the court was wrong." More to the point: Right or wrong, obsolete or relevant, the Second Amendment essentially means what five justices on the Supreme Court say it means. So "we should respect the fact that the individual right to have guns has been established," but even the pro-gun interpretation laid out by Scalia explicitly allows for banning the kinds of weapons the shooter used to murder 20 first-graders. The real problem is in the political arena, where "opponents of gun control, armed with both organization and money, have been invoking the Second Amendment far more recklessly," using "wild and unsupportable claims about the meaning of the Constitution" to shut down debate on what sort of regulations might save lives.

More: Is the Second Amendment obsolete? - The Week

Morning rosie...I see you've chosen to forego any pretense of "not trying to take away our second amendment rights", by going with an article that spells out clearly that anyone who says otherwise is lying...kudos for your honesty...there is no cherry picking our constitution, for instance, referring to the 2nd amendment as a "relic" as though it has any meaning in this debate is at the very least misleading as the first amendment is even older and based on "relic theory" would therefore make it even less relevant than the second amendment...and no amendment has been more "recklessly invoked" than the first amendment...but as a constitutionalist I am bound by [as well as pro] first and second amendment championing...as some very wise men once said:


"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."

no one has ever said it better.

"I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
— George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on
Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788

I appreciate the quote, does it have relevance to my post other than to validate it?

 

[Cecilie1200]

OT:
The right time to bare arms will be upon us soon enough in the Northern Hemisphere.

I'm sure Trumpkins will be more than happy to avail themselves of that opportunity.

If your misinterpretation of homophones is a joke, it's lame and pathetic. If you really don't know the difference, then it's even more lame and pathetic.

 

[danielpalos]

Wingnuts haven't said or done anything to convince anyone that assualt weapons are a part of the second ammendment so in that way, yes, it is obsolete.

Translation: "They've said A LOT of things that prove it, but I will NEVER be convinced, even if God Almighty comes down with James Madison and George Mason in tow to tell me otherwise. It is obsolete because I don't want it, so there!"

gun lovers have to convince their own State lawmakers, they are not just a bunch of flakes with guns.

 

[danielpalos]

By Peter Weber

That's the opinion of Rupert Murdoch's conservative New York Post. And it's not as far-fetched as it may seem.

Well, let's read the text of the Second Amendment, says Jeffrey Sachs at The Huffington Post:

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.​

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."

As Justice John Paul Stevens argues persuasively, the amendment should not block the ability of society to keep itself safe through gun control legislation. That was never its intent. This amendment was about militias in the 1790s, and the fear of the anti-federalists of a federal army. Since that issue is long moot, we need not be governed in our national life by doctrines on now-extinct militias from the 18th century.​

"Fair-minded readers have to acknowledge that the text is ambiguous," says Cass Sunstein at Bloomberg View. Justice Antonin Scalia, who wrote the majority opinion in Heller, was laying out his interpretation of a "genuinely difficult" legal question, and "I am not saying that the court was wrong." More to the point: Right or wrong, obsolete or relevant, the Second Amendment essentially means what five justices on the Supreme Court say it means. So "we should respect the fact that the individual right to have guns has been established," but even the pro-gun interpretation laid out by Scalia explicitly allows for banning the kinds of weapons the shooter used to murder 20 first-graders. The real problem is in the political arena, where "opponents of gun control, armed with both organization and money, have been invoking the Second Amendment far more recklessly," using "wild and unsupportable claims about the meaning of the Constitution" to shut down debate on what sort of regulations might save lives.

More: Is the Second Amendment obsolete? - The Week

Morning rosie...I see you've chosen to forego any pretense of "not trying to take away our second amendment rights", by going with an article that spells out clearly that anyone who says otherwise is lying...kudos for your honesty...there is no cherry picking our constitution, for instance, referring to the 2nd amendment as a "relic" as though it has any meaning in this debate is at the very least misleading as the first amendment is even older and based on "relic theory" would therefore make it even less relevant than the second amendment...and no amendment has been more "recklessly invoked" than the first amendment...but as a constitutionalist I am bound by [as well as pro] first and second amendment championing...as some very wise men once said:


"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."

no one has ever said it better.

"I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
— George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on
Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788

I appreciate the quote, does it have relevance to my post other than to validate it?

Only well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free State; not, the unorganized militia.

 

[Frankeneinstein]

By Peter Weber

That's the opinion of Rupert Murdoch's conservative New York Post. And it's not as far-fetched as it may seem.

Well, let's read the text of the Second Amendment, says Jeffrey Sachs at The Huffington Post:

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.​

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."

As Justice John Paul Stevens argues persuasively, the amendment should not block the ability of society to keep itself safe through gun control legislation. That was never its intent. This amendment was about militias in the 1790s, and the fear of the anti-federalists of a federal army. Since that issue is long moot, we need not be governed in our national life by doctrines on now-extinct militias from the 18th century.​

"Fair-minded readers have to acknowledge that the text is ambiguous," says Cass Sunstein at Bloomberg View. Justice Antonin Scalia, who wrote the majority opinion in Heller, was laying out his interpretation of a "genuinely difficult" legal question, and "I am not saying that the court was wrong." More to the point: Right or wrong, obsolete or relevant, the Second Amendment essentially means what five justices on the Supreme Court say it means. So "we should respect the fact that the individual right to have guns has been established," but even the pro-gun interpretation laid out by Scalia explicitly allows for banning the kinds of weapons the shooter used to murder 20 first-graders. The real problem is in the political arena, where "opponents of gun control, armed with both organization and money, have been invoking the Second Amendment far more recklessly," using "wild and unsupportable claims about the meaning of the Constitution" to shut down debate on what sort of regulations might save lives.

More: Is the Second Amendment obsolete? - The Week

Morning rosie...I see you've chosen to forego any pretense of "not trying to take away our second amendment rights", by going with an article that spells out clearly that anyone who says otherwise is lying...kudos for your honesty...there is no cherry picking our constitution, for instance, referring to the 2nd amendment as a "relic" as though it has any meaning in this debate is at the very least misleading as the first amendment is even older and based on "relic theory" would therefore make it even less relevant than the second amendment...and no amendment has been more "recklessly invoked" than the first amendment...but as a constitutionalist I am bound by [as well as pro] first and second amendment championing...as some very wise men once said:


"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."

no one has ever said it better.

"I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
— George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on
Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788

I appreciate the quote, does it have relevance to my post other than to validate it?

Only well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free State; not, the unorganized militia.

Where does it say "only"?, what does "keep" mean?, and why the comma between the two sentences if not to show grammatically that the two are not necessary to be one and the same in order to have both and how would law makers be able to enact gun control without infringing upon those rights?...what it really means is that any attempt to infringe on that rihgt is an attack on the 2nd amendment and the constitution itself which this thread/the OP correctly pointed out.

 

[danielpalos]

More: Is the Second Amendment obsolete? - The Week

Morning rosie...I see you've chosen to forego any pretense of "not trying to take away our second amendment rights", by going with an article that spells out clearly that anyone who says otherwise is lying...kudos for your honesty...there is no cherry picking our constitution, for instance, referring to the 2nd amendment as a "relic" as though it has any meaning in this debate is at the very least misleading as the first amendment is even older and based on "relic theory" would therefore make it even less relevant than the second amendment...and no amendment has been more "recklessly invoked" than the first amendment...but as a constitutionalist I am bound by [as well as pro] first and second amendment championing...as some very wise men once said:


"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."

no one has ever said it better.

"I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
— George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on
Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788

I appreciate the quote, does it have relevance to my post other than to validate it?

Only well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free State; not, the unorganized militia.

Where does it say "only"?, what does "keep" mean?, and why the comma between the two sentences if not to show grammatically that the two are not necessary to be one and the same in order to have both and how would law makers be able to enact gun control without infringing upon those rights?...what it really means is that any attempt to infringe on that rihgt is an attack on the 2nd amendment and the constitution itself which this thread/the OP correctly pointed out.

Our social Contract has specific terms; not just hearsay and soothsay, like the right wing.

Well regulated militia, is specifically in our social Contract as a Contractual Term.

 

[Frankeneinstein]

Morning rosie...I see you've chosen to forego any pretense of "not trying to take away our second amendment rights", by going with an article that spells out clearly that anyone who says otherwise is lying...kudos for your honesty...there is no cherry picking our constitution, for instance, referring to the 2nd amendment as a "relic" as though it has any meaning in this debate is at the very least misleading as the first amendment is even older and based on "relic theory" would therefore make it even less relevant than the second amendment...and no amendment has been more "recklessly invoked" than the first amendment...but as a constitutionalist I am bound by [as well as pro] first and second amendment championing...as some very wise men once said:


"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."

no one has ever said it better.

"I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
— George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on
Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788

I appreciate the quote, does it have relevance to my post other than to validate it?

Only well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free State; not, the unorganized militia.

Where does it say "only"?, what does "keep" mean?, and why the comma between the two sentences if not to show grammatically that the two are not necessary to be one and the same in order to have both and how would law makers be able to enact gun control without infringing upon those rights?...what it really means is that any attempt to infringe on that rihgt is an attack on the 2nd amendment and the constitution itself which this thread/the OP correctly pointed out.

Our social Contract has specific terms; not just hearsay and soothsay, like the right wing.

Well regulated militia, is specifically in our social Contract as a Contractual Term.

does that contract apply to "keep" and bear arms as well?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

And unemployment compensation for quitters or never workers is law in none of them.

at-will is at-will, baby. only the right wing, never gets it.

And unemployed, not getting a check is unemployed, not getting a check.
Only lazy morons never get it.

employment at the will of either party, not just the employer, for unemployment compensation purposes.

employment at the will of either party, not just the employer,

Absolutely!!

for unemployment compensation purposes

Never!!

should we ask for truth in legislative advertising in "at-will employment States" and "right to work States"?

Ask for whatever you like.
I'm sure you'll be just as successful as you are when you ask for handouts for not working.

 

[danielpalos]

"I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
— George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on
Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788

I appreciate the quote, does it have relevance to my post other than to validate it?

Only well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free State; not, the unorganized militia.

Where does it say "only"?, what does "keep" mean?, and why the comma between the two sentences if not to show grammatically that the two are not necessary to be one and the same in order to have both and how would law makers be able to enact gun control without infringing upon those rights?...what it really means is that any attempt to infringe on that rihgt is an attack on the 2nd amendment and the constitution itself which this thread/the OP correctly pointed out.

Our social Contract has specific terms; not just hearsay and soothsay, like the right wing.

Well regulated militia, is specifically in our social Contract as a Contractual Term.

does that contract apply to "keep" and bear arms as well?

Yes, well regulated militia of the whole and entire People, shall not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.

 

[danielpalos]

at-will is at-will, baby. only the right wing, never gets it.

And unemployed, not getting a check is unemployed, not getting a check.
Only lazy morons never get it.

employment at the will of either party, not just the employer, for unemployment compensation purposes.

employment at the will of either party, not just the employer,

Absolutely!!

for unemployment compensation purposes

Never!!

should we ask for truth in legislative advertising in "at-will employment States" and "right to work States"?

Ask for whatever you like.
I'm sure you'll be just as successful as you are when you ask for handouts for not working.

I am advocating, being legal to our own laws, simply for the sake of public morals.

 

[Frankeneinstein]

I appreciate the quote, does it have relevance to my post other than to validate it?

Only well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free State; not, the unorganized militia.

Where does it say "only"?, what does "keep" mean?, and why the comma between the two sentences if not to show grammatically that the two are not necessary to be one and the same in order to have both and how would law makers be able to enact gun control without infringing upon those rights?...what it really means is that any attempt to infringe on that rihgt is an attack on the 2nd amendment and the constitution itself which this thread/the OP correctly pointed out.

Our social Contract has specific terms; not just hearsay and soothsay, like the right wing.

Well regulated militia, is specifically in our social Contract as a Contractual Term.

does that contract apply to "keep" and bear arms as well?

Yes, well regulated militia of the whole and entire People, shall not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.

Whole lotta translation in your posts, don't see anything you are claiming coming from the second amendment...What do they mean by "keep"...and if your interpretation has any merit why do we need a constitutional amendment for this translation:

shall not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union

It would seem that every government in the world gives that "right", even/especially the most tyrannical.