The Right To Bear Arms

[emptystep]

I agree about modifying the 2nd, it should say, "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"

But that is exactly the point. You would have to modify the 2nd amendment to refer to "the people."

As passed by the Congress:

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 "free state' is the United States of America. A well regulated Militia would be like the Minutemen, in nowadays terms that is the US Army and the National Guard. The right to keep and bear arms means that federal law does not allow Massachusetts to take the weapons away from the National Guard.

It did not mean that any slave could own a gun and it did not mean that the local law official could not confiscate the local idiot's gun if he felt the need to protect the community. The American public has absolutely no provision under the Constitution for individual gun ownership.

 

[bayoubill]

I agree about modifying the 2nd, it should say, "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"

But that is exactly the point. You would have to modify the 2nd amendment to refer to "the people."

As passed by the Congress:

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 "free state' is the United States of America. A well regulated Militia would be like the Minutemen, in nowadays terms that is the US Army and the National Guard. The right to keep and bear arms means that federal law does not allow Massachusetts to take the weapons away from the National Guard.

It did not mean that any slave could own a gun and it did not mean that the local law official could not confiscate the local idiot's gun if he felt the need to protect the community. The American public has absolutely no provision under the Constitution for individual gun ownership.

Obama will be looking for someone like you the next time he has an opening on the Supreme Court... you should polish up your resume' in the meantime...

 

[CrotchetyGeezer]

From the 2008 DC v. Heller ruling, written by Scalia, and one of the very few Supreme Court cases to touch on the Second Amendment at all:

"Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms."​

Remember: Written by Scalia, i.e., not one of those liberal judicial activists you hear so much about.

More: And Now a Thought From Justice Scalia

Cherry-picking DC v. Heller isn't going to help you.

 

[beagle9]

Correction....oops.

 

[LordBrownTrout]

There is nothing confusing about the 2nd amendment.

 

[beagle9]

Do you honestly think the writers of the Second Amendment envisioned assault rifles with 100 shot magazines? They would be shocked at the debate from the NRA and others.

Yes I do, and along with that vision, they probably would have also envisioned a citizenry that could represent this nation properly and safely without incident, as would be found in their overall ownership of guns, and them being as legal gun owning citizens.

They would have never envisioned a nation in the way that it is being taken down today by these devils, especially in the way in which they are taking it down and/or apart now. We see that they are attempting to do this more and more everyday, and this when reading the daily headlines that proves it as such. They do this now, but if they (the framers) would have known what is going on now, and this way back then, well I think that the constitution would have definitely had some better provisions added, in which to protect against the sort of treachery & traitorous activity in which we are witnessing today in this nation more and more, and this by those who wish to take it over completely, in order to suit their ways and needs in which they see fit only by them & their ways of thinking now.

 

[beagle9]

I agree about modifying the 2nd, it should say, "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"

But that is exactly the point. You would have to modify the 2nd amendment to refer to "the people."

As passed by the Congress:

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 "free state' is the United States of America. A well regulated Militia would be like the Minutemen, in nowadays terms that is the US Army and the National Guard. The right to keep and bear arms means that federal law does not allow Massachusetts to take the weapons away from the National Guard.

It did not mean that any slave could own a gun and it did not mean that the local law official could not confiscate the local idiot's gun if he felt the need to protect the community. The American public has absolutely no provision under the Constitution for individual gun ownership.

Obama will be looking for someone like you the next time he has an opening on the Supreme Court... you should polish up your resume' in the meantime...

Kidding me right, so the citizens who own and bear arms, and have done so since the beginning of this nation, were all just dumb idiots according to you and your thinking today ? We have been wrong all this time now ? Best check your history, because it didn't start in 2008, and I am talking about " The United States of America".

 

[LordBrownTrout]

Do you honestly think the writers of the Second Amendment envisioned assault rifles with 100 shot magazines? They would be shocked at the debate from the NRA and others.

They never would have envisioned our current incompetent prez, senate, congress. Well, yes they would have. They warned us.

 

[Gareyt17]

It is confusing to intelligent people.

granted, the wording and punctuation approaches inscrutability...

but when you read about how the final version came to be, with all the various rewrites and edits done in a hurried manner, you can sorta understand how it happened...

Ignorance is no excuse. What took place behind the scenes is irrelevant. Only the final product matters - and they fucked it up.

Well, all of us here know that but I see no need for you to criticize your own parents in such a manner....

 

[Contumacious]

There is nothing confusing about the 2nd amendment.

True.

But Founding Father Alexander Hamilton opposed the same because he predicted over 200 years ago, that the fascists would claim that the 2A is "confusing".

.

 

[emptystep]

But that is exactly the point. You would have to modify the 2nd amendment to refer to "the people."

As passed by the Congress:


The "free state' is the United States of America. A well regulated Militia would be like the Minutemen, in nowadays terms that is the US Army and the National Guard. The right to keep and bear arms means that federal law does not allow Massachusetts to take the weapons away from the National Guard.

It did not mean that any slave could own a gun and it did not mean that the local law official could not confiscate the local idiot's gun if he felt the need to protect the community. The American public has absolutely no provision under the Constitution for individual gun ownership.

Obama will be looking for someone like you the next time he has an opening on the Supreme Court... you should polish up your resume' in the meantime...

Kidding me right, so the citizens who own and bear arms, and have done so since the beginning of this nation, were all just dumb idiots according to you and your thinking today ? We have been wrong all this time now ? Best check your history, because it didn't start in 2008, and I am talking about " The United States of America".

There is nothing that says you can't have firearms in the Constitution. There is also nothing that says you can have firearms in the Constitution. The 2nd amendment specifically says "militia". It was not referring to the general population or it would have said so. It doesn't.

Allow me to reference Amendment V

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Militia is specifically referred to as an organization separate from simple citizenship. If you are authorized to have a firearm it can not be taken away. You don't automatically get to have one.

 

[PaulS1950]

People, we have the right to keep and bear arms simply because we recognize that the right to self defense demands that we have equivelent tools to those who would attack us. The second amendment just tells the government to keep their hands out of it.

This is not an issue of a "constitutional" right, it is a God given natural right. All living creatures use self defense with some of the deadliest tools available in nature. We use our mind to make weapons with which to defend ourselves, those we care about and our property in the same way that corals use chemical toxins to kill other corals that attack them and in the same way that ablack widow spider protects itself and its territory. This is a natural right that is given by the Creator. No man and no government can take it away. That is why over milenia societies have stood up to groups and governments who are harmful to those who have been governed. The constitution just exclaims the right and lets our government know that we recognize our right to use force when necessary to defend our rights. That is why I will not relinquish my guns - my ability to protect myself and those I care about.
You may feel free to do what ever your conscience dictates - that is another right we BOTH have.

 

[LordBrownTrout]

Obama will be looking for someone like you the next time he has an opening on the Supreme Court... you should polish up your resume' in the meantime...

Kidding me right, so the citizens who own and bear arms, and have done so since the beginning of this nation, were all just dumb idiots according to you and your thinking today ? We have been wrong all this time now ? Best check your history, because it didn't start in 2008, and I am talking about " The United States of America".

There is nothing that says you can't have firearms in the Constitution. There is also nothing that says you can have firearms in the Constitution. The 2nd amendment specifically says "militia". It was not referring to the general population or it would have said so. It doesn't.

Allow me to reference Amendment V

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Militia is specifically referred to as an organization separate from simple citizenship. If you are authorized to have a firearm it can not be taken away. You don't automatically get to have one.

The general populace was the militia. The colonists who gathered to confront the british regulars were militiamen.

 

[CrotchetyGeezer]

Obama will be looking for someone like you the next time he has an opening on the Supreme Court... you should polish up your resume' in the meantime...

Kidding me right, so the citizens who own and bear arms, and have done so since the beginning of this nation, were all just dumb idiots according to you and your thinking today ? We have been wrong all this time now ? Best check your history, because it didn't start in 2008, and I am talking about " The United States of America".

There is nothing that says you can't have firearms in the Constitution. There is also nothing that says you can have firearms in the Constitution. The 2nd amendment specifically says "militia". It was not referring to the general population or it would have said so. It doesn't.

I don't know how many times this argument has to be covered but, your claim is pure and simple BS. The Supreme Court has already acknowledged that the Constitution grants the individual right to bear arms and one doesn't have to belong to an organized group militia to enjoy that right. Educate yourself.

 

[emptystep]

From Amendment V

unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger

There is specified three divisions of armed forces here, land forces, naval forces, and the Militia (capitalization in original document it appears). Otherwise there would would be no 'unless'. It wouldn't make any sense if it meant 'unless everyone'. I do hope people haven't wasted a lot of time arguing about the obvious.

 

[Contumacious]

There is nothing that says you can't have firearms in the Constitution. There is also nothing that says you can have firearms in the Constitution. The 2nd amendment specifically says "militia". It was not referring to the general population or it would have said so. It doesn't.

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

.

 

[Clementine]

A militia is composed of ordinary, non-military citizens and it's actually another right people have if they feel their liberty is being threatened. Some saying that ordinary citizens don't need guns because they are not militia is a seriously flawed argument. There is much confusion and it's on the part of those blindly follow government. I know some people would rather cede weapons, rights and free will to a government who will take care of them. Some of us are strong and smart enough to know that we can do way better for ourselves and our families than any politician can ever hope to.

Follow like a subservient sheeple if you wish, but don't expect the entire population to join you.

 

[emptystep]

If the governor called you up right now and told you to grab your firearm and assemble at the State House, would you? No? Then you're not in the Militia.

 

[Ernie S.]

Do you honestly think the writers of the Second Amendment envisioned assault rifles with 100 shot magazines? They would be shocked at the debate from the NRA and others.

They never would have envisioned our current incompetent prez, senate, congress. Well, yes they would have. They warned us.

And they gave us the second amendment immediately after the one that says we can bitch about the current state of the State.

I guess they figured we should be able to talk about the need and then back it up with force if necessary.

 

[Ernie S.]

Obama will be looking for someone like you the next time he has an opening on the Supreme Court... you should polish up your resume' in the meantime...

Kidding me right, so the citizens who own and bear arms, and have done so since the beginning of this nation, were all just dumb idiots according to you and your thinking today ? We have been wrong all this time now ? Best check your history, because it didn't start in 2008, and I am talking about " The United States of America".

There is nothing that says you can't have firearms in the Constitution. There is also nothing that says you can have firearms in the Constitution. The 2nd amendment specifically says "militia". It was not referring to the general population or it would have said so. It doesn't.

Allow me to reference Amendment V

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Militia is specifically referred to as an organization separate from simple citizenship. If you are authorized to have a firearm it can not be taken away. You don't automatically get to have one.

You do realize that according to law, the "Militia" is comprised of every able bodied male between 18 and 45, do you not?