The Second Amendment Was A Failure From The Start, And Should Have Been Repealed 200 Years Ago

[BLUE COLLAR]

Yes. The right of the people.

The right of the people to bear arms in need to raise a well-regulated militia! Where is that militia, where are the regulations, what is the chain of command?

The founding fathers were well-educated. They certainly could have written the 2ndA to read: The right of the people, of each individual citizen, to bear arms shall not be abridged. They didn't so write, but rather, qualified the right with a prefatory clause.

 

[BLUE COLLAR]

How is it tied to the militia?

In that part of the 2ndA appearing in advance of the first two commas. Read it.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

The right of the people to bear arms in need to raise a well-regulated militia! Where is that militia, where are the regulations, what is the chain of command?

The founding fathers were well-educated. They certainly could have written the 2ndA to read: The right of the people, of each individual citizen, to bear arms shall not be abridged. They didn't so write, but rather, qualified the right with a prefatory clause.

The right of the people to bear arms in need to raise a well-regulated militia!

Yup.

Where is that militia, where are the regulations, what is the chain of command?

Where indeed?

The founding fathers were well-educated. They certainly could have written the 2ndA to read: The right of the people, of each individual citizen, to bear arms shall not be abridged. They didn't so write, but rather, qualified the right with a prefatory clause.

They certainly could have written the 2nd A to read: The right of the militia, to bear arms shall not be abridged.

 

[bripat9643]

The right of the people to bear arms in need to raise a well-regulated militia! Where is that militia, where are the regulations, what is the chain of command?

It doesn't say that, moron.

The founding fathers were well-educated. They certainly could have written the 2ndA to read: The right of the people, of each individual citizen, to bear arms shall not be abridged. They didn't so write, but rather, qualified the right with a prefatory clause.

Does the First Amendment say "the right of each individual citizen?" No. It says "the right of the people.

 

[bripat9643]

In that part of the 2ndA appearing in advance of the first two commas. Read it.

That doesn't have any language in it that requires anything of government.

 

[Flash]

The suggestion that the matter is in now in stone conflicts with the reality of how our Constitution works.

According to who?

Not according to the Supreme Court, whose job it is to decide those things.

They said very specifically in the Heller ruling that the right to keep and bear arms is an individual right.

 

[BLUE COLLAR]

None, because it's not a group right.


"The right of the people to bear arms" is not expressed?

You realize you are an imbecile who's brain is pickled in leftwing propaganda, don't you?

Spare me the personal insult. I'm neither impressed nor moved by such sophomoric nonsense.

Yes, the right of the people to bear arms and raise a well-regulated militia is expressed. There is no individual right expressed unless you ignore the purpose stated in the opening clause.

 

[Flash]

It does say that. It also ties that right to a well-regulated militia - something that is ignored by activist judges and the gun lobby.

It was not ignored by the Supreme Court. It was analyzed and dismissed as not being relevant in the Heller case - something that is always ignored by anti gun nuts.

 

[BLUE COLLAR]

According to who?

Not according to the Supreme Court, whose job it is to decide those things.

They said very specifically in the Heller ruling that the right to keep and bear arms is an individual right.

Like I said previously, grammar isn't taught in law school.

Heller obliterated the opening clause in the 2ndA as is if it simply reads "the right of the individual to bear arms shall not be infringed". Is that what it says? Nope.

 

[BLUE COLLAR]

It was not ignored by the Supreme Court. It was analyzed and dismissed as not being relevant in the Heller case - something that is always ignored by anti gun nuts.

Please explain the analysis.

 

[BLUE COLLAR]

That doesn't have any language in it that requires anything of government.

The 2ndA clearly states the need of a well-regulated militia. Where are the regulations? Let me answer for you, they are coming.

 

[BLUE COLLAR]

According to who?

Not according to the Supreme Court, whose job it is to decide those things.

They said very specifically in the Heller ruling that the right to keep and bear arms is an individual right.

It is not the job of the SC to redact language in the 2ndA. That requires a 2/3 vote of congress. Neither is it the job of the SC to ignore grammatical rules.

Read the 2ndA, all of it. It does not grant the individual right to parade around the mall with a loaded six-gun.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

It does not grant the individual right to parade around the mall with a loaded six-gun.

Why do you feel that?

 

[Billy_Bob]

The 2ndA clearly states the need of a well-regulated militia. Where are the regulations? Let me answer for you, they are coming.

The militia was we the people... "Well Regulated" means they are trained, supplied, and armed. Your terminology is lacking..

The whole purpose of the 2nd amendment is made clear in the federalist papers. IT was meant to allow citizens to protect their GOD GIVEN RIGHTS from men wanting to take them. We had just defeated a corrupt government and king who wanted to deprive them of their rights. This is why they made it very clear "the right of the people to KEEP and BEAR ARMS, Shall not be infringed."

TO KEEP is to own..

TO BEAR is to have the ammunitions, spare parts, and training necessary to protect their GOD GIVEN RIGHTS.

 

[Billy_Bob]

It is not the job of the SC to redact language in the 2ndA. That requires a 2/3 vote of congress. Neither is it the job of the SC to ignore grammatical rules.

Read the 2ndA, all of it. It does not grant the individual right to parade around the mall with a loaded six-gun.

Wrong... IT allows "the people" to protect themselves at all times. WITHOUT INFRINGMENT..

 

[Billy_Bob]

The Declaration of independence lays it out...

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.--Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world."

This is why the 2nd Amendment was placed where it was and why the founders noted the government has no right of infringement..

 

[Flash]

Please explain the analysis.

Go read the Heller case. I'm not going to spend the time doing cut and paste to educated somebody that obviously is ignorant of the subject matter and doesn't want to be educated.

If you disagree with it then that is fine but that doesn't mean jackshit.

 

[M14 Shooter]

But, when it happens some people don't seem to care.

Especially those who use the deaths of children to push for unnecessary anf ineffective restrictions that will do nothing to protect them.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Like I said previously, grammar isn't taught in law school.
Heller obliterated the opening clause in the 2ndA as is if it simply reads "the right of the individual to bear arms shall not be infringed". Is that what it says? Nope.

See below.
Please demonstrate the argument to be unsound.

1. Operative Clause.

a. “Right of the People.” The first salient feature of the operative clause is that it codifies a “right of the people.” The unamended Constitution and the Bill of Rights use the phrase “right of the people” two other times, in the First Amendment ’s Assembly-and-Petition Clause and in the Fourth Amendment ’s Search-and-Seizure Clause. The Ninth Amendment uses very similar terminology (“The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people”). All three of these instances unambiguously refer to individual rights, not “collective” rights, or rights that may be exercised only through participation in some corporate body.5

Three provisions of the Constitution refer to “the people” in a context other than “rights”—the famous preamble (“We the people”), §2 of Article I (providing that “the people” will choose members of the House), and the Tenth Amendment (providing that those powers not given the Federal Government remain with “the States” or “the people”). Those provisions arguably refer to “the people” acting collectively—but they deal with the exercise or reservation of powers, not rights. Nowhere else in the Constitution does a “right” attributed to “the people” refer to anything other than an individual right.6

What is more, in all six other provisions of the Constitution that mention “the people,” the term unambiguously refers to all members of the political community, not an unspecified subset. As we said in United States v. Verdugo-Urquidez, 494 U. S. 259, 265 (1990) :

“ ‘[T]he people’ seems to have been a term of art employed in select parts of the Constitution… . [Its uses] sugges[t] that ‘the people’ protected by the Fourth Amendment , and by the First and Second Amendment s, and to whom rights and powers are reserved in the Ninth and Tenth Amendment s, refers to a class of persons who are part of a national community or who have otherwise developed sufficient connection with this country to be considered part of that community.”

This contrasts markedly with the phrase “the militia” in the prefatory clause. As we will describe below, the “militia” in colonial America consisted of a subset of “the people”—those who were male, able bodied, and within a certain age range. Reading the Second Amendment as protecting only the right to “keep and bear Arms” in an organized militia therefore fits poorly with the operative clause’s description of the holder of that right as “the people.”

We start therefore with a strong presumption that the Second Amendment right is exercised individually and belongs to all Americans.

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER

www.law.cornell.edu

 

[M14 Shooter]

Read the 2ndA, all of it. It does not grant the individual right to parade around the mall with a loaded six-gun.

Nice straw man you have there - did you pick out the clothes yourself?