The Second Amendment.

[RetiredGySgt]

The Constitution is clear that the Second Amendment is an individual right irregardless of status with a militia to own, possess and bear firearms. And it clearly states that right shall not be INFRINGED. And the Supreme Court agrees and has so ruled.

The argument that some people precluded by law from exercising their 2nd Amendment rights possess and use firearms and that should be a reason to prevent all people from using the 2nd Amendment is an infringement on those that do not violate the law.

No matter what your FEELINGS are about firearms in America , no matter your argument that some people are legally restricted and still get firearms, no matter the current murder rate ( which percentage of population is so small as to be meaningless) or the rate of violent crimes committed with firearms, you do not get to pass laws that violate the 2nd Amendment.

You don't like the 2nd? Your recourse is spelled out in the Constitution itself. Create an amendment get it past both houses of Congress, get 37 States to approve it and change the 2nd.

 

[JoeB131]

Or just get the states to realize if gun owners are the "Militia" as you guys have claimed, they can be "Well-Regulated" as to the type, number, and capabilities of the guns they have.

 

[editec]

The SCOTUS long ago settled this issue.

What's to debate?

 

[Abatis]

A couple corrections / comments:

The Constitution is clear that the Second Amendment is an individual right irregardless of status with a militia to own, possess and bear firearms.

The 2nd Amendment is not the right to arms . . . The 2nd Amendment only recognizes and redundantly secures the right from infringement (by forbiding government to act against the pre-existing, never surrendered, fully retained by the people, right to keep and bear arms).

And it clearly states that right shall not be INFRINGED. And the Supreme Court agrees and has so ruled.

Correct. That is the only thing that can be concluded / drawn from a reading of the 2nd Amendment and SCOTUS has been boringly consistent in that holding:

Supreme Court, 1876: "The right there specified is that of "bearing arms for a lawful purpose." This is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed, . . ."

Supreme Court, 1886: "the right of the people to keep and bear arms is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The Second Amendment declares that it shall not be infringed, . . . "

Supreme Court, 2008: "it has always been widely understood that the Second Amendment, like the First and Fourth Amendments, codified a pre-existing right. The very text of the Second Amendment implicitly recognizes the pre-existence of the right and declares only that it “shall not be infringed.” As we said in . . . 1876 , “[t]his is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The Second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed … .”​

So, the only thing that can be taken away from a reading of the 2nd Amendment is that the 2nd Amendment declares that "it" shall not be infringed. The "it" is of course, is "the right of the people to keep and bear arms". The right itself does not in any manner depend on what the 2nd Amendment says (or doesn't say), because the right pre-exists the Constitution and is not granted, given, created or otherwise established by the Constitution.

You don't like the 2nd? Your recourse is spelled out in the Constitution itself. Create an amendment get it past both houses of Congress, get 37 States to approve it and change the 2nd.

The true condition that binds government action against the rights of the people isn't that those rights are specifically called out for protection.

Rights are -exceptions to powers never granted- and the fact that We the People never conferred any power that would allow the government to even compose a thought about the personal arms of the private citizen is what must be altered.

Simply changing / repealing the 2nd would not give government powers it has never possessed. An amendment granting the federal government a new power to control the personal arms of the private citizen must be combined with one that repeals / rescinds the restrictive clause of the 2nd Amendment.

This of course assumes that the argument won't be made that the 2nd Amendment can't be repealed / rescinded / altered, even if Article V's process is followed to the letter.

Since the original Constitution's ratification was made contingent by many states upon Congress submitting to the states a bill of rights (with two, NC & RI outright refusing to sign), one risks the legitimacy of the original compact's ratification by messing with any of the Bill of Rights.

 

[jon_berzerk]

Or just get the states to realize if gun owners are the "Militia" as you guys have claimed, they can be "Well-Regulated" as to the type, number, and capabilities of the guns they have.

hey can be "Well-Regulated" as to the type, number, and capabilities of the guns they have

no doesnt make any sense that they say shall not be infringed

then place a bunch of restrictions on it

well regulated militia means functional and accurate firearms

which are necessary for a free state

 

[eagle1462010]

The Day they try and take our guns........................

http://www.youtube.com/watchttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lrXIQQ8PeRsh?v=lrXIQQ8PeRs

 

[eagle1462010]

Do not try to impose the Tyranny of STATISM on the citizens of this country..................

We will not stand for it.............................

It will not happen as it has in Canada...................

If you want a Civil War, then try and take the guns....................

 

[Abatis]

The SCOTUS long ago settled this issue.

What's to debate?

The issue is never settled as long as liberals / progressives are around.

They are not guided by principle, they yearn for the day when a few leftists can be seated on the Court and this blot, now known as the right to keep and bear arms, that so handicaps the implementation of their society, can be relegated to the dustbin of provincial, outdated customs that the enlightened have moved past.

 

[jon_berzerk]

Do not try to impose the Tyranny of STATISM on the citizens of this country..................

We will not stand for it.............................

It will not happen as it has in Canada...................

If you want a Civil War, then try and take the guns....................

Canada recently dropped its registration laws

writing it off as an expensive failure

 

[eagle1462010]

do not try to impose the tyranny of statism on the citizens of this country..................

We will not stand for it.............................

It will not happen as it has in canada...................

If you want a civil war, then try and take the guns....................

canada recently dropped its registration laws

writing it off as an expensive failure

good>>>>

 

[jon_berzerk]

do not try to impose the tyranny of statism on the citizens of this country..................

We will not stand for it.............................

It will not happen as it has in canada...................

If you want a civil war, then try and take the guns....................

canada recently dropped its registration laws

writing it off as an expensive failure

good>>>>

agreed