What would you do with the second amendment?

[kaz]

Let's get to the end game. What should the Constitution say, if anything, about guns and what power should the Federal government have to regulate them?

As those who wrote the 2nd Amendment spoke in 18th century dialog, let's re-phrase if for the 21st century:
"So that each state may form a well-regulated militia to provide for its defense against any tyrannical government of force, whether foreign or domestic, all natural born citizens aged 21 or older and not guilty of violent felonies, may possess firearms that can equal those of any opposing ground forces. Further, any law-abiding natural born citizens aged 21 or older and not guilty of violent felonies, may carry a concealed handgun on his or her person, excluding into any government buildings that may be so determined by each state.

Militias are formed by the people, not the State. But other than that I like it

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

The meaning is clear so all gun laws are unconstitutional. That said, absent incorporation progressives would be constitutionally free to attempt to ban guns at the state level. But since they insist everything be a federal issue they have no leg to stand on.

Regardless of the Constitution, however, people have the right to defend themselves.

Nonsense.

The meaning is clear as expressed by the Heller and McDonald Courts: the Second Amendment acknowledges an individual right to possess a handgun pursuant to lawful self-defense unconnected with militia service.

Measures seeking to ban handguns are un-Constitutional regardless the level of judicial review.

Moreover, state and local governments are subject to Second Amendment case law.

Again, all gun laws are not ‘un-Constitutional’ if they comport with current Second Amendment jurisprudence.

Honestly I find questions of constitutionality entirely unimportant these days. Of course those laws are unconstitutional, but what does that mean practically? Nothing.

 

[kaz]

The meaning is clear so all gun laws are unconstitutional. That said, absent incorporation progressives would be constitutionally free to attempt to ban guns at the state level. But since they insist everything be a federal issue they have no leg to stand on.

Regardless of the Constitution, however, people have the right to defend themselves.

Nonsense.

The meaning is clear as expressed by the Heller and McDonald Courts: the Second Amendment acknowledges an individual right to possess a handgun pursuant to lawful self-defense unconnected with militia service.

Measures seeking to ban handguns are un-Constitutional regardless the level of judicial review.

Moreover, state and local governments are subject to Second Amendment case law.

Again, all gun laws are not ‘un-Constitutional’ if they comport with current Second Amendment jurisprudence.

Honestly I find questions of constitutionality entirely unimportant these days. Of course those laws are unconstitutional, but what does that mean practically? Nothing.

Constitutionality is just a talking point for both sides based on whatever they're arguing. Neither side means it

 

[danielpalos]

The context of well regulated hasn’t changed

Well regulated has never meant a bunch of gun nuts running around

There you go again, reading it out of context. The federal government has no right to know what individual firearm ownership is.

Have you read the militia acts?

Shall not be infringed, that’s all the federal government needs to know. It’s none of their fucking business

that is Only when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union; not natural rights.

Self regulation is the only regulation needed when it comes to the second amendment. The federal government is in the dark and shall always remain in the dark on personal firearm ownership.
The federal government should be seen and not heard...

well regulated militia are expressly declared Necessary in our Second Amendment.

 

[LuckyDuck]

Let's get to the end game. What should the Constitution say, if anything, about guns and what power should the Federal government have to regulate them?

As those who wrote the 2nd Amendment spoke in 18th century dialog, let's re-phrase if for the 21st century:
"So that each state may form a well-regulated militia to provide for its defense against any tyrannical government of force, whether foreign or domestic, all natural born citizens aged 21 or older and not guilty of violent felonies, may possess firearms that can equal those of any opposing ground forces. Further, any law-abiding natural born citizens aged 21 or older and not guilty of violent felonies, may carry a concealed handgun on his or her person, excluding into any government buildings that may be so determined by each state.

Militias are formed by the people, not the State. But other than that I like it

To ensure that a militia isn't just some mob of undisciplined armed fighters, the 2nd Amendment calls for a militia to be "well-regulated" and thus, regulated by the state government in which they are protecting.

 

[Ridgerunner]

What would you do with the second amendment?

Have it printed on all U.S. Treasury Monies...

 

[kaz]

Let's get to the end game. What should the Constitution say, if anything, about guns and what power should the Federal government have to regulate them?

As those who wrote the 2nd Amendment spoke in 18th century dialog, let's re-phrase if for the 21st century:
"So that each state may form a well-regulated militia to provide for its defense against any tyrannical government of force, whether foreign or domestic, all natural born citizens aged 21 or older and not guilty of violent felonies, may possess firearms that can equal those of any opposing ground forces. Further, any law-abiding natural born citizens aged 21 or older and not guilty of violent felonies, may carry a concealed handgun on his or her person, excluding into any government buildings that may be so determined by each state.

Militias are formed by the people, not the State. But other than that I like it

To ensure that a militia isn't just some mob of undisciplined armed fighters, the 2nd Amendment calls for a militia to be "well-regulated" and thus, regulated by the state government in which they are protecting.

1) Nowhere does it say that well regulated refers to regulation being a power of the State. Government isn't mentioned

2) It makes no sense that 9/10 bill of rights amendments are powers to the people and one is a power to government. They are all powers to the people

3) Try reading the second amendment more carefully. The term "well-regulated" is an explanation of the right. It isn't part of the right.

The amendment is of the form, Because A, B. A is an explanation, B is the right. The right is, "the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." There is nothing about regulated in the actual right. The part of a well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state is an explanation of the right, the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

If you actually sit and read it, that's pretty obvious. Maybe you should rethink your love of government schools that didn't teach you how to read very well

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

And yet again: it never fails to amuse how most, if not all, on the right have come to loathe the Heller ruling, and have come to perceive Scalia as having ‘betrayed’ conservatives.

Some on the right speculate that Scalia ‘watered-down’ the Heller ruling in an effort to get Justice Kennedy on board; but that notion is as ignorant as it is wrong. Kennedy is a conservative, but not an ideologue; indeed, Kennedy is an actual conservative, unlike Scalia and the other rightist justices, and would have concurred with a more comprehensive decision.

No, the Heller ruling is the reaffirmation of the fact that although our rights are inalienable, no right is ‘absolute,’ including the rights enshrined in the Second Amendment, and that our rights are subject to regulation and restriction by government.

However Second Amendment jurisprudence might evolve over the coming decades, conservatives must accept the fact that firearm regulatory measures will always be part of possessing a firearm, and that conservatives who oppose all laws regulating firearms are as a fact of Constitutional law, wrong.

 

[kaz]

Kennedy is a conservative, but not an ideologue; indeed, Kennedy is an actual conservative, unlike Scalia and the other rightist justices

Talk about pontificating on a subject you know absolutely nothing about

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Limiting what arms are available is not infringing upon the 'right' granted to bear what arms are available.

Correct.

The Constitution prohibits the banning of handguns because they “are the most popular weapon chosen by Americans for self-defense in the home, and a complete prohibition of their use is invalid.” ibid

On the other hand, the complete prohibition of firearms identified by statue as assault weapons is valid and consistent with the Second Amendment, until such time as the Supreme Court rules otherwise.

 

[kaz]

Limiting what arms are available is not infringing upon the 'right' granted to bear what arms are available.

Correct.

The Constitution prohibits the banning of handguns because they “are the most popular weapon chosen by Americans for self-defense in the home, and a complete prohibition of their use is invalid.” ibid

On the other hand, the complete prohibition of firearms identified by statue as assault weapons is valid and consistent with the Second Amendment, until such time as the Supreme Court rules otherwise.

Sure it is, Sparky. Maybe you should buy a dictionary and look up the word, "infringed." Then figure out what it means when you put a "not" in front of it ...

 

[sparky]

One would think the term 'militia' ,at least in the FF's 2nd context, would be anything but gub'mit conscripts. In fact,one could easily read 10th'ers stance into it.

How bad would it be if each state was in fact responsible for the creation , and maintenance of it's own militia ?

Something that would not bow to the Feds (funding strings)

Wouldn't that be in step with FF's constitutional foersight?

~S~

No, not at all. National defense was the primary purpose for the Federal government as defined by the founders. They would be shocked at all the things the Feds do supposedly under their document

Then what is the sense in the 2nd's 'militia' in 2018?

~S~

 

[sparky]

Limiting what arms are available is not infringing upon the 'right' granted to bear what arms are available.

Correct.

The Constitution prohibits the banning of handguns because they “are the most popular weapon chosen by Americans for self-defense in the home, and a complete prohibition of their use is invalid.” ibid

On the other hand, the complete prohibition of firearms identified by statue as assault weapons is valid and consistent with the Second Amendment, until such time as the Supreme Court rules otherwise.

Sure it is, Sparky. Maybe you should buy a dictionary and look up the word, "infringed." Then figure out what it means when you put a "not" in front of it ...

it means i can have one of these in the yard>

~S~

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Limiting what arms are available is not infringing upon the 'right' granted to bear what arms are available.

Correct.

The Constitution prohibits the banning of handguns because they “are the most popular weapon chosen by Americans for self-defense in the home, and a complete prohibition of their use is invalid.” ibid

On the other hand, the complete prohibition of firearms identified by statue as assault weapons is valid and consistent with the Second Amendment, until such time as the Supreme Court rules otherwise.

Sure it is, Sparky. Maybe you should buy a dictionary and look up the word, "infringed." Then figure out what it means when you put a "not" in front of it ...

it means i can have one of these in the yard>

~S~

Sure, if you have the hundreds of millions to buy one and can prove you need it for self-defense.

 

[kaz]

One would think the term 'militia' ,at least in the FF's 2nd context, would be anything but gub'mit conscripts. In fact,one could easily read 10th'ers stance into it.

How bad would it be if each state was in fact responsible for the creation , and maintenance of it's own militia ?

Something that would not bow to the Feds (funding strings)

Wouldn't that be in step with FF's constitutional foersight?

~S~

No, not at all. National defense was the primary purpose for the Federal government as defined by the founders. They would be shocked at all the things the Feds do supposedly under their document

Then what is the sense in the 2nd's 'militia' in 2018?

~S~

The "militia" is still the people, and we still have the Constitutional right to defend ourselves

 

[kaz]

Limiting what arms are available is not infringing upon the 'right' granted to bear what arms are available.

Correct.

The Constitution prohibits the banning of handguns because they “are the most popular weapon chosen by Americans for self-defense in the home, and a complete prohibition of their use is invalid.” ibid

On the other hand, the complete prohibition of firearms identified by statue as assault weapons is valid and consistent with the Second Amendment, until such time as the Supreme Court rules otherwise.

Sure it is, Sparky. Maybe you should buy a dictionary and look up the word, "infringed." Then figure out what it means when you put a "not" in front of it ...

it means i can have one of these in the yard>

~S~

The government cannot prevent you from arming yourself. That doesn't mean the Constitution requires the government to sell you arms

 

[sparky]

The "militia" is still the people, and we still have the Constitutional right to defend ourselves

as much as we'd like to think it is so,

the 'people' aren't synonymous with 'militia' kaz

an unorganized group would have little success in holding off an organized group

the 'people' would be reduced to terrorist tactics

~S~

 

[Jessica123]

I'd reword it to be more clear.

"All citizens have the right to have guns and shall not be infringed"

 

[kaz]

Limiting what arms are available is not infringing upon the 'right' granted to bear what arms are available.

Correct.

The Constitution prohibits the banning of handguns because they “are the most popular weapon chosen by Americans for self-defense in the home, and a complete prohibition of their use is invalid.” ibid

On the other hand, the complete prohibition of firearms identified by statue as assault weapons is valid and consistent with the Second Amendment, until such time as the Supreme Court rules otherwise.

Sure it is, Sparky. Maybe you should buy a dictionary and look up the word, "infringed." Then figure out what it means when you put a "not" in front of it ...

it means i can have one of these in the yard>

~S~

Sure, if you have the hundreds of millions to buy one and can prove you need it for self-defense.

I agree with the first part but not the second. We don't need to prove what we need for self defense, that's up to us.

Acquiring one is the trick though. Nothing in the Constitution requires government to sell us arms. It only prohibits the government from interfering with our rights to arm ourselves

 

[xyz]

Let's get to the end game. What should the Constitution say, if anything, about guns and what power should the Federal government have to regulate them?

I don't agree with any of the choices in the poll.

I would leave it as it is, but ban bump stocks and ban the sale of large magazines.