Would you be willing to accept this Second Amendment compromise?

[danielpalos]

There is no need to modify our federal Constitution or Second Amendment, simply Because, that is how Good of a job our Founding Fathers did. There is No Thing ambiguous in our supreme law of the land.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Again, I'm not anti-gun. I'm absolutely fine with you having one. I'm even fine with you walking around with it concealed in public. I just want you to pass a psychological screening and have a basic awareness and respect for the killing tool in your hand instilled into you before you're allowed to do so.

Yeah ... so how do gun-control laws restrict flaming loons from getting them in a country that specifically enshrines the right to own guns? The loons can always get them.

We have always recognized that rights can be forfeited by an individual in the interest of public safety. This is why a person's right to liberty can be taken when they're convicted of a crime, and why felons are denied certain rights after they're released, including gun ownership. There are ways to deny legal gun ownership to crazy people that don't involve disarming all the sane folks.

I'm certainly do not support "disarming sane folks" and yeah ... I get that society can restrict certain people from legally obtaining weapons but in practice they get guns anyway.

I'm afraid that if you're looking for a 100% solution, you're destined for disappointment.

 

[Cecilie1200]

There is no need to modify our federal Constitution or Second Amendment, simply Because, that is how Good of a job our Founding Fathers did. There is No Thing ambiguous in our supreme law of the land.

The Second Amendment is not the least ambiguous, unless you're deliberately looking for a way to weasel people out of their Constitutional rights in order to remake the country in your ideal image, with or without other people's consent.

 

[danielpalos]

I am not sure what you mean; our Founding Fathers said what they meant and meant what they said. There is no appeal to ignorance of the Intent and Purpose of any law.

 

[Cecilie1200]

I am not sure what you mean; our Founding Fathers said what they meant and meant what they said. There is no appeal to ignorance of the Intent and Purpose of any law.

Pretty much what I said. They wrote an Amendment about an individual right, they interpreted and applied it as an individual right, the Supreme Court upheld it as an individual right (and thought it was so obvious, they've hardly ever even felt the need to address it). The only people who are confused about it being an individual right are dipshits trying to weasel their way around to forcing their worldview onto others. FYI, that'd be you, Chuckles.

 

[danielpalos]

I am not sure what you mean; our Founding Fathers said what they meant and meant what they said. There is no appeal to ignorance of the Intent and Purpose of any law.

Pretty much what I said. They wrote an Amendment about an individual right, they interpreted and applied it as an individual right, the Supreme Court upheld it as an individual right (and thought it was so obvious, they've hardly ever even felt the need to address it). The only people who are confused about it being an individual right are dipshits trying to weasel their way around to forcing their worldview onto others. FYI, that'd be you, Chuckles.

Yes, you pretty much appealed to ignorance of the law. I hope our juniors don't fall for it.

Our Second Article of Amendment contains no language establishing Individual rights.

 

[Pedro de San Patricio]

"The right of each individual free person to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." That's how an individualist amendment would be written. You don't include anything about a militia or national security. You don't use a collective term. You don't qualify it in any way.

"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." That's what we have now. It specifies that this right of the people is secured because a well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state. Your prior ownership of, and hopefully experience with, a gun will become important to national security if we ever have to call up the organized militia.

The problem with this amendment is that both sides are only reading half. The gun grabbers only read up to the comma while the gun nuts start reading there. What we need is a legal interpretation of the entire text. What I proposed in the OP was an amendment to clarify it and make this easier.

 

[danielpalos]

I am not sure what you mean; rights in private property, which includes the class called Arms, are secured in State Constitutions.

 

[M14 Shooter]

"The right of each individual free person to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." That's how an individualist amendment would be written. You don't include anything about a militia or national security. You don't use a collective term. You don't qualify it in any way.

The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.
If you believe otherwise, you are either ignorant of the issue or are lying to yourself.

 

[Pedro de San Patricio]

"The right of each individual free person to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." That's how an individualist amendment would be written. You don't include anything about a militia or national security. You don't use a collective term. You don't qualify it in any way.

The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.
If you believe otherwise, you are either ignorant of the issue or are lying to yourself.

See, the problem with that can be stated in one question: if it's unconnected with the militia, then why does the text connect it with the militia?

 

[Auld Phart]

"The right of each individual free person to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." That's how an individualist amendment would be written. You don't include anything about a militia or national security. You don't use a collective term. You don't qualify it in any way.

The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.
If you believe otherwise, you are either ignorant of the issue or are lying to yourself.

See, the problem with that can be stated in one question: if it's unconnected with the militia, then why does the text connect it with the militia?

You've been told over, and over again...

it gives the right to the people, not the militia.

the militia is secondary.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

There is No Thing ambiguous in our supreme law of the land.

Always the liberal idiot I see!! Does the SCOTUS vote 9-0 each time???
What does that teach you??

 

[danielpalos]

"The right of each individual free person to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." That's how an individualist amendment would be written. You don't include anything about a militia or national security. You don't use a collective term. You don't qualify it in any way.

The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.
If you believe otherwise, you are either ignorant of the issue or are lying to yourself.

There is no language denoting Individual rights in our Second Article of Amendment.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

There is no language denoting Individual rights in our Second Article of Amendment.

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.​

 

[Pedro de San Patricio]

There is no language denoting Individual rights in our Second Article of Amendment.

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.​

This is what I was talking about.

The liberal reading: A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state
The conservative reading: the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed
The actual text: 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 right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed because a well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state

 

[Bob Blaylock]

There is no language denoting Individual rights in our Second Article of Amendment.

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.​

This is what I was talking about.

The liberal reading: A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state
The conservative reading: the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed
The actual text: 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 right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed because a well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state

I was, of course, responding to Mr. Palos' claim that there was no individual right stated in the Second Amendment. But it clearly refers to “the right of the people”. Only in a Marxist-style collectivist hive society would a “right of the people” mean anything other than a right that belongs to each free individual member of that society.

The key operative part of the Second Amendment is “…the right of the people…shall not be infringed.” This makes it clear that it is affirming a right that belongs to the people, not to the federal government, the states, nor to any other part of government, but to each individual member of our society. It also forbids government from infringing this right in any way. “Infringe” is a rather curious word, that was carefully chosen for this use. It is related the the word “fringe”, referring to the barest edges of something. What it means, here, is that government is forbidden from even touching the barest edges of the right that is affirmed herein.

Outside of that, what remains are a statement describing and defining which right it is that is being so affirmed, and a statement of a purpose for which the founders deemed this right so worthy of such strong and absolute protection.

 

[Pedro de San Patricio]

You know, we could always amend it a different way and remove the part you don't think matters. "The right of each individual citizen to keep and bear any sort of arms for any reason shall not be infringed in any way."

 

[Bob Blaylock]

You know, we could always amend it a different way and remove the part you don't think matters. "The right of each individual citizen to keep and bear any sort of arms for any reason shall not be infringed in any way."

No need. It's quite clear enough exactly as written. The problem is not with the wording of the Amendment, but with the refusal of certain corrupt parts of government to obey it. That's the same problem with much of the rest of the Constitution as well. Government that refuses to obey the COnstitution as written will not obey it any better if it is rewritten to “clarify” it. There is no solution to be found in rewriting or “clarifying” the Constitution; only in finding a way to remove from office those who disobey it, and to hold them properly responsible for their crimes.

 

[danielpalos]

There is no language denoting Individual rights in our Second Article of Amendment.

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 People is collective, not Individual, dear.

 

[danielpalos]

There is no language denoting Individual rights in our Second Article of Amendment.

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.​

This is what I was talking about.

The liberal reading: A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state
The conservative reading: the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed
The actual text: 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 right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed because a well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state

Only well regulated Militias of the People may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.