2nd Amendment rights?

[techs]

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.


Simple enough. If they wanted to say the right of the People to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed they could have done it just like that.

But they didn't. They said: A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State.

And the flawed logic is truly amazing. If, as many people say, they have a complete and utter right to bear arms, than they are free to carry ANY type of arms. Even if you decide "arms" are firearms, than mini-guns, .50 cal, AK-47full auto MUST be included.

btw I would completely be for changing the amendment to allow the right to have any type of rifle, non full automatic, in your home.
And to carry it safely anywhere you want to transport it. However, I would give the states the right to ban, or issue ccw's

 

[spidey07]

I can't wait for my full auto AK. Can't wait. So much fun!

 

[Nebor]

Uh, you guys know you can buy mini-guns and full auto AKs right? You've just gotta pay to play. Liberals have priced those weapons out of the hands of the common man and into the hands of the wealthy and elite, just as they intended.

 

[amdforever2]

I support my right to bear arms 100%.




Nuclear Arms.


Chemical Arms.


Biological Arms.




After all hunting is an american traditon. Taking on Bambi requires vast quantities of Sarin.

 

[nick1985]

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.


Simple enough. If they wanted to say the right of the People to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed they could have done it just like that.

But they didn't. They said: A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State.

And the flawed logic is truly amazing.

The only flawed logic is yours. You are just proving you do not understand basic grammar and sentence structure.

 

[lokiju]

I have an opinion that's counter to others and I'm going to repeat it over and over in this thread!!!!


Did I do it right?

 

[shortylickens]

I have an opinion that's counter to others and I'm going to repeat it over and over in this thread!!!!


Did I do it right?

No, you failed. Like Paris Hilton.

 

[Proprioceptive]

The only flawed logic is yours. You are just proving you do not understand basic grammar and sentence structure.

Aww... Nick... still feeding the trolls? The rest of us quit a while ago. Do the right thing, man. Just say no.

 

[MotF Bane]

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.


Simple enough. If they wanted to say the right of the People to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed they could have done it just like that.

But they didn't. They said: A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State.

And the flawed logic is truly amazing. If, as many people say, they have a complete and utter right to bear arms, than they are free to carry ANY type of arms. Even if you decide "arms" are firearms, than mini-guns, .50 cal, AK-47full auto MUST be included.

btw I would completely be for changing the amendment to allow the right to have any type of rifle, non full automatic, in your home.
And to carry it safely anywhere you want to transport it. However, I would give the states the right to ban, or issue ccw's

Again, you demonstrate you haven't actually done any research on the subject, you're just spouting your fear. FFEEAAARRRRR!!!!!

 

[techs]

Again, you demonstrate you haven't actually done any research on the subject, you're just spouting your fear. FFEEAAARRRRR!!!!!

You really should not scream FFEEAAARRRRR! everytime anyone is against your ideas. It belittles you.

Do I have fear, though? You better believe it. If you take the 2nd amendment the way, for lack of a better term, the gun "enthusiasts" do, then guns will be sold on every block in America. No waiting times, no ccw limits, no restrictions. And as more people carry guns, more deaths will occur over common disputes. Many Americans are ignorant assholes. Disagree? Read this forum. They can barely read. Can't locate Canada on a map. And have no problem driving drunk.

Once you reach a critical point, and it will come quickly, you will see people flocking to buy guns. When the newspaper is full of disputes that end in shootings or pointing of guns, then most people will get scared and buy a gun.

The most common weapon in domestic assaults is a blunt object because its the most handy. The second is a knife because its easily accessible in the kitchen. Try putting a gun in everyones hand and you will get an astronomical increase in gun deaths in the heat of passion.

The police would quickly be overwhelmed. If someone puts their hand on a gun during a dispute are they threatening you? If they pull it they certainly are. I don't know how we will pay for the police to respond to every one of these complaints.

As for crime, once everyone has a gun, then criminals will shoot first, won't they? The first thing they will do if they are mugging someone is to get their gun. And then sell it for 25 bucks. And with all the stolen guns around selling for chump change, then kids will all start packing. Not just in inner cities, but everywhere. And 15 year old kids, maybe drunk for the first time, and packing? The coffin business is going to boom.



Historically, as the west was settled and towns grew, the first thing they did was ban guns in town. The shooting deaths dropped astronomically.

 

[boomerang]

<snip>

That's a lot of drama in one post.

 

[sjwaste]

The originalist interpretation refers to "the people" as an individual right. The term "a well regulated militia" refers to those capable of carrying a weapon for the common defense. Historically, the militia was not the same as modern military - it was an affiliation. Both clauses basically mean the same thing, an individual right. See D.C. v. Heller and Miller v. U.S.

The issue that was before the court most recently was whether the 2nd amendment applies to the states. It's most likely that it will be incorporated through 14th amendment "due process" like the rest of the bill of rights, and not the "privileges and immunities" clause because opening that up could bring unintended (non-textual) consequences. See the briefs for McDonald v. City of Chicago.

It basically doesn't matter what you think, and whether you agree or disagree with the above. We live in a country with a constitution that is the supreme law, and it charges the supreme court with its interpretation. The whole point of a constitution is to preserve certain procedural and substantive rights, and it looks like the supreme court is going to rule that the 2nd amendment is a personal right that extends to the states. It's not really up for debate anywhere except among the 9 justices, unless you're pushing for a constitutional amendment.

A lot of the misconception in this thread is due to a failure to realize that phrases common in the 1700s may not be common today, and as such, the same group of words today means something different. The constitution doesn't change just because the words that comprise its text have taken on slightly different meanings. Otherwise, there's little point in having a constitution at all.

 

[Wheezer]

You really should not scream FFEEAAARRRRR! everytime anyone is against your ideas. It belittles you.

Do I have fear, though? You better believe it. If you take the 2nd amendment the way, for lack of a better term, the gun "enthusiasts" do, then guns will be sold on every block in America. No waiting times, no ccw limits, no restrictions. And as more people carry guns, more deaths will occur over common disputes. Many Americans are ignorant assholes. Disagree? Read this forum. They can barely read. Can't locate Canada on a map. And have no problem driving drunk.

Once you reach a critical point, and it will come quickly, you will see people flocking to buy guns. When the newspaper is full of disputes that end in shootings or pointing of guns, then most people will get scared and buy a gun.

The most common weapon in domestic assaults is a blunt object because its the most handy. The second is a knife because its easily accessible in the kitchen. Try putting a gun in everyones hand and you will get an astronomical increase in gun deaths in the heat of passion.

The police would quickly be overwhelmed. If someone puts their hand on a gun during a dispute are they threatening you? If they pull it they certainly are. I don't know how we will pay for the police to respond to every one of these complaints.

As for crime, once everyone has a gun, then criminals will shoot first, won't they? The first thing they will do if they are mugging someone is to get their gun. And then sell it for 25 bucks. And with all the stolen guns around selling for chump change, then kids will all start packing. Not just in inner cities, but everywhere. And 15 year old kids, maybe drunk for the first time, and packing? The coffin business is going to boom.



Historically, as the west was settled and towns grew, the first thing they did was ban guns in town. The shooting deaths dropped astronomically.

guess now you can relate a little bit to why some people have a fear of bomb carrying Islamic nuts walking into the local mall.

 

[ConstipatedVigilante]

That had been stuck at musket level technology for hundreds of years though.



Well yeah It would, they would have to be part of said association to be well regulated.

You know, rifles did exist during the Revolutionary War. Every single one of your statements in this thread is false. Just stop; please stop.

Edit: And techs, you're fucking ridiculous. The amendment says nothing about absolutes; it is about the people's right to defend themselves, from enemies foreign and domestic. A minigun != a pistol, and that sort of distinction was left to later governments to decide.

 

[nick1985]

And as more people carry guns, more deaths will occur over common disputes. Many Americans are ignorant assholes. Disagree?

Yes, I disagree, and there are many statistics and studies that also disagree with that assertion.

 

[3chordcharlie]

Exerpt from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second..._compromise_in_Congress.2C_the_Bill_of_Rights

The orthodox view of the meaning of the Second Amendment was articulated by Joseph Story in his influential Commentaries on the Constitution. In his view the meaning of the Amendment was clear:

The importance of this article will scarcely be doubted by any persons, who have duly reflected upon the subject. The militia is the natural defence of a free country against sudden foreign invasions, domestic insurrections, and domestic usurpations of power by rulers. It is against sound policy for a free people to keep up large military establishments and standing armies in time of peace, both from the enormous expenses, with which they are attended, and the facile means, which they afford to ambitious and unprincipled rulers, to subvert the government, or trample upon the rights of the people. The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them. And yet, though this truth would seem so clear, and the importance of a well regulated militia would seem so undeniable, it cannot be disguised, that among the American people there is a growing indifference to any system of militia discipline, and a strong disposition, from a sense of its burthens, to be rid of all regulations. How it is practicable to keep the people duly armed without some organization, it is difficult to see. There is certainly no small danger, that indifference may lead to disgust, and disgust to contempt; and thus gradually undermine all the protection intended by this clause of our national bill of rights.[78]

Hmm, how's that working out so far?

 

[boomerang]

guess now you can relate a little bit to why some people have a fear of bomb carrying Islamic nuts walking into the local mall.

I can't wait to see the answer to this one. :thumbsup

 

[Matthiasa]

You know, rifles did exist during the Revolutionary War. Every single one of your statements in this thread is false. Just stop; please stop.

Edit: And techs, you're fucking ridiculous. The amendment says nothing about absolutes; it is about the people's right to defend themselves, from enemies foreign and domestic. A minigun != a pistol, and that sort of distinction was left to later governments to decide.

Should I have been more clear in saying muzzle loading loading firearm? Figured people could have figured that out yourself but I guess i was wrong.

Oh yeah and muskets could be rifled, so maybe check your facts before post okay?

 

[Anarchist420]

Learn to read much... I already said I'm for people owning guns as long as their not idiots or violent criminals...

I'm only stating that that with how it was written it implies that those people were to be part of the militia, as thus able to be called on in time of war.

The 1st clause is the state's check on the federal government "a well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State". That was what the Antifederalists wanted (and I do too) in case the Federal government got too powerful.

The whole BoR was meant to be the states' check on the federal government.

Unfortunately, Lincoln didn't see it that way, so we all know how that went.

 

[Red Dawn]

Everybody of sound mind and no felonies should be able to own guns. Open carry though should be up to the states/ local municipalities.

 

[Matthiasa]

The 1st clause is the state's check on the federal government "a well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State". That was what the Antifederalists wanted (and I do too) in case the Federal government got too powerful.

The whole BoR was meant to be the states' check on the federal government.

Unfortunately, Lincoln didn't see it that way, so we all know how that went.

That makes way more sense then the standard argument for that.

 

[ConstipatedVigilante]

Should I have been more clear in saying muzzle loading loading firearm? Figured people could have figured that out yourself but I guess i was wrong.

Oh yeah and muskets could be rifled, so maybe check your facts before post okay?

You completely missed my point. The point wasn't that AK-47=early muzzle-loading rifle. The point was that it was easy to see that weapon technology was advancing, especially at that time (the first submarines were used in the revolutionary war, for example). Rifles were hard to make at the time, they had to be cleaned often, and they sucked to reload. But it was obvious that the technology would advance in the future to be more potent. The founding fathers did not write the amendment on the basis that every American should own a fully automatic rifle. They made it on the basis that a population that cannot defend itself from oppression is not free at all. There was no way to know what weapons would be used today; as I said before, the distinction of who has the right to bear which specific arms was left to later leaders to decide.

If you want to be as literal as possible with drawing your conclusions (as it seems to be), then you should replace that AK-47 picture earlier in the thread with one of an F-22 or a minigun.

 

[MotF Bane]

<snip>

You're terrified of firearms. I knew you were scared of them, but this goes way beyond what I had expected. No wonder you haven't done any research into the topic, you'd wet yourself. Those dire predictions of a return to the "Wild Wild West" haven't come true yet, but you're persisting in writing a dramatic little script for the end of American civilization.

 

[nick1985]

You're terrified of firearms. I knew you were scared of them, but this goes way beyond what I had expected. No wonder you haven't done any research into the topic, you'd wet yourself. Those dire predictions of a return to the "Wild Wild West" haven't come true yet, but you're persisting in writing a dramatic little script for the end of American civilization.

Thats techs for ya...

 

[spidey07]

Everybody of sound mind and no felonies should be able to own guns. Open carry though should be up to the states/ local municipalities.

Which is exactly as it is today. A background check to see if you're mentally messed up, orders of protection or a felony or drug convictions and off you go with your firearm.