Poll: What does 'Shall not be infringed" mean to you?

[drinkmorejava]

In my job we have certain design requirements that are contractually guaranteed to customers and the FAA, and engineers could be criminally liable depending on the level on negligence...basically, you follow them. When we have requirements like that, our design procedures use shall. Not can, should, verify, check, receive approval, or any possibly ambiguous term. It's SHALL, as in, you will be ass raped if you do not do this. How anyone could ever think it means something different is beyond me.

 

[Steeplerot]

Slave roundup militias (nessasary to protect white elite southerners "sacred personal property" ) need to be regulated and not turn into vigilante groups.

Drunken mobs lynching and burning slaves is bad for the bottom line.

 

[LunarRay]

An interesting question arises when you couple a Stated Right and a Stated Purpose. On the surface it would seem immune to some State determined Compelling need even using and passing a Strict Scrutiny test. On the other hand is the wording of the 2nd. It States a purpose, militia and omits any other purpose. So... One might argue that so long as the purpose of militia cannot be shown it can be 'regulated' and thereby defined by the States. Congress might have a lesser opportunity to define and regulate given the Constitution restricts the Federal Government to the extent the 14th and Supremacy Clause does not restrict the States.

In this case, however, '... cannot be infringed.' seems to mean the 2nd is immune to legislative horseplay to the extent it is not altered by Amendment.

 

[fskimospy]

In this case, however, '... cannot be infringed.' seems to mean the 2nd is immune to legislative horseplay to the extent it is not altered by Amendment.

That's definitely not true. The first amendment says that 'Congress will make no law...abridging the freedom of speech'. That law is also incorporated to the states through the 14th amendment.

There are dozens, hundreds, maybe even thousands of laws abridging the freedom of speech in this country. At a minimum, most of them are constitutional. If you agree, can you explain why you think the 2nd is immune from legislation but not the first? If you don't agree, how do you square your opinion with several centuries of American jurisprudence?

 

[davmat787]

But it could mean, time to jack off to the 2nd amendment.