Strength of 2nd amendment?

[JeffreyLebowski]

No, the militia refers to the militia, a typical way to defend a country hundreds of years ago(and still in some countries) when the country cannot afford a standing army. This changed when America became more solidified in its government and a standing army was created.

If this is your stance then explain the 3rd Amendment:
No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.


Read through the Bill of Rights again, or more likely for you, for the 1st time and tell my what they all have in common.

They dictate the rights the PEOPLE have. Not the government. And nowhere in it does it say any Amendment is null and void due to changes in the social make up of the nation or the creation of an Army.

 

[clamum]

Wait you have to have a permit to buy a handgun there? WTF. Move. I wouldn't stand for that crap.

There are checks here - you can't have committed a felony or things of that nature and still purchase one but other than that you don't have to have a permit to buy a gun. What the fuck kind of crazy backward shit is that?

It's that way in Michigan too, for handguns. I just went during lunch to Public Safety and got a Permit to Purchase (picking up a SIG P226 after work, WOOT). It's kind of a hassle but doesn't take that long. At least for rifles and shotguns and whatnot you don't need one.

 

[Malak]

As typical with your type you don't understand the full scope of an issue. the Militia IS the people.
At the time of the writing of the Bill of Rights the militia consisted of ALL able bodied men, the only reason it didn't say people was that they didn't expect women to fight.

Get a clue, get an education and learn what the Bill of Rights is about. It's about WE THE PEOPLE. Not What the government shall allow it's peasants.

That's just like saying the government IS the people, the army IS the people, the fire fighters ARE the people... but if the amendment says the right to bear arms for fire fighters, you aren't going to have any argument either.

Like you said, "at the time of the writing" is the key phrase here. Context is everything. Militias don't exist in the context of this nation any longer. The 2nd amendment might one day have meaning again, but not today.

I find it hilarious you tell me to get a clue when it's such an obvious contextual issue and the only reason it gets controversy is because people cry if they can't have lethal weapons, which is ridiculous. Anyone that understands basic English can figure this one out, and half the people in charge know this.

 

[spidey07]

That's just like saying the government IS the people, the army IS the people, the fire fighters ARE the people... but if the amendment says the right to bear arms for fire fighters, you aren't going to have any argument either.

Like you said, "at the time of the writing" is the key phrase here. Context is everything. Militias don't exist in the context of this nation any longer. The 2nd amendment might one day have meaning again, but not today.

I find it hilarious you tell me to get a clue when it's such an obvious contextual issue and the only reason it gets controversy is because people cry if they can't have lethal weapons, which is ridiculous. Anyone that understands basic English can figure this one out, and half the people in charge know this.

The supreme court and most constitutional scholars disagree. Your lame argument has been tried time and time again, and time and time again it is struck down as simply wrong.

 

[shortylickens]

A good team of lawyers might argue that requiring a permit or registration also "infringes" on the 2nd amendment.
I guess thats how you define the word.
The supreme courts ruling was 217 pages long and sadly didnt really cover very much or do a lot to clarify. It basically told us what we already know.

 

[Malak]

The supreme court and most constitutional scholars disagree. Your lame argument has been tried time and time again, and time and time again it is struck down as simply wrong.

But it isn't wrong. Like I said, people QQ too much about the possibility of it being illegal to own a firearm. There is no logical reason that makes my argument invalid.

 

[thraashman]

I would think that likely the best way to make a permit requirement legal is to have it based on the sale of the gun. You have the right to bear arms, but without a permit a legal gun reseller can't sell you one. And while you could then go and obtain a gun from a non-legal seller, then you could be charged with illegally obtaining a firearm. I don't know the rules but I would think that a license would only be denied in extreme circumstances.

The problem is that the people that think anyone at anytime should be allowed to purchase a firearm without permit or background check are the reason Virginia Tech got shot up a few years ago. They accept reasonible restrictions on the first amendment (shouting fire in a crowded theather example), but refuse to accept reasonible restrictions on the 2nd.

 

[spidey07]

I would think that likely the best way to make a permit requirement legal is to have it based on the sale of the gun. You have the right to bear arms, but without a permit a legal gun reseller can't sell you one. And while you could then go and obtain a gun from a non-legal seller, then you could be charged with illegally obtaining a firearm. I don't know the rules but I would think that a license would only be denied in extreme circumstances.

The problem is that the people that think anyone at anytime should be allowed to purchase a firearm without permit or background check are the reason Virginia Tech got shot up a few years ago. They accept reasonible restrictions on the first amendment (shouting fire in a crowded theather example), but refuse to accept reasonible restrictions on the 2nd.

VT did have a background check. A background check is required to purchase a firearm from a gunstore or licensed firearm dealer. Look into NICS check.

Needing a permit means a sheriff gets to pick and choose who does and doesn't get a permit. It's a terrible idea and has been used by governments to deny 2nd amendment rights to people based on frivolous claims.

 

[thraashman]

VT did have a background check. A background check is required to purchase a firearm from a gunstore or licensed firearm dealer. Look into NICS check.

Needing a permit means a sheriff gets to pick and choose who does and doesn't get a permit. It's a terrible idea and has been used by governments to deny 2nd amendment rights to people based on frivolous claims.

I actually want more checks. Maybe a test. Like getting a driver's license. A car can kill a person, but that's not even it's purpose just an unintended consequence. A gun's actual purpose is to kill someone. And I don't think we need to make the test an intensive test. Just something that shows the person is aware of and able to perform responsible use and safety measures. A reckless person with a gun is just as bad as a reckless person with a car. And someone with known mental health issues like the VT guy shouldn't be able to buy a gun. Maybe that was a shortcoming with the mental health reporting rather than background checks. But something like that needs to be something that can be found before a person can buy a gun.

If a permit is more like you said, then yes I would say it violates 2nd amendment. I'm not saying that my description was accurate to how permits are used, but that it could be a way to allow some form of permitting that doesn't violate the 2nd amendment.

 

[waggy]

But it isn't wrong. Like I said, people QQ too much about the possibility of it being illegal to own a firearm. There is no logical reason that makes my argument invalid.

and thank god people who are far smarter then you and make those decisions have said its wrong.

 

[Malak]

and thank god people who are far smarter then you and make those decisions have said its wrong.

And people smarter than you said I am right. So I guess your point becomes entirely moot, doesn't it? Still can't come up with an actual argument. Guess I win another one :thumbsup:

 

[0roo0roo]

No, the militia refers to the militia, a typical way to defend a country hundreds of years ago(and still in some countries) when the country cannot afford a standing army. This changed when America became more solidified in its government and a standing army was created.

and the first amendment says nothing about porn

 

[bfdd]

No, the militia refers to the militia, a typical way to defend a country hundreds of years ago(and still in some countries) when the country cannot afford a standing army. This changed when America became more solidified in its government and a standing army was created.

*sigh* since you have no clue what you're talking about I'll break it down for you

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 first part "A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State" states that a militia is necessary to the security of our state. This was replaced by a standing army, but it's stating that the militia(or now army) is essential to the state. Then there's a pause and breaks into the next line of thought which is "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." states that WE THE PEOPLE shall not have our right to keep(own) and bear(wield) arms(weapons) shall not be infringed.

 

[pontifex]

So I live in NJ... I applied for a firearms purchasers ID and a permit for a hand gun.. If that is turned down for whatever reason, and I buy a gun anyway and register it... am I protected by federal law?

if you have t have a permit to buy a gun, who is going to sell you one? you going to buy it off the street?

 

[Malak]

The first part "A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State" states that a militia is necessary to the security of our state. This was replaced by a standing army, but it's stating that the militia(or now army) is essential to the state. Then there's a pause and breaks into the next line of thought which is "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." states that WE THE PEOPLE shall not have our right to keep(own) and bear(wield) arms(weapons) shall not be infringed.

Let me translate it for you since you don't seem to understand English.

Because a militia is necessary to the security of the state, the right to bear arms for that security must not be infringed

Making firearms illegal for civilians does not in anyway invalidate this amendment. It's English, you can't argue with it.

 

[spidey07]

Let me translate it for you since you don't seem to understand English.



Making firearms illegal for civilians does not in anyway invalidate this amendment. It's English, you can't argue with it.

All history around that amendment shows that the founding fathers did mean it how it's been interpreted, that citizens MUST be allowed to own arms to remain free and that without them they cannot. It's shown in their writings, letters to each other, federalist papers, etc. It's EXTREMELY clear what it means. You are just ignoring history here.

 

[Malak]

All history around that amendment shows that the founding fathers did mean it how it's been interpreted, that citizens MUST be allowed to own arms to remain free and that without them they cannot. It's shown in their writings, letters to each other, federalist papers, etc. It's EXTREMELY clear what it means. You are just ignoring history here.

Context my friend, context. In their time it meant that. If they meant it the way you are saying it, they would have worded it that way. They qualified their statement, and therefore we must abide by that qualification.

 

[spidey07]

Context my friend, context. In their time it meant that. If they meant it the way you are saying it, they would have worded it that way. They qualified their statement, and therefore we must abide by that qualification.

Nope. The history around it is what I described and they meant it to be forever. Your argument has been tried time and time again and struck down by the supreme court, over and over and over.

 

[zinfamous]

The supreme court and most constitutional scholars disagree. Your lame argument has been tried time and time again, and time and time again it is struck down as simply wrong.

only since the late mid-late 80s.

Malak's interpretation is actually the longest-standing interpretation throughout Supreme court history.

This kind of thinking--reading the constitution as the founders had intended it to be a "living, adaptable beast" really pissed off the fundies. Reagan stocked the superior court pools throughout the country, changed the SCOTUS, and now we have this new supposedly common belief that this is what the supreme court has always believed. This can't be further from the truth.

Still, ~20 years of SCOTUS interpretations isn't that short of a memory, when it appears that today's voting public has a political and historical memory of ~6 months. lol.

 

[spidey07]

only since the late mid-late 80s.

Malak's interpretation is actually the longest-standing interpretation throughout Supreme court history.

This kind of thinking--reading the constitution as the founders had intended it to be a "living, adaptable beast" really pissed off the fundies. Reagan stocked the superior court pools throughout the country, changed the SCOTUS, and now we have this new supposedly common belief that this is what the supreme court has always believed. This can't be further from the truth.

Still, ~20 years of SCOTUS interpretations isn't that short of a memory, when it appears that today's voting public has a political and historical memory of ~6 months. lol.

I hope you're kidding. The tommy gun (machine gun) was completely legal for a good amount of time. Damn NFA.

Hopefully the NFA will also be ruled unconstitutional. That's the holy grail of bad law.

 

[zinfamous]

I hope you're kidding. The tommy gun (machine gun) was completely legal for a good amount of time. Damn NFA.

Hopefully the NFA will also be ruled unconstitutional. That's the holy grail of bad law.

I'm just saying that the current standard SCOTUS rulings concerning gun rights and gun laws is rather new, and quite anathema to how SCOTUS generally interpreted 2nd amendment for some 60-70% of its history. It's a result of the anger over civil rights and such, and especially the court of the 50s-70s, now demonized by the right as one of the darkest periods (having given us all of these personal, individual, social freedoms and such. ...of course they'd hate that. ), Nixon then Reagan flooding the federal courts with far-right thinkers, the newer interpretations of gun laws became more common.

The NRA also didn't have as strong of a lobby before this time.

 

[nick1985]

No, the militia refers to the militia, a typical way to defend a country hundreds of years ago(and still in some countries) when the country cannot afford a standing army. This changed when America became more solidified in its government and a standing army was created.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1GNu7ldL1LM

 

[spidey07]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1GNu7ldL1LM

Didn't click link. Lemme guess...Penn & Teller?

 

[alkemyst]

This thread is proof our citizens are dumbing down to believe what their government wants them to.

It's sad how quick one is willing to give up rights today. This violent video game action is a bit scary, I can see the bible belters working en masse to make it happen and those that play the games missing the whole deal because they can't pry themselves away to go vote.

 

[shortylickens]

This thread is proof our citizens are dumbing down to believe what their government wants them to.

It's sad how quick one is willing to give up rights today. This violent video game action is a bit scary, I can see the bible belters working en masse to make it happen and those that play the games missing the whole deal because they can't pry themselves away to go vote.

Ummm, so people are dumb because they think they still need guns?
Or they are dumb because the Govt. tells us guns are bad and we believe it?