What do you think the "right to bear arms" means?

[JTsyo]

If I can't purchase a fully functional abrams tank, then my rights are being infringed.

Exactly. Just like how they deny me my first amendment right to show my displeasure at toll hikes by blowing up the bridge.

 

[cbrunny]

It means I live in a constant state of amazement that America is as successful as it is, given the idiocy its citizens possess.

 

[highland145]

Freedom of speech, not freedom to block traffic...duh.

 

[Kazukian]

LOL, have much of an agenda there salty nuts?

 

[FerrelGeek]

You are another one ignorant of history. And btw, our founders were far more intelligent than you. What they set down was a set of principles that can be applied as we progress. Those principles were meant to keep our government in check as our country evolved. And just because the government restricting something doesn't affect you, doesn't mean you shouldn't care. I have no idea of your age, but you sound like a millennial.

I don't give a shit what our founders believed; societies change.

I think our current laws are generally ok.
Although I wouldn't be butt hurt if the democratically elected officials decided to add some more restriction.
It will be quite a long time until they completely take away personal protection firearms, which is all I care about.

 

[Tormac]

Well I vote for option "b".

Oddly enough the Supreme Court also seems to vote for "b".

 

[pauldun170]

I know its poor form to not discuss and just drop a link but..
http://constitutioncenter.org/interactive-constitution/amendments/amendment-ii

Found it interesting and just wanted to share

 

[tynopik]

a. The right to have guns the functional equivalent to what was around when they wrote the constitution, i.e. some flintlock musket or its equivalent

you realize they had other armaments besides flintlocks back then?

/want

 

[Squeetard]

The right to wear tank tops?

 

[twinrider1]

 

[Ruptga]

Neither of your options actually, but I don't really care because it's a political document not a divine revelation. We can amend it if we need to and if enough of us can agree for even one minute on how it should read. Posting butthurt on the internet isn't going to help form a national consensus, btw.

 

[zinfamous]

trumphed again by russia.

ah, now I understand why republicans love Putin!

 

[highland145]

Because dems can't handle the whole bear?

 

[edro]

You are another one ignorant of history. And btw, our founders were far more intelligent than you.

I beg to differ. I read early American history books for fun. And yes, I agree the founding fathers were likely more intelligent than me (you as well).

What they set down was a set of principles that can be applied as we progress. Those principles were meant to keep our government in check as our country evolved.

Understood. The early principals were great, but even they couldn't have envisioned our world as it is 200 years later, hence, our amendments.

And just because the government restricting something doesn't affect you, doesn't mean you shouldn't care.

I do care, that's why I specifically said I cared about personal protection firearms. Militias are cool and all, but I want personal protection as well, and believe that was intended by "right to bear arms".

 

[Sean Kyle]

Than you're an idiot, ignorant of history and the writings of the founders. And you have zero reading comprehension skills as other posters have explained precisely why it's B.

Thanks a lot for the kind words but it is still (a) and you will find the reasons for that too if you look closely!

 

[JEDIYoda]

troll troll troll your boat......

 

[sdifox]

I'm pretty sure they meant all weapons. I doubt they though about weapons like we have to day being possible. The whole point of the second amendment was to prevent the government from overpowering its citizens. (if citizens can't form their own militia to fight the government, freedom can be taken away if the government becomes corrupt)

So there has never been any overthrown government is what you are saying.

angry citizen A: This fucking government is corrout to the core. We have to rise up and overthrow it.

angry citizen B: you are right. Let's get some weapons.

angry citizen C: but we dont have the Second Amemendment like the Americans!

angry citizen A : I guess we are fucked.

 

[renz20003]

The constitution is always up for interpretation.

They can take my gun away when they pry it from my cold dead hands.

 

[FerrelGeek]

Yep, the founders were definitely more intelligent that me, which is why I have so much respect for them and what they created. This is why I get a bit testy when I sense 'modern' people dismissing them as mere 'dead white men'. Not accusing you of that, btw.

And yes, the ability to amend the constitution (and the process to do so) only enhances my respect for them. It allowed us to do some fundamentally transforming things like end slavery, give all people equal protection, give women the right to vote, and ensure that we don't have 'president for life - just to name a few..

Totally agree about your personal protection comments. Good post, sir and I give you major props for reading early American history.

I beg to differ. I read early American history books for fun. And yes, I agree the founding fathers were likely more intelligent than me (you as well).

Understood. The early principals were great, but even they couldn't have envisioned our world as it is 200 years later, hence, our amendments.
I do care, that's why I specifically said I cared about personal protection firearms. Militias are cool and all, but I want personal protection as well, and believe that was intended by "right to bear arms".

 

[FerrelGeek]

Thanks a lot for proving my point that you're an idiot. Just because you want it to be A does not make it so, when the writings of the founders and current judiciary opinion clearly indicate that it's B.

"Reality is that, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." - Philip K. Dick

Learn ^^^^^ that lesson well, young man. It will serve you well in life.

Thanks a lot for the kind words but it is still (a) and you will find the reasons for that too if you look closely!

 

[IronWing]

If I can't purchase a fully functional abrams tank, then my rights are being infringed.

Operation of tanks would be an interesting 2nd Amendment case. The 2nd clearly recognizes a right to keep a tank. "Bear" in this case could be interpreted to allow operating the tank. However, operating a tank on public roads would almost certainly damage the roads. In my mind, the question would be, "Does the state interest in having un-smashed roads override the people's 2nd Amendment right to operate tanks?"

 

[ISAslot]

Operation of tanks would be an interesting 2nd Amendment case. The 2nd clearly recognizes a right to keep a tank. "Bear" in this case could be interpreted to allow operating the tank. However, operating a tank on public roads would almost certainly damage the roads. In my mind, the question would be, "Does the state interest in having un-smashed roads override the people's 2nd Amendment right to operate tanks?"

Driving on the road wouldn't be allowed. It doesn't meet the specifications for visibility, indicators, weight, etc. Plus driving is a privilege not a right. However, if you had a lot of land to drive it on, I don't see why not. People do own tanks and drive them on their own land. Though they are not armed. I want an armed one. You know, for target practice.

 

[IronWing]

Driving on the road wouldn't be allowed. It doesn't meet the specifications for visibility, indicators, weight, etc. Plus driving is a privilege not a right. However, if you had a lot of land to drive it on, I don't see why not. People do own tanks and drive them on their own land. Though they are not armed. I want an armed one. You know, for target practice.

Driving on the public roadways is a privilege, true. However, would the exercise of a 2nd Amendment right to operate a tank raise that privilege to a right or would there be a compelling state interest in abridging that right in the interest of road preservation. Much like zoning restrictions must yield to religious expression in some cases.

 

[Bird222]

It's "B". If the 2nd said this would you think it meant books could be banned or not? "A well-educated populace, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of people to own and read books shall not be infringed." Do you think the last part stands alone?

 

[GagHalfrunt]

It's right there in the wording that they wanted people to have access to arms because there was no standing army at the time. "A well regulated militia..." Well we have an army now and most of the people who own guns would piss their pants if they actually had to use them to face a well-armed invader. The founding fathers clearly meant guns to defend the country, not the right for pencil-dicks to buy themselves semi-automatic phallic symbols.