The Second Amendment ("right to bear arms")

[IGotWorms 3,366]

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 U.S. Supreme Court is likely going to decide a case soon which will turn on an interpretation of the meaning of the Second Amendment. What do you think the Second Amendment means? There are three basic theories on its meaning:

 

1. It confers an individual right to bear arms

 

2. It confers a right to bear arms, but only in relation to militia activities

 

3. It confers a right to states to provide arms to their citizens for state-run militia purposes

 

I've combined options 2 & 3 since they are pretty similar.

[Snoopy1 0]

The courts have interpreted it to mean the 2nd, but that may change depending what happens in the DC case.

[redtodd 7]

I think it has to do with allowing bears to carry guns which is dumb because the trigger is too hard for their large paws.

[Vikings4ever 496]

I'm for stuff like waiting periods and background checks, but unless you're a criminal or nuts, I think you should be able to buy guns.

[NorthernVike 2,080]

If its a female that wants to bare arms she better be in good shape. I cant stan fat wimmens who show off skin

[IGotWorms 3,366]

The courts have interpreted it to mean the 2nd, but that may change depending what happens in the DC case.

 

Seems like the tide is changing though. The 5th Circuit came out with United States v. Emerson, which was pretty influential in arguing for an individual right. Then the D.C. Circuit followed it up with basically a "yeah, us too" decision. Given the make-up of the Supreme Court, I would be surprised if they find that it is NOT an individual right.

[wiffleball 4,658]

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 and 2nd amendments have both been horrendously cherry-picked. I'm not taking a stance one way or another in terms of whether people SHOULD have the right to bare arms. Frankly, I hate long sleeves.

 

However, the 2A is totally cherry-picked by most NRA-types. You can't leave out the part about being WELL REGULATED just b/c it doesn't seem convenient for your purposes.

 

It's no different than the 1A that we discussed a while back.

 

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof

 

The athiest-freaks whine that the 1A bans religion from being expressed in Government. They do so by reading the blue part and conveniently ignoring the red. The NRA types do the exactly same thing.

 

 

Again, not taking sides, but constitutionally and legally, their basis for argument is horribly flawed. It's no different than seeing a "NO SMOKING" sign and just ignoring the "NO" part. "See? It says right there - "SMOKING". Therefore, it's okay to smoke here.

[edjr 5,611]

If its a female that wants to bare arms she better be in good shape. I cant stan fat wimmens who show off skin

 

 

i always make my grandmother wear a long sleeve shirt when I bring her out to dinner.

[Strike 4,040]

Can't vote. My choice for the 2nd option isn't available. People should think more before posting polls, especially if it contains multiple questions. Not everything in the world is black and white, with the exception of Oreo Cookies and Barack Obama.

[Strike 4,040]

The first and 2nd amendments have both been horrendously cherry-picked. I'm not taking a stance one way or another in terms of whether people SHOULD have the right to bare arms. Frankly, I hate long sleeves.

 

However, the 2A is totally cherry-picked by most NRA-types. You can't leave out the part about being WELL REGULATED just b/c it doesn't seem convenient for your purposes.

 

Not gonna debate with you but if you think the 2nd amendment's wording somehow makes it cut and dried in favor of the govt's right to gun control you need to do some more research.

[dain11279 930]

I thought it meant this?

[NorthernVike 2,080]

Can't vote. My choice for the 2nd option isn't available. People should think more before posting polls, especially if it contains multiple questions. Not everything in the world is black and white, with the exception of Oreo Cookies and Barack Obama.

 

 

 

This is quite possibly the only funny you have ever brought to the Geek Club

[GettnHuge 1]

Are you in a militia? no? No guns for you!

 

1. a body of citizens enrolled for military service, and called out periodically for drill but serving full time only in emergencies.

2. a body of citizen soldiers as distinguished from professional soldiers.

3. all able-bodied males considered by law eligible for military service.

4. a body of citizens organized in a paramilitary group and typically regarding themselves as defenders of individual rights against the presumed interference of the federal government.

 

 

the SC is wise and should ban all firearms. the founding fathers never imagined a bloodbath like we have today. It's time to change.

[parrot 789]

The first and 2nd amendments have both been horrendously cherry-picked. I'm not taking a stance one way or another in terms of whether people SHOULD have the right to bare arms. Frankly, I hate long sleeves.

 

However, the 2A is totally cherry-picked by most NRA-types. You can't leave out the part about being WELL REGULATED just b/c it doesn't seem convenient for your purposes.

 

It's no different than the 1A that we discussed a while back.

The athiest-freaks whine that the 1A bans religion from being expressed in Government. They do so by reading the blue part and conveniently ignoring the red. The NRA types do the exactly same thing.

Again, not taking sides, but constitutionally and legally, their basis for argument is horribly flawed. It's no different than seeing a "NO SMOKING" sign and just ignoring the "NO" part. "See? It says right there - "SMOKING". Therefore, it's okay to smoke here.

 

A well regulated militia may in fact be necessary to the security of a free state, but it's not clear what affect that has on the clearly stated "right of the people to keep and bear Arms". That's a pretty cut and dried passage.

 

My own interpretation is that the founding fathers recognized the importance of the militia and recognized that a necessary condition for raising the militia in times of crisis was to have an armed populace.

[Vikings4ever 496]

Are you in a militia? no? No guns for you!

 

1. a body of citizens enrolled for military service, and called out periodically for drill but serving full time only in emergencies.

2. a body of citizen soldiers as distinguished from professional soldiers.

3. all able-bodied males considered by law eligible for military service.

4. a body of citizens organized in a paramilitary group and typically regarding themselves as defenders of individual rights against the presumed interference of the federal government.

the SC is wise and should ban all firearms. the founding fathers never imagined a bloodbath like we have today. It's time to change.

They never imagined instantaneous communications from opposite sides of the globe, or bombs capable of killing millions in a matter of minutes. Does that mean amendments 4, 5, 6, and 8 are out the window?

[Voice_Of_Reason 0]

Are you in a militia? no? No guns for you!

 

1. a body of citizens enrolled for military service, and called out periodically for drill but serving full time only in emergencies.

2. a body of citizen soldiers as distinguished from professional soldiers.

3. all able-bodied males considered by law eligible for military service.

4. a body of citizens organized in a paramilitary group and typically regarding themselves as defenders of individual rights against the presumed interference of the federal government.

the SC is wise and should ban all firearms. the founding fathers never imagined a bloodbath like we have today. It's time to change.

Early 1920's Germany had gun control. It isn't the answer.

[wiffleball 4,658]

Not gonna debate with you but if you think the 2nd amendment's wording somehow makes it cut and dried in favor of the govt's right to gun control you need to do some more research.

 

I told you I'm not taking a side one way or another. But taking a section of a sentence (not even an entire sentence on its own) and ignoring the conditions that preceeds it is an abysmal joke. I wouldn't use the 2A to justify Gun Control either - it's be equally stupid. - Because it speaks of a Well Regulated Militia.

 

Honestly, I think the 2A should be dropped entirely and a new, more clear amendment passed. We are not a society protected by a Militia anymore. The context has changes as has the circumstance and the armament. I'd like to see the NRA get behind that rather than this endless bullshiit of trying to "Kreskin" our way around 200 year old language that is completely out of date and context. We dropped the 3/5 rule for blacks too. It's okay to update the constitution as necessary. It's not the focking ten commandments.

[NorthernVike 2,080]

Are you in a militia? no? No guns for you!

 

 

Yes I am. In Minnesota we call them hunting parties.

 

Guns and Beer>>>Rock and Roll

[Mephisto 15]

the founding fathers never imagined a bloodbath like we have today. It's time to change.

 

Duh... they most certainly did... and specified "foreign and domestic." I would say, all of the lawbreaking gang-bangers and other criminals constitutes a domestic terror from which we should be prepared to defend ourselves.

 

Thanks for playing.

 

The language is not as convoluted to me as others seem to make it.

 

A well regulated militia is necessary for the security of a free state.

 

The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

[Voice_Of_Reason 0]

Duh... they most certainly did... and specified "foreign and domestic." I would say, all of the lawbreaking gang-bangers and other criminals constitutes a domestic terror from which we should be prepared to defend ourselves.

 

Thanks for playing.

Eggzachery.

 

And anyway. What does control really do? Has drug control (the war on drugs) worked? Did alcohol control (prohibition) work? Does any control work? Make the sentences life without parole for any death deemed none accidental by gun and be done with it.

[GettnHuge 1]

Early 1920's Germany had gun control. It isn't the answer.

 

This isn't germany nor the 20s

[GettnHuge 1]

The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

 

got any rocket launchers?

[gocolts 300]

the SC is wise and should ban all firearms. the founding fathers never imagined a bloodbath like we have today. It's time to change.

The problem is that most of gun crimes are committed with guns that are already illegal.

 

If there's too many guns in America, why is it that where guns are more available to people and gun laws are less restrictive, violent crime is usually lower?

[IGotWorms 3,366]

I told you I'm not taking a side one way or another. But taking a section of a sentence (not even an entire sentence on its own) and ignoring the conditions that preceeds it is an abysmal joke. I wouldn't use the 2A to justify Gun Control either - it's be equally stupid. - Because it speaks of a Well Regulated Militia.

 

Honestly, I think the 2A should be dropped entirely and a new, more clear amendment passed. We are not a society protected by a Militia anymore. The context has changes as has the circumstance and the armament. I'd like to see the NRA get behind that rather than this endless bullshiit of trying to "Kreskin" our way around 200 year old language that is completely out of date and context. We dropped the 3/5 rule for blacks too. It's okay to update the constitution as necessary. It's not the focking ten commandments.

 

I think you are wrong. I believe that the second part of the Amendment establishes the right ("the right of the people to keep and bear arms"), but the first part merely explains the reason the right is necssary. The first part is just explanatory--it has no real effect on the actual right created.

[wiffleball 4,658]

You are an idiot because the well-regulated militia part is not a condition, but a reason for.

 

You just said it jackass, it's a conditional proposition.

[wiffleball 4,658]

I think you are wrong. I believe that the second part of the Amendment establishes the right ("the right of the people to keep and bear arms"), but the first part merely explains the reason the right is necssary. The first part is just explanatory--it has no real effect on the actual right created.

 

...And once the reason for that right being necessary goes away so does the right. There's no reason to have a "well regulated militia". We have a standing army.

 

You have to bear in mind that at the time, the revolutionary soldiers WERE made up of individual state militias.

 

 

Again, I'm not necessarily for "gun control". Seems like people should have the right to bear reasonable arms. But just because I'm against most gun control doesn't make me and pout when somebody points out that the language of the amendment can't be cherry picked to suit their own needs.

[Voice_Of_Reason 0]

This isn't germany nor the 20s

Those who forget history are doomed to repeat it. HTH

[wiffleball 4,658]

The founders wanted to make sure we could form militias.

To ensure that, they gave us the right to bear arms.

 

That's not a conditional proposition. Yur welcome.

 

Granted, it IS Texas, but how many militias are YOU a part of?

[gocolts 300]

Can't vote. My choice for the 2nd option isn't available.

I can't vote either for the same reason.

[GettnHuge 1]

Those who forget history are doomed to repeat it. HTH

 

forget? who forgot that they did that? to compare nazi germany to 2008 united states is what's ridiculous. I suppose without

guns, Hitlery will then declare herself president for life, invade canada, messico, central america, kill the jews...this is what

you're talking about isn't it? Ban guns and we'll be just like nazi germany?

[Nomad99 441]

You have to bear in mind that at the time, the revolutionary soldiers WERE made up of individual state militias.

 

You are partly correct. The "State Militias" were made up of "PRIVATE" citizens that joined in a time of crisis. They were not "REGULARS".....that was the CONTINENTAL ARMY...which was the equivalent of todays standing army...they were full-timers.

 

The Militia members SUPPLIED THEIR OWN WEAPONS

[IGotWorms 3,366]

...And once the reason for that right being necessary goes away so does the right. There's no reason to have a "well regulated militia". We have a standing army.

 

You have to bear in mind that at the time, the revolutionary soldiers WERE made up of individual state militias.

Again, I'm not necessarily for "gun control". Seems like people should have the right to bear reasonable arms. But just because I'm against most gun control doesn't make me and pout when somebody points out that the language of the amendment can't be cherry picked to suit their own needs.

 

First of all, even if the Second Amendment confers an individual right to keep and bear arms, that doesn't mean that the right can't be restricted. You have the right to free speech, but you can't yell "fire" in a crowded theatre. There are certain ways in which the government may infringe on your rights--it just makes it much harder for them to do so if it is in fact a right recognized by the Constitution. So saying that the 2nd Amendment provides an individual right to keep and bear arms doesn't mean that you can have a rocket launcher.

 

Secondly, the federal standing army can be distinguished from state organized militias. What if the federal standing army were to tyrannize it's own people? It has happened in other countries--it is not so far fetched to believe that the framers of the Constitution could have intended to guard against that happening here by providing for state militias. Sure, in practice, there are no effective state militias today, but that doesn't mean that the fundamental reason the framers thought they were important (i.e., to protect against tyranny by the federal government) isn't still applicable today.

[Voice_Of_Reason 0]

forget? who forgot that they did that? to compare nazi germany to 2008 united states is what's ridiculous. I suppose without

guns, Hitlery will then declare herself president for life, invade canada, messico, central america, kill the jews...this is what

you're talking about isn't it? Ban guns and we'll be just like nazi germany?

Yep. Ban guns. Take them away from law abiding citizens. And then obey your government. Are you really that blind? Guns in the hands of law abiding citizens can not and will not hurt this country. Is it that hard to see that with each right taken from us that we lose the liberties granted to us by the constitution? Is it so hard to believe that defenseless community stands no chance against any enemy? Is it so hard to believe that an enemy could be our very own government? Extreme situations cause people to do amazingly stupid things.

 

Do you really believe that banning something takes it away? Drugs, alchohol, guns? Since when has control controlled anything? Seriously. When?

[IGotWorms 3,366]

I can't vote either for the same reason.

 

 

ETA: The point was to see if there was a juxtoposition between what people thought the 2nd Amendment means and their own personal opinion on whether there should be gun control or not (and apparently there is such a juxtoposition). That would be a lot harder to show if I provided a bunch of nuanced answers for question #2. Basically, do you think that access to guns should be restricted at all, in any circumstnaces? If yes, then you are "pro gun control" to some extent. HTH.

[Strike 4,040]

 

ETA: The point was to see if there was a juxtoposition between what people thought the 2nd Amendment means and their own personal opinion on whether there should be gun control or not (and apparently there is such a juxtoposition). That would be a lot harder to show if I provided a bunch of nuanced answers for question #2. Basically, do you think that access to guns should be restricted at all, in any circumstnaces? If yes, then you are "pro gun control" to some extent. HTH.

 

Sorry, not gonna vote "pro gun control" just because I understand the need for reasonable restrictions. Just like if you start a poll about abortion I'm not gonna vote that I'm "anti abortion" just because I don't believe in abortions at term or partial birth abortion. You can create a flawed poll if you want but some of us aren't gonna adjust our ideals to meet your narrow classifications.

[wiffleball 4,658]

Secondly, the federal standing army can be distinguished from state organized militias. What if the federal standing army were to tyrannize it's own people? It has happened in other countries--it is not so far fetched to believe that the framers of the Constitution could have intended to guard against that happening here by providing for state militias. Sure, in practice, there are no effective state militias today, but that doesn't mean that the fundamental reason the framers thought they were important (i.e., to protect against tyranny by the federal government) isn't still applicable today.

 

The Framers also thought that they had a fundamental reason for coming up with how to count the Slave vote. Just because they thought it was important, doesn't mean it's still applicable today.

 

The closest thing we have to "a well organized militia" is the The National Guard. In fact, it was THE Militia Act of 1903 that organized the various state militias into the present National Guard system.

 

Now, I don't know a whole lot about how them fellers work, but part of them being "well organized" is that they don't get to take their guns and tanks and helicopters home with them when the day's over.

 

So yeah, all the folks who want to jump on the 2A to support gun ownership: If you want to have to lock up your gun in the armory and only use it when you're wearing your little uniform, so be it.

 

That's why I think we'er better off just scrapping the whole stupid thing. The militia system that the Framers had in mind has radically changed. The concept that Americans should be able to keep and bear arms in the context of being able to form a militia is stupid. People should have a right to hunt, to target shoot, to watch their toddler shoot his sister in the haid because you were too stupid to get a gun lock. - All basic, fundamental rights of gun ownership that have absolutely nothing to do with militias.

 

Again, it's okay to say it's anachornistic verbiage and re-do it to fit a modern reality. That's why they're called "amendments" and not "commandments".

[GettnHuge 1]

Yep. Ban guns. Take them away from law abiding citizens. And then obey your government. Are you really that blind? Guns in the hands of law abiding citizens can not and will not hurt this country. Is it that hard to see that with each right taken from us that we lose the liberties granted to us by the constitution? Is it so hard to believe that defenseless community stands no chance against any enemy? Is it so hard to believe that an enemy could be our very own government? Extreme situations cause people to do amazingly stupid things.

 

Oh mah gawd it's a miracle! Tim McVeigh is back from the dead!

 

Do you really believe that banning something takes it away? Drugs, alchohol, guns? Since when has control controlled anything? Seriously. When?

 

MikeFF controls the universe and don't forget it

[GettnHuge 1]

The Framers also thought that they had a fundamental reason for coming up with how to count the Slave vote. Just because they thought it was important, doesn't mean it's still applicable today.

 

The closest thing we have to "a well organized militia" is the The National Guard. In fact, it was THE Militia Act of 1903 that organized the various state militias into the present National Guard system.

 

Now, I don't know a whole lot about how them fellers work, but part of them being "well organized" is that they don't get to take their guns and tanks and helicopters home with them when the day's over.

 

So yeah, all the folks who want to jump on the 2A to support gun ownership: If you want to have to lock up your gun in the armory and only use it when you're wearing your little uniform, so be it.

 

well said, brother. when guns are gone so will the violence

[Nomad99 441]

Oh brother! when guns are gone only the violent will have guns

 

 

[Voice_Of_Reason 0]

Oh mah gawd it's a miracle! Tim McVeigh is back from the dead!

Seriously, go fock yourself.

 

Believing I have the right to own a weapon and not having faith in my government to look at my best interests doesn't even come close to the standard for comparison with that scum.