 paperduck
Male, 18-29, Midwest US
 981 Posts
|
Friday, January 04, 2013 10:43:43 PM
I always understood the 2nd amendment as:
The right of people to bear arms is the way to ensure the militia is well-regulated. So there is no fascist police federal government exercising unauthorized power over individual states. This right of people shall not be infringed means it CANNOT be taken away.
Remember that the central theme of the constitution is that the people make up the government and can change it when necessary, the government is not a big daddy figure.
That's why I'm uneasy about the gun restrictions ALREADY in place. Lets look at it this way, there are auto accidents all the time where people, including children die, it's very unfortunate. But we'd never consider banning cars. Consider that the chances of you dying in a car accident are far greater than with a gun. |
|
 OldOllie
Male, 50-59, Midwest US
8710 Posts
|
Friday, January 04, 2013 9:56:58 PM
Now, why is there so much confusion about this? Seems pretty simple to understand.
Gerry, we're talking about liberals here. Their fundamental philosophy of government is antithetical to the constitution. Most of them don't understand it, and if they do, they don't agree with it or respect it. That's why we're in the shape we're in today. |
|
 Gerry1of1
Male, 50-59, Western US
25554 Posts
|
Friday, January 04, 2013 10:40:08 AM
Just so we are all clear on what it say...
AMENDMENT II
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.
Now, why is there so much confusion about this? Seems pretty simple to understand. |
|
 HumanAction
Male, 18-29, Midwest US
1124 Posts
|
Friday, January 04, 2013 6:15:05 AM
If the 2nd Amendment only guaranteed the right of the MILITIA to keep and bear arms, why doesn't it say, ..."the right of the MILITIA to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed?"
It isn't and there is no room for debate on the subject. Multiple Supreme Court Cases have confirmed that the law specifies and individual right to bear arms.
Supreme Court Cases trump Ken Kiger from @MrPeabody's link. Sorry all, but there is only one group with the authority to interpret the Constitution and they say that the 2nd Amendment applies to "the people" and not "a well-regulated milita". That's the end of it. |
|
OldOllie
Male, 50-59, Midwest US
8710 Posts
|
Thursday, January 03, 2013 11:59:30 PM
If the 2nd Amendment only guaranteed the right of the MILITIA to keep and bear arms, why doesn't it say, ..."the right of the MILITIA to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed?"
People != Militia.
BTW, it's not "ironic"; it's hypocritical. "Armed protection for me, but none for thee."
What I don't understand is, how did the security company find a self-respecting gun owner willing to take a job protecting these putrid little liberal f***tards? |
|
 MrPeabody
Male, 30-39, Eastern US
1436 Posts
|
Thursday, January 03, 2013 10:17:23 PM
Here is an excellent explanation of the 2nd amendment as it relates to A well regulated militia |
|
 McGovern1981
Male, 30-39, Eastern US
10187 Posts
|
Thursday, January 03, 2013 3:10:31 PM
What's ironic is people writing that her publishing this information put gun holders lives in danger, then gun holders threatening bodily harm to her causing her to hire armed guards.
Which they then hired armed guards(permit holders) to protect them. SO they only support it if it's in their interest then yep that's ironic. |
|
 DavidXJ
Male, 30-39, Western US
527 Posts
|
Thursday, January 03, 2013 2:47:05 PM
What's ironic, is that the people whose names she published are probably the least likely group of people in her area that would try to harm her. |
|
 peakingo
Male, 30-39, Eastern US
509 Posts
|
Thursday, January 03, 2013 2:25:08 PM
It's funny but not ironic.
What's ironic is people writing that her publishing this information put gun holders lives in danger, then gun holders threatening bodily harm to her causing her to hire armed guards. |
|
 HolyGod
Male, 30-39, Western US
2888 Posts
|
Thursday, January 03, 2013 12:57:35 PM
CrakrJak
"Militia.. What purpose does it serve?"
You misunderstand my comment. I meant what purpose does it serve in the statement? If you say everyone has the right to a gun why specify any group?
Kind of like saying "I like watching football, I like watching all sports". If I say I like watching all sports the football part is superfluous. |
|
 CrakrJak
Male, 40-49, Midwest US
14374 Posts
|
Thursday, January 03, 2013 12:15:33 PM
HG: Militia.. What purpose does it serve?
.
During the revolutionary war a lot of the forces used to oppose the British were not military conscripts, they were free volunteers known as 'Militia'. Militia also served in the war of 1812, which is how Tennessee got it's nickname 'The Volunteer State'. To this day most states still have a volunteer militia made of ordinary citizens. So please do not get the terms 'militia' and 'military' confused, they are different. |
|
HumanAction
Male, 18-29, Midwest US
1124 Posts
|
Thursday, January 03, 2013 12:12:10 PM
@HolyGod
So, for an example of a prefatory clause:
Shelter from rain, being necessary for the overall health of a citizen, the right of the people to keep and bear umbrellas shall not be infringed.
From this statement, would you then conclude that a citizen only has the right to bear an umbrella on a rainy day? This is essentially the logic you're using.
Instead, we know that prefatory clauses serve to establish rationale. As such, they are not exclusionary as to the circumstances in which the right is provided. |
|
HumanAction
Male, 18-29, Midwest US
1124 Posts
|
Thursday, January 03, 2013 12:01:10 PM
What purpose does it serve?
It's prefatory, as in, introductory or part of a preface. It is a common construct from that time period and similar examples can be found throughout the Constitution, Federalist Papers, and personal correspondence of the Founding Fathers. |
|
HolyGod
Male, 30-39, Western US
2888 Posts
|
Thursday, January 03, 2013 11:40:54 AM
HumanAction
If the founding fathers wanted everyone to have guns why even put the "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state," part? What purpose does it serve?
If they wanted everyone to own guns wouldn't it be better to just say: The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed?
|
|
HumanAction
Male, 18-29, Midwest US
1124 Posts
|
Thursday, January 03, 2013 11:33:48 AM
@HolyGod
Not quite... He provides further clarity in the next sentence:
the term unambiguously refers to all members of the political community, not an unspecified subset
At the time you reference, neither blacks nor women were part of the political community. They currently are; therefore, via the official interpretation, the right extends to them as well.
He is very careful to ensure that he does not state "all citizens" or "all people" in his word. This was done purposefully. |
|
HolyGod
Male, 30-39, Western US
2888 Posts
|
Thursday, January 03, 2013 11:26:15 AM
HumanAction
"In my humble opinion, my Supreme Court Justice trumps your opinion"
I understand that. I'm also pretty sure that my statement proves to both of us that he was wrong and that rights most definitely did not spread to all people and that there were caveats that the founding fathers intended whether implied or not. Agreed? |
|
 Ilikelogic
Male, 40-49, Europe
292 Posts
|
Thursday, January 03, 2013 11:15:09 AM
I worked a long time for an industrial plant producing auto parts here in Luxemburg. After 9/11, the US based company decided to have the guards at the entrance equipped with pistols.
There was an outcry by all the plant personnel and local direction had to withdraw the procedure within two days. |
|
HumanAction
Male, 18-29, Midwest US
1124 Posts
|
Thursday, January 03, 2013 11:14:23 AM
Uhhuh. Tell that to black people and women.
Hey now, I'm just quoting the statements of a Supreme Court Justice following a decision regarding the 2nd Amendment. In my humble opinion, my Supreme Court Justice trumps your opinion.
Is that fair? |
|
HolyGod
Male, 30-39, Western US
2888 Posts
|
Thursday, January 03, 2013 11:12:34 AM
HumanAction
"Nowhere else in the Constitution does a 'right' attributed to 'the people' refer to anything other than an individual right."
Uhhuh. Tell that to black people and women. |
|
HolyGod
Male, 30-39, Western US
2888 Posts
|
Thursday, January 03, 2013 11:11:02 AM
McGovern1981
"When was that the shooting being crammed down our throats to push more laws for our "saftey."
I think this is the culmination of aurora, the mall shooting, and sandy hook happening so closely together. Obviously this is the biggest one because of the fact that it is kids.
Lets drop the hypotheticals and hyperbole for a moment. I'll ask you a straight up question.
Do you support making it so that anyone who wants to buy a gun has to pass a background check for criminal record and mental health issues and wait a mandatory waiting period? Thereby eliminating certain gun show sales and internet sales? |
|
HumanAction
Male, 18-29, Midwest US
1124 Posts
|
Thursday, January 03, 2013 10:57:41 AM
"Nowhere else in the Constitution does a 'right' attributed to 'the people' refer to anything other than an individual right. What is more, in all six other provisions of the Constitution that mention 'the people,' the term unambiguously refers to all members of the political community, not an unspecified subset. This contrasts markedly with the phrase 'the militia' in the prefatory clause. As we will describe below, the 'militia' in colonial America consisted of a subset of 'the people'— those who were male, able bodied, and within a certain age range. Reading the Second Amendment as protecting only the right to 'keep and bear Arms' in an organized militia therefore fits poorly with the operative clause’s description of the holder of that right as 'the people'."
- Justice Antonin Scalia in Heller |
|
McGovern1981
Male, 30-39, Eastern US
10187 Posts
|
Thursday, January 03, 2013 10:56:49 AM
@HolyGod
The milita and the people are two different things clearly worded in the second amendment. It takes someone wanting to push an agenda to see that differently. Milita for a free state armed people for a free people.
I thought the aurora shooter got all his guns legally? Several over the internet with no background check? Is that incorrect?
When was that the shooting being crammed down our throats to push more laws for our "saftey." |
|
HumanAction
Male, 18-29, Midwest US
1124 Posts
|
Thursday, January 03, 2013 10:50:53 AM
The second amendment was about having a well trained militia being armed in order to defend itself in a country with little to no defense and no police force. It did not imply soccer moms with no training should have stockpiles of weapons for anyone to take.
Several Supreme Court cases have stated that the proper interpretation is that the militia part is merely a preparatory phrase. All cases have upheld the interpretation that the right is given to all people. |
|
HolyGod
Male, 30-39, Western US
2888 Posts
|
Thursday, January 03, 2013 10:50:02 AM
McGovern1981
"You mean like the laws the shooter broke that day?"
I thought the aurora shooter got all his guns legally? Several over the internet with no background check? Is that incorrect?
"See the part that say THE PEOPLE there's your answer. Amazing what you pick to see when you want to take away THE PEOPLES rights."
Yes the people should have a right to bear arms to form a well regulated militia. Is that not how you read that? What do you think the militia part is in there for if they meant everyone should have them?
I read that as: The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed because having a well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state.
No? |
|
HolyGod
Male, 30-39, Western US
2888 Posts
|
Thursday, January 03, 2013 10:45:50 AM
McGovern1981
I don't believe he has ever said he didn't support having guns in schools. Where is the money coming from? Do you support raising taxes to pay for armed and trained security teams at every school in the country?
Schools can't pay for their teachers and their pencils right now because of all the slashes to school funding done mostly by republicans. |
|
Back to Listing
){kind=avatar}
){kind=avatar}
){kind=avatar}
){kind=avatar}
){kind=avatar}
){kind=avatar}
){kind=avatar}
){kind=avatar}
){kind=avatar}