The second amendment

[ga-hvac-tech]

The Second Amendment to the US Constitution:

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.

Lets look at this and discuss what the founding fathers had in mind when they wrote it.

A well regulated militia: Seems we are talking about a group of folks ORGANIZED into a fighting unit

being necessary to the security of a free state: Ahhh... it would appear the founders understood that govt, like any other humans, needed to have a force resisting unlimited power... to keep then in check.

The right of the people to keep and bear arms: The RIGHT of people to keep and bear arms... seems today we have folks literally SCREAMING they have a right to govt checks, healthcare, etc... looks to me like the founders decided firearms was/is a right also.

Shall not be infringed. STRONG language there... kinda like "What part of no do you not understand" or "Do not step across this line"

GA's comment: The second amendment, as most of the others, were written and are intended to be interpreted as the rule of law the citizens have the right to take to the govt and literally DEMAND the govt submit themselves to. Again, the founders understood the principles of unbridled power... and put in many a safeguard to give citizens the power to tell govt "NO you will not".

As discussed in different threads... The founders knew what was a lethal weapon and what was not... yet they still chose to not put any limitations on what was acceptable and what was not. Seems to me they were more interested in preserving freedom than arguing over gun types. Along this thinking... I see there is no restriction to owning a cannon... so again the founders were not interested in the tools... they were interested in preserving freedom from an oppressive govt.

[Rob_in_WV]

That a good dissection and interpretation, at the same time our founding fathers and the People knew that there would be swift and severe punishment for anyone who used the protected fire arms for the purpose of bringing harm to another human being. That's what our society has lost. We're too busy coddling these criminals to deliver the said punishments and the result is the current mentality that taking guns away from people will make us safer, which is far from the truth.

BTW I'm an avid supporter of our 2nd amendment.

[bigtime]

What about nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons. Should citizens be able to possess those?

[Brian GC]

What about nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons. Should citizens be able to possess those?

Because we all know that they do not kill people either...which is laughable.

Why didn't the NRA oppose restrictions put on the sale of fertilizer? We should all know by now that bombs don’t kill. Therefore the possession of bombs does not pose any threat on society, right?

[ControlsInMT]

Because we all know that they do not kill people either...which is laughable.

Why didn't the NRA oppose restrictions put on the sale of fertilizer? We should all know by now that bombs don’t kill. Therefore the possession of bombs does not pose any threat on society, right?

Nope they don't pose a threat. It's the wack-jobs that use them that pose a threat. Just like baseball bats, knives, cars, and the first weapon a rock.

[Brian GC]

Nope they don't pose a threat. It's the wack-jobs that use them that pose a threat. Just like baseball bats, knives, cars, and the first weapon a rock.

Comparing bombs to bats...I can't even respond.

[RoBoTeq]

What about nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons. Should citizens be able to possess those?

Is there something in the Constitution that says we should? Cannons were available when the Constitution was written, but there is nothing in the Constitution giving us any inalienable rights to possses them. Personally, I think we should all have the right to posess anything we want until we abuse our ownership of such items. OK, because of the relative potential of a nuclear bomb owned by my neighbor taking me out if it goes off, we would need to have geographical and space provisions such as; You must own several thousand miles of property and keep your nuclear bomb at the center of that property in order to own a nuclear weapon. After all, livestock aren't allowed to be kept in the backyards of rowhomes in the cities.

[glennac]

Is there something in the Constitution that says we should? Cannons were available when the Constitution was written, but there is nothing in the Constitution giving us any inalienable rights to possses them. Personally, I think we should all have the right to posess anything we want until we abuse our ownership of such items. OK, because of the relative potential of a nuclear bomb owned by my neighbor taking me out if it goes off, we would need to have geographical and space provisions such as; You must own several thousand miles of property and keep your nuclear bomb at the center of that property in order to own a nuclear weapon. After all, livestock aren't allowed to be kept in the backyards of rowhomes in the cities.

Your very funny robo. For that to work you left out two things. One you would need to store it in an underground bunker preferably under a mountain to contain the explosion in case of an accidental explosion or sabotage.

Then of course there is the Nuclear Non Proliferation Treaty to dial with. Of course I guess you could argue that the 2nd Amendment "trumps" the treaty. LOL. Yeah let me know how it goes after you made your 2nd billion and are building your "defensive" nuclear bomb. ​Perhaps you could test it out on the Berkeley campus. LOL. Have a Merry Christmas there robo. Thank you, thank you very much

[garyed]

The question is not as much defining the make up of the militia as it is whether the right to bear arms in itself is independent of being part of any militia. My interpretation of the amendment is that the militia was used as a strong argument for the right to bear arms but that it is not written as a requirement to bear arms.

[RoBoTeq]

Your very funny robo. For that to work you left out two things. One you would need to store it in an underground bunker preferably under a mountain to contain the explosion in case of an accidental explosion or sabotage.

Then of course there is the Nuclear Non Proliferation Treaty to dial with. Of course I guess you could argue that the 2nd Amendment "trumps" the treaty. LOL. Yeah let me know how it goes after you made your 2nd billion and are building your "defensive" nuclear bomb. ​Perhaps you could test it out on the Berkeley campus. LOL. Have a Merry Christmas there robo. Thank you, thank you very much

LOL! As much as I deplore wholes killing of masses, I kind of like your Berkley idea.... ho-ho-ho to you and yours as well.

[geerair]

[SIZE=3] A well regulated militia: Seems we are talking about a group of folks ORGANIZED into a fighting unit

Yes, sounds just like the National Guard.

being necessary to the security of a free state: Ahhh... it would appear the founders understood that govt, like any other humans, needed to have a force resisting unlimited power... to keep then in check.

In the context of those times it appears more likely they were referring to external threats.

The right of the people to keep and bear arms: The RIGHT of people to keep and bear arms... seems today we have folks literally SCREAMING they have a right to govt checks, healthcare, etc... looks to me like the founders decided firearms was/is a right also.

And like all rights.......not absolute

Shall not be infringed. STRONG language there... kinda like "What part of no do you not understand"

More like what part of well regulated do you not understand?

GA's comment: The second amendment, as most of the others, were written and are intended to be interpreted as the rule of law the citizens have the right to take to the govt and literally DEMAND the govt submit themselves to. Again, the founders understood the principles of unbridled power... and put in many a safeguard to give citizens the power to tell govt "NO you will not".

Might need to consider some checks on your paranoia.

As discussed in different threads... The founders knew what was a lethal weapon and what was not... yet they still chose to not put any limitations on what was acceptable and what was not.

False

Seems to me they were more interested in preserving freedom than arguing over gun types. Along this thinking... I see there is no restriction to owning a cannon... so again the founders were not interested in the tools... they were interested in preserving freedom from an oppressive govt.

Novel but hardly valid interpretation.

[jpsmith1cm]

More like what part of well regulated do you not understand?

I've been having a lot of fun, lately with those who do not understand the phrase "well regulated" in the context that it was written.

Finally, the adjective “well-regulated” implies nothing
more than the imposition of proper discipline and training.

This is taken from the District of Columbia vs Heller decision

http://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content.../06/07-290.pdf

Interesting reading if you're up to it.

[geerair]

I've been having a lot of fun, lately with those who do not understand the phrase "well regulated" in the context that it was written.



This is taken from the District of Columbia vs Heller decision

http://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content.../06/07-290.pdf

Interesting reading if you're up to it.

You are in fact correct that the majority opinion defines well regulated in the manner you stated. I retract my intepretation and apologize for my error.


That being said, the pertinent issue here that has been the major point of discussion is the regulation of firearms.

I quote from thr same case you cited. Justice Scalia: "Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through the 19th century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose."

Scalia continues "nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the psssession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laes forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buikdings or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of firearms."


So in fact we see that in the case, the majority opinion clearly states that regulation of firearms is permitted and passes constitutional muster.