Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
People talk about the 2nd amendment as if it was written by God.
We already have an amendment (18st) that was abolished by another amendment (21st)
Firstly, it's odd how you would use an amendment (18th) that added additional restrictions on rights that in the end, got overturned (21st) to restore those rights, as an example.
Secondly, while not "written by God", the point is that it is of the utmost priority that things like amendments to the constitution not be things that can be easily modified based on the whims of a generation. If this were not the case, then I'd be very afraid for the 1st given the proclivities of certain groups to dictate morality and moral speech these days (and no, I'm not talking about the religious right).
Because the right of people to "keep and bear arms" is self-evident, pre-existing, and unalienable.
The Second Amendment does not "grant a right," - a right is something that a person is born with.
The Second Amendment is to prohibit the government from encroaching the right.
LOL. What makes you think anyone is born with "rights"? You didn't answer CALGUY's question. You just listed a bunch of stuff you made up that didn't even come close to addressing what was being asked.
Can you give a clear and understandable answer to my question?
For decades the 2nd amendment has been argued over and over.
Right here on this forum I have asked before, that someone explain why the "people" have the right to bear arms.
I don't recall anyone answering that question.
It has always been my feeling that the mention of" a well regulated militia", followed by "the people's right to bear arms, has been misinterpreted, even by the courts.
If the people mentioned in the 2nd were the general public, then why was the word "militia" put into the amendment?"
I believe the framers of the constitution were issuing and order that people who make up a militia are the one's who's right to bear arm shall not be infringed.
Why would the framers want the general population armed?
So, please explain why the word "militia" was put into the amendment, if it wasn't the people who make up a militia who have the right to bear arms.
A "well regulated militia" would be a group of people well trained and regulated, should the need arise to have to use them once again to defend the country.
This certainly doesn't mean every Joe Blow from Alamo would be entitled to have a weapon.
I have also asked people here to give me their explanation of what the 2nd Amendment actually means, and no one ever bothers to give me a reply. So, here's my understanding with a bit of help from the Internet:
First of all, I believe that you and I are pretty much in agreement. The framers of the Second Amendment were not interested in giving individuals the right to own a hunting rifle or even a weapon for self defense. The debate was about the best way to limit the powers of state militias as well as prevent the standing army from seizing power away from the people and overthrowing the government.
The Constitution provided for a standing army and for the national government to arm and provide rules and regulations for state militias, which could be federalized when necessary. The Second Amendment allows for these state militias, which were "well regulated" under statutes passed by Congress, but the Amendment was clearly not designed to insure some sort of permanent revolutionary potential. Indeed, allowing for armed, unregulated citizens, who could threaten the public order and the national state, was unnecessary, unwise, and utterly in conflict with the "more perfect Union" the framers had created in Philadelphia. The "father of the Constitution," as Madison is often called, did not draft the Bill of Rights to undo his hard work at Philadelphia.
~SNIP~
Quote:
Thus, the Second Amendment protected the right of the states to maintain and arm their own militias, as long was they were "well regulated" and ultimately under federal control. The Amendment was not a suicide clause allowing revolutionaries to create private militias to overthrow the national government or even to impede the faithful execution of the law. The Amendment prevented Congress from abolishing the organized, well-regulated militias of the states.
The Second Amendment is not so much about the rights of individuals as it is about the rights of the states. It guaranteed that the militias would be armed to head off the fears of some Anti Federalists, who believed the Constitution was the prelude to a military takeover by a standing army led by the Senate and the president. So I guess there were conspiracy theories around right from the very beginning of our Country - although an image of the insurrection at the Capitol on Jan 6th keeps floating through my mind.
So, Congress lacked the power to disarm the "well regulated" state militias, but if Congress failed to provide arms for them, presumably the states could appropriate money for their own arms or even order militia members to provide their own weapons.
Let's change the wording just a bit and see what you think:
"A well run school system being necessary to the education of a free society, the right of the people to keep and read books shall not be infringed".
Does that sentence mean that only schools can have books?
Or that the people may only have books if they're actively participating in school?
Finally, an actual thought provoking post on this topic. Personally, I'm very pro-gun, own several firearms, and am a NRA lifetime member - but I've never understood how anyone could interpret the 2nd Amendment to mean that every citizen has the right to own firearms. After your post, I'm starting to see the 2nd Amendment differently. I'm not sure I'm convinced, but I have some thinking to do. It's almost as if the writer(s) of the 2nd Amendment are saying "Look, we all understand that some sort of government run military/militia/whatever is necessary, but that in no way precludes citizens from the right to own guns".
For decades the 2nd amendment has been argued over and over.
Right here on this forum I have asked before, that someone explain why the "people" have the right to bear arms.
I don't recall anyone answering that question.
It has always been my feeling that the mention of" a well regulated militia", followed by "the people's right to bear arms, has been misinterpreted, even by the courts.
If the people mentioned in the 2nd were the general public, then why was the word "militia" put into the amendment?"
I believe the framers of the constitution were issuing and order that people who make up a militia are the one's who's right to bear arm shall not be infringed.
Why would the framers want the general population armed?
So, please explain why the word "militia" was put into the amendment, if it wasn't the people who make up a militia who have the right to bear arms.
A "well regulated militia" would be a group of people well trained and regulated, should the need arise to have to use them once again to defend the country.
This certainly doesn't mean every Joe Blow from Alamo would be entitled to have a weapon.
You may have asked the question over and over, but you haven't put any effort into finding the answer for yourself.
Everyone should ignore you. Force you to find the very well documented reasoning behind that, which is all over the internet.
Sick of people demanding to be spoon-fed information they could VERY EASILY find for themselves.
Lawyers can take any law and attempt to give it a new interpretation. that's what lawyers do and the law demands... just like Science, it demands challenge to exist.
Legal precedent is a powerful legal tool and in the case of the 2nd A, citizens are permitted to own firearms.
Now especially, we see that citizens are left unprotected by local, state and federal governments.
Common sense demands some level of adequate self protection and it isn't coming from any level of government. Common sense trumps the law in existential situations.
Gun sales are enjoyed unprecedented sales and for a reason. Ammo is mostly unavailable. Don't need a poll to indicate how the population in general feels about private gun ownership.
Even democrats will defend the 2nd A!
Problem is idiot lawmakers tolerating the death of innocents to achieve a futuristic theoretical academic goal of no guns equals no gun deaths. Thus we get onerous gun laws which the people doing most of the shooting ignore.
HINT: Claims of a stolen election unsupported by FACT mean nothing.
Uh....let me think. Suppression of free speech comes to mind. Kind of important. It's in the Bill of Rights, something lefties see to be unaware of. Also, government supported racism and sexism against whites and men. Also, the ever pesky 10th Amendment, which runs counter to everything Dems believe. Is that SPECIFIC enough for you?
This has been beaten to death, but taking your unwillingness to accept the obvious into account:
1) The people ARE the militia.
...
No.
The state organizes the militia. Not everyone in a state is in the militia, and they can not be a self selected bunch. They are controlled by the state, recruited and trained by the state.
This is the constitutional foundation for State Police and also State Guards (where they exist). States can delegate this authority to municipalities.
If your state does not recognize you as part of the militia, you are not militia.
The state organizes the militia. Not everyone in a state is in the militia, and they can not be a self selected bunch. They are controlled by the state, recruited and trained by the state.
This is the constitutional foundation for State Police and also State Guards (where they exist). States can delegate this authority to municipalities.
If your state does not recognize you as part of the militia, you are not militia.
That is incorrect, EVERYONE over the age of 18 is technically part of the militia today.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
