Second Amendment

[imagineNoReligion]

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.

Does this mean that there is no right to bear arms unless you are in a well regulated militia?

Which would mean that a citizens claim that he has the right to bear arms is unconstitutional, unless he is part of a regulated militia.

 

[Anathema]

The 2nd Amendment crowd work around that semantic question by organizing clubs, calling them militias, and "regulating" themselves. Either way, they call it a win.

 

[shanek]

You're falling into the trap Alexander Hamilton warned us about in Federalist #84. The Bill of Rights does NOT grant ANY powers to the government. They are "further declaratory and restrictive clauses."

The operative question is, is there anything in Article I Section 8 that gives the government the power to restrict firearms ownership? I don't see anything...

 

[Sushi]

Does this mean that there is no right to bear arms unless you are in a well regulated militia?

This is a lie I was told by a teacher in elementary school, one I've never forgotten.

One founding father's thoughts:

"Congress shall never disarm any citizen unless such as are or have been in actual rebellion."

"A people armed and free forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition and is a bulwark for the nation against foreign invasion and domestic oppression."

"Americans need never fear their government because of the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation."

- James Madison

(I didn't bring up what shane said because, well, he already said it)

 

[Elind]

Does this mean that there is no right to bear arms unless you are in a well regulated militia?

Which would mean that a citizens claim that he has the right to bear arms is unconstitutional, unless he is part of a regulated militia.

Oh God, not again.

 

[Kopji]

An interesting twist on this one is to argue that it would be perfectly acceptable to bear nuclear weapons as (personal) arms.

(just trying to help)

 

[Charlie Monoxide]

I think in keeping with the aims of the Founding Fathers, we should only be allowed to bear weapons that were available at the time the amendment was written.

Charlie (got me blunderbuss) Monoxide

 

[Sushi]

I think in keeping with the aims of the Founding Fathers, we should only be allowed to bear weapons that were available at the time the amendment was written.

Charlie (got me blunderbuss) Monoxide

Did you even read what shane posted?

 

[Art Vandelay]

[pquote]Does this mean that there is no right to bear arms unless you are in a well regulated militia?
[/quote]
I don't see how. Perhaps you can explain?

Which would mean that a citizens claim that he has the right to bear arms is unconstitutional,

Do you mean "the claim is not derived from the Constitution" (which would actually be consistent with what Shane said) or "the Constitution prohibits one from making the claim"?

I think in keeping with the aims of the Founding Fathers, we should only be allowed to bear weapons that were available at the time the amendment was written.

Charlie (got me blunderbuss) Monoxide

In that case, the First Amendment doesn't apply to the internet, does it? And the Fourteenth Amendment doesn't apply to Hawaii, now does the Third Amendment apply to apartment buildings, nor the Fourth Amendment to cars.

 

[Richard G]

The people have the right to bear arms for their defense and security. Ohio Constitution, Article I, Section 4

This is crystal clear, and Congress has no power to overrule this.

 

[Charlie Monoxide]

Did you even read what shane posted?

Yes I did....

Charlie (three times!) Monoxide

 

[Nikk]

Does this mean that there is no right to bear arms unless you are in a well regulated militia?

Which would mean that a citizens claim that he has the right to bear arms is unconstitutional, unless he is part of a regulated militia.

What this means is that the amendment was drafted by a bunch of politicians who could not reach agreement about militias and the right to bear arms. Accordingly as it was impossible to produce a lucid amendment or series of amendments they agreed on a messy compromise wording which USAians have argued about ever since.

An alternative possibility is that the amendment was produced after the consumption of too many bottles of port and the original meaning, if any, was lost by the time the "founding fathers" reached the coffee and wafer thin mints.

Hell, it's a better theory than anything else I've seen.

 

[Patrick]

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 part is just citing a contemporary example of the use of arms - the last part gives an unequivocal right to own those weapons which may reasonably related to self defense.

 

[CBL4]

Originally posted by Kopji
An interesting twist on this one is to argue that it would be perfectly acceptable to bear nuclear weapons as (personal) arms.

Exactly right. Since the purpose of the arms was to defend ourselves from our own potentially tyrannical government, the intent was clearly to allow the citizens to have the same arms as the government. It is absurd to think that we could defend ourselves with automatic pistols and assault rifles against a government equipped with jets, cluster bombs and nuclear weapons.

The Afghanis used stinger missiles against the tyrannical Soviets to great effect. I see no reason why I should not enjoy the same right. The fact that I live about 5 miles from a major airport is irrelevant. I need my stingers in case Bush continues to deprive me of my civil rights.

Personally, I think a nuclear weapon is a little too expensive for the average household but if we mass produced stingers, they would not be much more expensive that an luxury car.

CBL

 

[Patrick]

Exactly right.

Exactly nuts. Read this slowly einstein:

The second amendment grants the people the right to effective self defense with appropriate arms - a militia with muskets in the eighteenth century, or for example a pistol for a woman who walks alone in dangerous areas at night. This nuke nonsense is fluff conjured by anti-gun nuts who are more frightened of real debate than they are of guns.

 

[Sushi]

Exactly right.

Exactly nuts. Read this slowly einstein:

The second amendment grants the people the right to effective self defense with appropriate arms - a militia with muskets in the eighteenth century, or for example a pistol for a woman who walks alone in dangerous areas at night. This nuke nonsense is fluff conjured by anti-gun nuts who are more frightened of real debate than they are of guns.

Read what shane wrote.

 

[Cain]

I saw one of my favorite comedians Greg Giraldo riffing on the crazy Second Amendment people and how they oppose laws limiting firearm purchases to one a month.

Paraphrasing from memory:
"I mean, one a month, that's over a thousand in your lifetime. Surely that's enough to compensate for the tiniest penis. [laughter] No, but seriously they say, [southern accent?] 'What about Christmas'? [laughter]"

All the self-defense crap is just such a bogus lie. The most strident defenders of this nonsense oppose practically all restrictions on firearm ownership -- "...shall not be infringed" is the part they like to cite.

I think people have a legitimate interest when it comes to regulating dangerous possessions of their neighbors. Then again, I come from the reality-based community, a foreign universe to many of you. But hey, maybe a few of you really do live on the set of Tremors

 

[Luke T.]

I saw one of my favorite comedians Greg Giraldo riffing on the crazy Second Amendment people and how they oppose laws limiting firearm purchases to one a month.

Paraphrasing from memory:
"I mean, one a month, that's over a thousand in your lifetime. Surely that's enough to compensate for the tiniest penis. [laughter] No, but seriously they say, [southern accent?] 'What about Christmas'? [laughter]"

I saw that comedian. He said one gun a month from 18 to 60, you'd have a thousand guns. Which shows he can't do math.


Anyway, suppose we limit abortions to one a month?

Or your right to criticize Bush to once a month?

 

[Patrick]

All the self-defense crap is just such a bogus lie.

You're a dolt - guns are used in self defense millions of times a year. See for example http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcdguse.html
Scram and come back after you get maybe just a few of the relevent facts into your skull.

 

[UserGoogol]

You have the right to keep and bear arms, not the right the right to freely trade arms. As long as you can still have them, the 2nd amendment rights are not being touched. Thusly, gun laws which restrict gun sales are totally constitutional. (Although of course you need there to be interstate or international commerce for the federal government to get involved.)