36-40, M
Top | Newest First | Oldest First
Budwick · 70-79, M
The right of citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered as a safeguard of the liberties of a republic, since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers and will generally, enable the people to resist and triumph over them.
So there is clearly intended more than simple defense of your home, though it does include defense of yourself.
It's for personal defense and it's for citizens defending the republic, the freedom of the republic against oppression, including political oppression.
So there is clearly intended more than simple defense of your home, though it does include defense of yourself.
It's for personal defense and it's for citizens defending the republic, the freedom of the republic against oppression, including political oppression.
View 32 more replies »
SW-User
@Budwick cant say to be honest
but i also dont know they believed in idea of a fully weaponized citizenry that was not part of a well regulated militia
but i also dont know they believed in idea of a fully weaponized citizenry that was not part of a well regulated militia
Budwick · 70-79, M
@SW-User @SW-User [quote]but i also dont know they believed in idea of a fully weaponized citizenry that was not part of a well regulated militia
[/quote]
I don;t think they would have said that - not in the way you are intending anyway.
You know there's a really great resource people should go and read called The Founders' Constitution. Just Google that. It's a University of Chicago Press publication, and it's online for free. And it's one of the great scholarly apparatus for understanding the Constitution.
[/quote]
I don;t think they would have said that - not in the way you are intending anyway.
You know there's a really great resource people should go and read called The Founders' Constitution. Just Google that. It's a University of Chicago Press publication, and it's online for free. And it's one of the great scholarly apparatus for understanding the Constitution.
Graylight · 51-55, F
There's an argument that any able-bodied person was considered to be a part of a militia. There's also the argument that Washington called for a militia only until a standing military could be established.
Doesn't really matter. The Constitution is a framework, a document open to interpretation by design. France updates its constitution every two years. England doesn't even have one. The US Constitution is not the direct infallible word of God.
Doesn't really matter. The Constitution is a framework, a document open to interpretation by design. France updates its constitution every two years. England doesn't even have one. The US Constitution is not the direct infallible word of God.
SW-User
According to how the amendment reads, these arms could legally be stored in Armories ( funny how the country is full of National Guard Armories, most of them converted to other uses), and dispensed as needed for Militia training, or for use in military action.
The government does not need to "confiscate" army style rifles, it just needs to start regulating the militia.
I believe that the people meant white males, and possibly even property owning white males, at the time the amendment was written.
A similar system exists in Switzerland. Are Americans willing to accept some discipline in order to maintain their freedom?
The government does not need to "confiscate" army style rifles, it just needs to start regulating the militia.
I believe that the people meant white males, and possibly even property owning white males, at the time the amendment was written.
A similar system exists in Switzerland. Are Americans willing to accept some discipline in order to maintain their freedom?
EugenieLaBorgia · F
Bears like fish!
EugenieLaBorgia · F
SW-User
@EugenieLaBorgia well if they learn enough they will learn to keep awayfrom bears with arms
EugenieLaBorgia · F
This comment is hidden.
Show Comment
[quote]Second Amendment
Right to Bear Arms
Passed by Congress September 25, 1789. Ratified December 15, 1791.
[b]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.[/b][/quote]
Right to Bear Arms
Passed by Congress September 25, 1789. Ratified December 15, 1791.
[b]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.[/b][/quote]
@Pinkstarburst And if you are so inclined to read...
[quote]by Nelson Lund
University Professor at George Mason University University Antonin Scalia School of Law
by Adam Winkler
Professor of Law at University of California Los Angeles Law School
Modern debates about the Second Amendment have focused on whether it protects a private right of individuals to keep and bear arms, or a right that can be exercised only through militia organizations like the National Guard. This question, however, was not even raised until long after the Bill of Rights was adopted.
Many in the Founding generation believed that governments are prone to use soldiers to oppress the people. English history suggested that this risk could be controlled by permitting the government to raise armies (consisting of full-time paid troops) only when needed to fight foreign adversaries. For other purposes, such as responding to sudden invasions or other emergencies, the government could rely on a militia that consisted of ordinary civilians who supplied their own weapons and received some part-time, unpaid military training.
The onset of war does not always allow time to raise and train an army, and the Revolutionary War showed that militia forces could not be relied on for national defense. The Constitutional Convention therefore decided that the federal government should have almost unfettered authority to establish peacetime standing armies and to regulate the militia.
This massive shift of power from the states to the federal government generated one of the chief objections to the proposed Constitution. Anti-Federalists argued that the proposed Constitution would take from the states their principal means of defense against federal usurpation. The Federalists responded that fears of federal oppression were overblown, in part because the American people were armed and would be almost impossible to subdue through military force.
Implicit in the debate between Federalists and Anti-Federalists were two shared assumptions. First, that the proposed new Constitution gave the federal government almost total legal authority over the army and militia. Second, that the federal government should not have any authority at all to disarm the citizenry. They disagreed only about whether an armed populace could adequately deter federal oppression.
The Second Amendment conceded nothing to the Anti-Federalists’ desire to sharply curtail the military power of the federal government, which would have required substantial changes in the original Constitution. Yet the Amendment was easily accepted because of widespread agreement that the federal government should not have the power to infringe the right of the people to keep and bear arms, any more than it should have the power to abridge the freedom of speech or prohibit the free exercise of religion.
Much has changed since 1791. The traditional militia fell into desuetude, and state-based militia organizations were eventually incorporated into the federal military structure. The nation’s military establishment has become enormously more powerful than eighteenth century armies. We still hear political rhetoric about federal tyranny, but most Americans do not fear the nation’s armed forces and virtually no one thinks that an armed populace could defeat those forces in battle. Furthermore, eighteenth century civilians routinely kept at home the very same weapons they would need if called to serve in the militia, while modern soldiers are equipped with weapons that differ significantly from those generally thought appropriate for civilian uses. Civilians no longer expect to use their household weapons for militia duty, although they still keep and bear arms to defend against common criminals (as well as for hunting and other forms of recreation).
The law has also changed. While states in the Founding era regulated guns—blacks were often prohibited from possessing firearms and militia weapons were frequently registered on government rolls—gun laws today are more extensive and controversial. Another important legal development was the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment. The Second Amendment originally applied only to the federal government, leaving the states to regulate weapons as they saw fit. Although there is substantial evidence that the Privileges or Immunities Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment was meant to protect the right of individuals to keep and bear arms from infringement by the states, the Supreme Court rejected this interpretation in United States v. Cruikshank (1876).
Until recently, the judiciary treated the Second Amendment almost as a dead letter. In District of Columbia v. Heller (2008), however, the Supreme Court invalidated a federal law that forbade nearly all civilians from possessing handguns in the nation’s capital. A 5–4 majority ruled that the language and history of the Second Amendment showed that it protects a private right of individuals to have arms for their own defense, not a right of the states to maintain a militia.
The dissenters disagreed. They concluded that the Second Amendment protects a nominally individual right, though one that protects only “the right of the people of each of the several States to maintain a well-regulated militia.” They also argued that even if the Second Amendment did protect an individual right to have arms for self-defense, it should be interpreted to allow the government to ban handguns in high-crime urban areas.
Two years later, in McDonald v. City of Chicago (2010), the Court struck down a similar handgun ban at the state level, again by a 5–4 vote. Four Justices relied on judicial precedents under the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause. Justice Thomas rejected those precedents in favor of reliance on the Privileges or Immunities Clause, but all five members of the majority concluded that the Fourteenth Amendment protects against state infringement of the same individual right that is protected from federal infringement by the Second Amendment.
Notwithstanding the lengthy opinions in Heller and McDonald, they technically ruled only that government may not ban the possession of handguns by civilians in their homes. Heller tentatively suggested a list of “presumptively lawful” regulations, including bans on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, bans on carrying firearms in “sensitive places” such as schools and government buildings, laws restricting the commercial sale of arms, bans on the concealed carry of firearms, and bans on weapons “not typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes.” Many issues remain open, and the lower courts have disagreed with one another about some of them, including important questions involving restrictions on carrying weapons in public.
https://constitutioncenter.org/interactive-constitution/interpretation/amendment-ii/interps/99[/quote]
[quote]by Nelson Lund
University Professor at George Mason University University Antonin Scalia School of Law
by Adam Winkler
Professor of Law at University of California Los Angeles Law School
Modern debates about the Second Amendment have focused on whether it protects a private right of individuals to keep and bear arms, or a right that can be exercised only through militia organizations like the National Guard. This question, however, was not even raised until long after the Bill of Rights was adopted.
Many in the Founding generation believed that governments are prone to use soldiers to oppress the people. English history suggested that this risk could be controlled by permitting the government to raise armies (consisting of full-time paid troops) only when needed to fight foreign adversaries. For other purposes, such as responding to sudden invasions or other emergencies, the government could rely on a militia that consisted of ordinary civilians who supplied their own weapons and received some part-time, unpaid military training.
The onset of war does not always allow time to raise and train an army, and the Revolutionary War showed that militia forces could not be relied on for national defense. The Constitutional Convention therefore decided that the federal government should have almost unfettered authority to establish peacetime standing armies and to regulate the militia.
This massive shift of power from the states to the federal government generated one of the chief objections to the proposed Constitution. Anti-Federalists argued that the proposed Constitution would take from the states their principal means of defense against federal usurpation. The Federalists responded that fears of federal oppression were overblown, in part because the American people were armed and would be almost impossible to subdue through military force.
Implicit in the debate between Federalists and Anti-Federalists were two shared assumptions. First, that the proposed new Constitution gave the federal government almost total legal authority over the army and militia. Second, that the federal government should not have any authority at all to disarm the citizenry. They disagreed only about whether an armed populace could adequately deter federal oppression.
The Second Amendment conceded nothing to the Anti-Federalists’ desire to sharply curtail the military power of the federal government, which would have required substantial changes in the original Constitution. Yet the Amendment was easily accepted because of widespread agreement that the federal government should not have the power to infringe the right of the people to keep and bear arms, any more than it should have the power to abridge the freedom of speech or prohibit the free exercise of religion.
Much has changed since 1791. The traditional militia fell into desuetude, and state-based militia organizations were eventually incorporated into the federal military structure. The nation’s military establishment has become enormously more powerful than eighteenth century armies. We still hear political rhetoric about federal tyranny, but most Americans do not fear the nation’s armed forces and virtually no one thinks that an armed populace could defeat those forces in battle. Furthermore, eighteenth century civilians routinely kept at home the very same weapons they would need if called to serve in the militia, while modern soldiers are equipped with weapons that differ significantly from those generally thought appropriate for civilian uses. Civilians no longer expect to use their household weapons for militia duty, although they still keep and bear arms to defend against common criminals (as well as for hunting and other forms of recreation).
The law has also changed. While states in the Founding era regulated guns—blacks were often prohibited from possessing firearms and militia weapons were frequently registered on government rolls—gun laws today are more extensive and controversial. Another important legal development was the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment. The Second Amendment originally applied only to the federal government, leaving the states to regulate weapons as they saw fit. Although there is substantial evidence that the Privileges or Immunities Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment was meant to protect the right of individuals to keep and bear arms from infringement by the states, the Supreme Court rejected this interpretation in United States v. Cruikshank (1876).
Until recently, the judiciary treated the Second Amendment almost as a dead letter. In District of Columbia v. Heller (2008), however, the Supreme Court invalidated a federal law that forbade nearly all civilians from possessing handguns in the nation’s capital. A 5–4 majority ruled that the language and history of the Second Amendment showed that it protects a private right of individuals to have arms for their own defense, not a right of the states to maintain a militia.
The dissenters disagreed. They concluded that the Second Amendment protects a nominally individual right, though one that protects only “the right of the people of each of the several States to maintain a well-regulated militia.” They also argued that even if the Second Amendment did protect an individual right to have arms for self-defense, it should be interpreted to allow the government to ban handguns in high-crime urban areas.
Two years later, in McDonald v. City of Chicago (2010), the Court struck down a similar handgun ban at the state level, again by a 5–4 vote. Four Justices relied on judicial precedents under the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause. Justice Thomas rejected those precedents in favor of reliance on the Privileges or Immunities Clause, but all five members of the majority concluded that the Fourteenth Amendment protects against state infringement of the same individual right that is protected from federal infringement by the Second Amendment.
Notwithstanding the lengthy opinions in Heller and McDonald, they technically ruled only that government may not ban the possession of handguns by civilians in their homes. Heller tentatively suggested a list of “presumptively lawful” regulations, including bans on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, bans on carrying firearms in “sensitive places” such as schools and government buildings, laws restricting the commercial sale of arms, bans on the concealed carry of firearms, and bans on weapons “not typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes.” Many issues remain open, and the lower courts have disagreed with one another about some of them, including important questions involving restrictions on carrying weapons in public.
https://constitutioncenter.org/interactive-constitution/interpretation/amendment-ii/interps/99[/quote]
I think it's fair to say that you can disregard the militia clause entirely 4 at least next 30 years or so.
This comment is hidden.
Show Comment
@BobsGotBalls Scalia is dead but probably more influential then he was when he was alive.
I think [i] Heller[/i] was a terrible decision on that point, but I doubt it's going to be over ruled.
Best shot for sanity seems to me to be rulings saying it doesn't prime state interests in safety, etc.
Eventually, I think Heller will be irrelevant, but I'm not thinking anytime soon.
I think [i] Heller[/i] was a terrible decision on that point, but I doubt it's going to be over ruled.
Best shot for sanity seems to me to be rulings saying it doesn't prime state interests in safety, etc.
Eventually, I think Heller will be irrelevant, but I'm not thinking anytime soon.
Budwick · 70-79, M
@BobsGotBalls [quote]Kavanaugh could possibly be impeached. [/quote]
You might be zeroing in on the very reason for citizens rights to bear arms.
You might be zeroing in on the very reason for citizens rights to bear arms.
SW-User
It sure does, right there in the 2nd amendment. Why does NRA always forget that?
SW-User
@JT123 I dont think mentioned the entire thing is misreading it.
and do you support any limitation? just curious.
and do you support any limitation? just curious.
FreeSpirit1 · 51-55, F
It extends to the people
SW-User
@FreeSpirit1 to you, but not perhaps to everyone, please elaborate
FreeSpirit1 · 51-55, F
@SW-User Citizens of the United States
SW-User
@FreeSpirit1 that's what it has to mean. Every citizen is part of the militia.
MethDozer · M
It clearly states the right extends to the people. It says the right of the people, not the right of the militia. The purpose of the people's right is to secure the ability to form well regulated militias.
It couldn't be written any more clearly.
It couldn't be written any more clearly.
MethDozer · M
@SW-User If you really want my ideas on limitations..... In short I think Canada gets the balance about right.
SW-User
@MethDozer ill look it up thnks
Pherick · 41-45, M
@MethDozer I agree 100% with that. I am not in the Beto camp of taking away people guns. Do I think it could hurt to have non-mandatory buybacks? Nope, I don't have problems with people using non-military style weapons. Hunting, target shooting, defense, all very valid reasons for guns.
The AR-15 gets all the press, mostly because it is the consumer model of a military weapon. Therefore, in terms of accessories, it doesn't take much to turn these guns into scary-looking human killing machines. Which in war is what you want, what I want to see from the guy in Walmart, not so much.
I want some common-sense gun control, as has been mentioned many time, we license people to drive cars and require insurance, why aren't we doing the same with guns?
The AR-15 gets all the press, mostly because it is the consumer model of a military weapon. Therefore, in terms of accessories, it doesn't take much to turn these guns into scary-looking human killing machines. Which in war is what you want, what I want to see from the guy in Walmart, not so much.
I want some common-sense gun control, as has been mentioned many time, we license people to drive cars and require insurance, why aren't we doing the same with guns?