2nd Amendment?

[Jiggs 0]

Hey all,

I don't really read this forum but one thing that I see keeps poping up is post like "they can't infringe on my 2nd amendment rights", blah blah, blah. I am not a US citizen and I live in a country where the use and ownership is much more strictly controlled.

Anyway I looked a copy of the constitution on the internet and it reads:
"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. "

So does that mean that you have to be in a regulated militia to own a gun? Or does that mean you are free to have a gun provided that there are many laws covering the ownership of guns?

I think its funny that when quoted the first bit is left out, so how is this a basis for people to get snappy about what sort of guns they can and can't have? Does not well regulated mean the laws that are passed about the control and use of guns?

- So all this is based of an add in 213 years ago? Now thats funny!

"Don't blame malice for what stupidity can explain."

"In our sleep, pain that cannot forget falls drop by drop upon the heart and in our despair, against our will comes wisdom" - Aeschylus

[peacefuljeffrey 0]

I consider this thread to be troll bait.

-

-Jeffrey
"With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

[juanesky 0]

Or lack of knowledge. He think it is funny the constitution is 213 yo....how about the bible? That should be a riot for him

"According to some of the conservatives here, it sounds like it's fine to beat your wide - as long as she had it coming." -Billvon

[RoadRash 0]

Quote

Now thats funny!

No it's not......


~R+R

~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~
Fly the friendly skies...^_^...})ii({...^_~...

[Jiggs 0]

Aren't US laws supposed to be a codification of the constitution - ie based in principle? Is that not correct?

"Don't blame malice for what stupidity can explain."

"In our sleep, pain that cannot forget falls drop by drop upon the heart and in our despair, against our will comes wisdom" - Aeschylus

[BartsDaddy 4]

Climb back in your hole troll

Handguns are only used to fight your way to a good rifle

[Nightingale 0]

The supreme court has interpreted the second amendment to refer to the right of the individual to own firearms. "As the U.S. Supreme Court said in Cruikshank v. U.S. (1876), the right to arms "is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed." Similarly, in U.S. v. Verdugo-Urquidez (1990), the court observed, "The Second Amendment protects `the right of the people to keep and bear Arms.`""

[peacefuljeffrey 0]

Don't feed the troll.

This is one gun thread that should die where it stands. He is not asking these questions in good faith.

[Nightingale 0]

I always try to give folks the benefit of the doubt. I've been asked the same question by my friends who aren't from here.

[Jiggs 0]

Nope its the language use that tripped me - nightingale explained via pm what it means. The statements just does not run that well, the way it phrased I read it differently. Call it poor syntax

"Don't blame malice for what stupidity can explain."

"In our sleep, pain that cannot forget falls drop by drop upon the heart and in our despair, against our will comes wisdom" - Aeschylus

[peacefuljeffrey 0]

Quote

Nope its the language use that tripped me - nightingale explained via pm what it means. The statements just does not run that well, the way it phrased I read it differently. Call it poor syntax

True. The fact that it is poorly constructed from a modern interpretive standpoint has lent itself to much debate and controversy.

When parsed grammatically/linguistically/whatever you call it, there is clearly a dependent and an an independent clause in the sentence. The part about "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" stands alone, or could stand alone, if there were nothing else in the sentence. The part "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state," simply underscores a reason why the right shall not be infringed (it is a reason, but nothing therein implies it must be the only reason) -- a reason why it is important.

Anti-gun people choose disingenuously to insist that the "preamble" to the main text predicates the right to keep and bear arms on service or membership in a militia, but if you honestly look at the text, there is nothing making keeping and bearing arms dependent on a militia. The need for a militia is offered as a reason why it's good and necessary to keep the right to keep and bear arms free of infringement.

At the time, "well-regulated" meant "properly functioning," not "under government auspices" as in "federal regulation."
-

-Jeffrey
"With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

[TheAnvil 0]

Dudes, chill on the fellow.

Jiggs - I believe it was in one of the Federalist papers or some other writings of the era that some contributor to the Constitution stated 'Who is the militia? I am he!' Every citizen capable of bearing arms at the time was considered part of the militia - or at least a damned tenable argument can be made to that effect - hence the wording of the second ammendment. Nightingale might have more info on that...I think it was James Madison, but am not sure...

Vinny the Anvil
Post Traumatic Didn't Make The Lakers Syndrome is REAL
JACKASS POWER!!!!!!

[Eiley 0]

Quote

Or lack of knowledge. He think it is funny the constitution is 213 yo....how about the bible? That should be a riot for him

Well, yeah, it is kind of funny, especially when you discuss aforementioned fairy tale with people who actually think it's non-fiction (yup, they're out there!)

Yes, I'll admit, this is a somewhat troll-like post....

nothing to see here

[kallend 1,651]

It means only what the Supreme Court's most recent decision on the subject says it means. The Supreme Court has let stand a number of laws that regulate gun ownership in some way, such as the Morton Grove, Illinois, ban on handguns.

Also, and curiously in the light of the wording of the 2nd amendment, really useful militia weapons such as machine guns and mortars and RPGs, are banned.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[Nightingale 0]

I gave him the most recent court interpretation, along with a few past decisions/explanations of the decisions.

[kallend 1,651]

Quote

I gave him the most recent court interpretation, along with a few past decisions/explanations of the decisions.

But you didn't mention cases adjucated in lower courts that the Supreme's have let stand and which, therefore, are the current interpretation of the law.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[Nightingale 0]

LOL!

I didn't have time to research all that. He wanted a basic explanation and he got it. If I'd included all that, I'd be writing a dissertation!

If you want to go find all that stuff, go for it, but, since lower court decisions can vary state by state, you'd definitely have your work cut out for you.

[Jib 0]

Quote

as machine guns... are banned.

If you're referring to fully automatic weapons, you can get permits to own them.

--------------------------------------------------
the depth of his depravity sickens me.
-- Jerry Falwell, People v. Larry Flynt

[TomAiello 25]

Quote

I think its funny that when quoted the first bit is left out, so how is this a basis for people to get snappy about what sort of guns they can and can't have? Does not well regulated mean the laws that are passed about the control and use of guns?

A quick Google search finds this bit of explanation, which jives pretty well with my understanding of the legal history:

Quote

Back in the 18th century, a "regular" army meant an army that had standard military equipment. So a "well regulated" army was simply one that was "well equipped." It does NOT refer to a professional army. The 17th century folks used the term "STANDING Army" to describe a professional army. THEREFORE, "a well regulated militia" only means a well equipped militia. It does not imply the modern meaning of "regulated," which means controlled or administered by some superior entity.

Some general quotes from the drafters of the constitution, and other political thinkers of that era, on the definition of "militia", and related concepts.

Quote

George Mason: "I ask you sir, who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people." (Elliott, Debates, 425-426)

Richard Henry Lee: "A militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves...and include all men capable of bearing arms." (Additional letters from the Federal Farmer, at 169, 1788)

James Madison: "A WELL REGULATED militia, composed of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country." (1st Annals of Congress, at 434, June 8th 1789, emphasis added.

Alexander Hamilton: "...that standing army can never be formidable (threatening) to the liberties of the people, while there is a large body of citizens, little if at all inferior to them in the use of arms." (Federalist Paper #29)

-- Tom Aiello

[email protected]
SnakeRiverBASE.com

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

Nope its the language use that tripped me - nightingale explained via pm what it means. The statements just does not run that well, the way it phrased I read it differently. Call it poor syntax

You are making the mistake of using your modern understanding of language to interpret the statement, rather than the understanding that was in use at the time it was written.

Do some internet research, and you'll find plenty of stuff that explains this.

[kallend 1,651]

Quote

Quote

as machine guns... are banned.

If you're referring to fully automatic weapons, you can get permits to own them.

If you need a government permit to exercise a right, is it in fact a right?

After all, I don't need a government permit to say "Nixon was a crook, Clinton is a scoundrel, Kerry is a creep and Bush is a liar".

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[billvon 2,436]

>So does that mean that you have to be in a regulated militia to own
> a gun? Or does that mean you are free to have a gun provided that
> there are many laws covering the ownership of guns?

That has been the subject of much debate. It is generally construed to mean that private ownership of arms is protected under the constitution.

>Does not well regulated mean the laws that are passed about the
>control and use of guns?

Also the subject of much debate.

>So all this is based of an add in 213 years ago? Now thats funny!

Personally, I kind of like it that some basic rights don't change (or at least are hard to change.)

[PhillyKev 0]

Quote

After all, I don't need a government permit to say "Nixon was a crook, Clinton is a scoundrel, Kerry is a creep and Bush is a liar".

But you do if you want to do it in front of a large gathering of people in a public place.

[peacefuljeffrey 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

as machine guns... are banned.

If you're referring to fully automatic weapons, you can get permits to own them.

If you need a government permit to exercise a right, is it in fact a right?

After all, I don't need a government permit to say "Nixon was a crook, Clinton is a scoundrel, Kerry is a creep and Bush is a liar".

If you and your buddies wish to stand on a corner in the town square, or in New York City or somewhere, you sure as hell will need a permit to exercise those two precious first-amendment rights of speech and association. You've never heard of groups having to secure a permit for a particular public place and time in order to hold a demonstration??

-

-Jeffrey
"With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

[Kennedy 0]

Quote

But you didn't mention cases adjucated in lower courts that the Supreme's have let stand and which, therefore, are the current interpretation of the law.

The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals says the 2nd amendment applies only to states, as a collective right.

The 5th Circuit Court of Appeals says the 2nd Amendment applies to citizens, and an individual right. Reading past Supreme Court cases and founding documents, the 5th Circuit is right. The most recent case mentioning the 2nd Amendment is U.S. v. Verdugo-Urquidez (1990).

Quote

The Supreme Court observed in U.S. v. Verdugo-Urquidez (1990) "`the people` seems to have been a term of art employed in select parts of the Constitution. The Preamble declares that the Constitution is ordained and established by `the People of the United States.` The Second Amendment protects `the right of the people to keep and bear Arms,` and the Ninth and Tenth Amendments provide that certain rights and powers are retained by and reserved to `the people.`"

And if you only want to look at Miller, then you have to think every weapon appropriate to a fighting force is covered. Simply, Miller is a poorly reasoned and poorly written decision.

Thankfully, there are 30 or so other cases relating to the 2nd Amendment which we can look to for clarification.

Also, if you want to know why Morton Grove's ban was left standing, read the article HERE. It still exists because of one greedy, glory seeking lawyer who was too stupid to know the only name ha'd make for himself would be one cursed by gun owners. Thank the activist judge on the district court and the SOB Judge Bauer from the Seventh Circuit.

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*