Topic: Second amendment ftw or gtfo? (Read 3719 times)

Wrong.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller

Decision
 
The Supreme Court held:[43]
 (1) The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2–53.

(a) The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms. Pp. 2–22.

(b) The prefatory clause comports with the Court’s interpretation of the operative clause. The “militia” comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. The Antifederalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to disable this citizens’ militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, so that the ideal of a citizens’ militia would be preserved. Pp. 22–28.

(c) The Court’s interpretation is confirmed by analogous arms-bearing rights in state constitutions that preceded and immediately followed the Second Amendment. Pp. 28–30.

(d) The Second Amendment’s drafting history, while of dubious interpretive worth, reveals three state Second Amendment proposals that unequivocally referred to an individual right to bear arms. Pp. 30–32.

(e) Interpretation of the Second Amendment by scholars, courts and legislators, from immediately after its ratification through the late 19th century also supports the Court’s conclusion. Pp. 32–47.

(f) None of the Court’s precedents forecloses the Court’s interpretation. Neither United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542 , nor Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 252 , refutes the individual-rights interpretation. United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174 , does not limit the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes, but rather limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by the militia, i.e., those in common use for lawful purposes. Pp. 47–54.

THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED

Sorry, the supreme court has recently ruled that the 2nd amendment applies to personal self defense.

Actually, the 2nd amendment only allows the police to have guns. If I may:

"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."

In other words, the right of the people's police force to have weapons. Not only that, it allows ANY weapons. So really we should be getting rid of this amendment, or we could wind up getting shot for not calling a police officer "Master".

When naughty little Americans do bad things with their guns, Mommy and Daddy have to teach them a lesson by taking their privileges away.

And if you ask why, they will respond, "BECAUSE WE SAID SO!"

While I kind of like the idea of all laws sunsetting. The problem I see is that it doesn't just make it more expensive for corporations; It makes it more expensive for EVERYONE.  This means that the corporations will still be the ones most-able to throw money at lobbyists.

I understand that.  But any reapsonable "militia" will be able to take out a tank or take down a plane.  Otherwise its not a "militia" its a set of "target dummies."

If the US second amendment has meaning, it must mean you are entitled to ant-tank and anti-aircraft weapons.

If it doesn't have meaning, why use it to justify something as militarily useless as handguns ? Surely the case for lawful access to firearms can be made without deception ?

That is why they call The Constitution a living document. Just like George Bush Jr. said "It's just a goddamned piece of paper!", he was right. Until the people make it a living document by exercising their in-alien-able rights it is just a worthless piece of paper. If you wondered why I spelled inalienable that way it is to point out those rights can not be removed by contract or maritime law (the law of the sea), which is what most of what we know as government operates as in the form of corporations in most cases.

There was a time when common law (the law of the land) rules and legislation like The Constitution had more meaning and force. The problem is over the years the people have let the common law system wither and allowed the maritime system to practically "legislate" anything you could imagine to rob you blind, imprison, enslave, or even kill you. If the subject interests you I suggest you study the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) http://www.law.duke.edu/lib/researchguides/ucc and from multiple sources. Not everyone likes to share the real fun tricks you can use

The road to hell is paved with good intentions my friend.

That's the whole point. You want the government to have this burden so it takes millennia for it to corrupt itself - it would be possible at all with this. The Framers knew very well of the problem associated with government power and trying to limiting it. But I think they underestimated it still. X year sun-setting for all levels of government is the ultimate hog tie.

Edit: And it would be that much more costly for corporations to influence the legislature too because they'd have to keep "funding" the shit heads at every cycle to keep something going.

Liking it.  Dangerous, but liking it anyway.

They say there is wisdom in the crowd and I would venture to say that there's also justice in the crowd that can't be gained from the judicial system.

Kind of like Libertarian free markets.  Give everyone a gun and let's see what happens. 

Good idea, actually.  Laws being directly tied to an era of government allows for a great deal of flexibility.

Temporally representative laws for a temporally representative government!

A little too long for a bumper sticker.

Hmmm, just thought of another interesting idea.  What if rather than a sunset of temporary law, which would become a rather large administrative burden, the law would be submitted for public referendum for renewal.

Representative government craft and enact law.  The public shows it's confidence in their work with renewal referendum.  Still a large burden though.

I think if everyone had a gun, the people that would use them "badly" would not be around so long...

so give everyone a gun

I think there needs to be "reasonableness" factor to the way the constitution is interpreted, but I also believe that the constitution needs to be amended so that every law the government makes, at any level, must sunset after 10 years.

If a law proves to be truly needed, then they can spend their terms renewing the good ones and let the useless or bad ones fall out of the system. This prevents tens, if not hundreds, of thousands of laws to accumulate over centuries that literally obliterates the possibility of a "law abiding citizen".

The Supreme Court has, by bringing a level of "reasonableness," (your word, definitely not mine) completely destroyed the original intent of the second amendment.  People seem to forget that our founding fathers had just finished fighting off their government with what were state-of-the-art weapons.  The first shot was fired because the Brits were trying to seize and/or destroy the colonist's military supplies. I believe the founders wrote the second amendment to ensure that the People maintained the ability to overthrow their government by force.  Maybe we live in a different world now where this is no longer possible, but then we should either amend the Constitution to reflect this or completely tear it up because it does little to protect our rights anymore.

AFIAK, Regulation is allowed because the supreme court has ruled that a right must have some level of reasonableness applied to it. Example, you have freedom of speech, but you can't yell "fire" in a crowded building. THEY (not me) have decided that nukes, cannons, full autos, etc are reasonable exceptions.

A nuke for every every citizen!  And if one of the poorer examples of liberal - for the illegals, too!

Its true.  You are absolutely right.  Americans go on about handguns being essential to freedom when a handgun is as useless as a crossbow if you are faced by a an enemy who has a tank or a drone. 

Any rational interpretation of the second amendment would start with allowing anti-aircraft and anti-tank weapons. 

Alright, sorry, I had no intention for the options to be taken word for word. I've added a new option, it's far more clear. Just remember- it's hard to include every single detail in a poll without each option having a paragraph describing each one. Each option (with the exception of #6) was meant to be more of a guideline, i.e., "what level of gun control works for you?," not so much "agree with one of these word for word."

+1
It's so cute when they beat up off a straw man.
Love is always being able to tell your loved ones "I didn't know it was loaded."

I believe the technical term is sodium chloride delivery system.

Define "Assault Rifle".

>inb4 clips

+1

Choice #4 was *the* solution to local youth unemployment during the Vietnam conflict.

"Here you go boys, take these nice new AKs out in the woods and play hide and seek."

Those 2 things are very different and should be 2 separate choice for the poll.


If someone could explain to me how regulations don't at all infringe, then I might change my mind.  Till then, I believe that American gun laws are unconstitutional.  Not that I can really do anything about it

I just specified NATO because most, if not all, NATO calibers are extremely common in the US (5.56 NATO/.223 Rem., 7.62 NATO/.308 Win.) and the weapons are often high quality versions of common civilian rifles (such as the multitude of AR-15 type rifles manufactured by H&K, Colt, Sig, etc.), and I doubt I'd let my political views get in the way of owning a select-fire gas piston AR 

I'm not trying to undermine your opinion though. If it helps, wherever I said "restrictions" doesn't necessarily equate to "the gov't requires an extensive background check, age limit, and tax stamp," it could just as well mean "children may carry firearms if properly instructed and given permission by their parents."

I couldn't vote for any of the options.  I am against gun-control, so the first options in the poll were repulsive to me.

The last option I couldn't vote for either, since I think NATO should be dissolved.  I wasn't sure who would be "issuing" the guns.  I am worried that it could be another "redistribution of wealth" scheme by government.

If there was an option in the poll that said "Allow children to carry firearms if there parents let them" then I might have voted for that.

That's what I figured.  People aren't rational though, especially those that are offing themselves, so you never know.

Not noticebly.  Rope is still legal....

I had seen numbers showing murder and armed robbery actually going UP (by a lot) after the gun ban.

I hadn't heard about the suicide number though.  That's interesting.  Did the total number of suicides actually go down though?

The way I look at it is quite simple. I detest government (or anybody else for that matter) meddling in the specific and narrow discrimination against property (guns, cars, land use, grass height, etc.).

It assumes them to be more intelligent and responsible with my property. Au contraire, I've yet to see them be responsible in that regard. Personally, I get a little tired of having so many parents lording over me. I've already got a mother and a father, and they've already educated me on what's right and wrong. If I have any questions I'll ask them.

I don't need somebody in some other locale, perhaps hundreds, if not thousands of miles away from me, dictating their conscience over me and the rest of the world. I'm sure if I need some assistance or other clarification as to any suggestions/ideas about being a good "citizen", then they can send me a brochure.

if it makes you feel better im pro-gun, i had no intention of coming across as biased

Handguns are illegal.  We still have criminals who shoot one another and occasionally an innocent gets caught in the crossfire.  We still have nutters who go wild with shotguns and kill a dozen or so unfortunates.  Murder by didn't go down after the ban.  Suicide by gun did.

Personally I think the law is a typical English thing where they get into an emotional frenzy about something, all agree "something must be done" and they do something totally pointless and useless.  They did the same stupid thing with "Pit bull terriers."  Totally banned here.  However deaths and injuries by dogs remain the same.  Its almost comical in its stupidity.

Make guns illegal and then... "gangbangers" will give up their guns? What is the real state of gun ownership in the UK?

What the part of "shall not be infringed" do people not get?

I love how the voting list did not include a SINGLE reasonable pro-gun ownership choice. Way to try to manipulate people! The only semi reasonable option "Maintain some reasonable restrictions for safety." could be so vaguely interpreted as to destroy all guns if the legislation maker decided as such. Some people consider an unloaded gun in a locked safe reasonable safety (im not including parents with children here because that is different), but when some one breaks into your home do you think they will mind waiting while you put in the combination and load your gun? My point is the slightest restriction can be an all encompassing restriction in an instant.

The Constitution provided the legal right for all American Citizens to own gun/s to aid in the defense of the nation, everyone a gun, everyone a defender of the Republic. Lyndon B. Johnson and the House and Senate Judiciary Committees on October 22, 1968 were the first to screw over Americans Constitutional rights by limiting 'everyone'.
Hind sight is 20/20.

What's that other saying... "If you grant exceptions for the crimes of the overclass they can comfortably commit crimes in plain sight"? Is that right?

Get em while you can! http://bitcoingunparts.com/

which i completely agree with, except for the police and military. now go vote!

There is an old saying that goes something like this, "If you criminalize guns, only the criminals will have them."

What do YOU think?