PDA

View Full Version : Am I naive to the 2nd Amendment??????


Templar
12-05-2012, 12:43 PM
ASE PRISM

speedrrracer
12-05-2012, 12:53 PM
It's your understanding of people that's naive.

baddos
12-05-2012, 1:07 PM
If you read the bill of rights and then read the federalist papers it will be clear to you what it means. Now, modern day liberals will say it means the total opposite and make up a new meaning on the spot.

donny douchebag
12-05-2012, 1:08 PM
It's your understanding of people that's naive.

Truer words were never spoken.

the86d
12-05-2012, 1:11 PM
https://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash3/532380_373975119362415_1440336476_n.jpg

Ninety
12-05-2012, 1:11 PM
I hear a lot of lefties trying to say that it was intended for a "militia" ... Are there organized militias actively practicing in the US? And If so wouldn't they be viewed as a terrorist cell or something along those lines??? I could only imagine what the feds would do to a compound of fully armed individuals... Waco? :)

a1c
12-05-2012, 1:22 PM
Here is where some antis diverge in their interpretation.

To them, the "militia" mentioned in the Second Amendment doesn't designate civilians. To them, that "militia" is nowadays incarnated by state armed forces such as the National Guard (and non-federalized state armed forces - in California, that would be the CSMR).

The National Guard didn't exist at the time of the Bill of Rights, so their argument is that interpreting the "militia" as citizens is wrong. And that the RKBA is not an individual right (nevermind Heller and MacDonald), but a state right.

That's what you need to understand. This is where most of the debate rages between constitutional experts on both sides of the issue.

This all hangs on an oddly phrased and punctuated sentence, really. Both sides claim the text is very clear. Both sides (ours and the anti's) claim that it says exactly what they claim it does.

Personally, I think there is enough evidence in other texts from the Founding Fathers to claim that the 2A is an individual right (as Heller and MacDonald confirmed it), especially since the right for the people to take arms against tyranny needs to be maintained.

When you use that argument, you'll see that many antis will chuckle and claim there isn't much that a bunch of civilians will be able to do against the power of the US military. This is where you might want to remind them to brush up on their world history, where examples of civilian guerrillas keeping powerful military powers in check abound.

mag360
12-05-2012, 1:26 PM
the national guard was created what, 100 years after the bill of rights was ratified? Plus heller dispells the anti-gun myth they keep touting that it pertains to militia service. Heller says it does NOT pertain to militia service.

kaligaran
12-05-2012, 1:28 PM
https://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash3/532380_373975119362415_1440336476_n.jpg

This woman is my new hero.

a1c
12-05-2012, 1:30 PM
the national guard was created what, 100 years after the bill of rights was ratified?

Exactly.

But you're applying an originalist reasoning to a living document interpretation.

You need to understand the way the antis think if you want to be able to efficiently and convincingly make your point.

Plus heller dispells the anti-gun myth they keep touting that it pertains to militia service. Heller says it does NOT pertain to militia service.

Exactly. But remember, not everyone systematically agrees with every single SCOTUS decisions. There are plenty of 2A supporters who welcomed Heller, but who just as strongly disagree with other, non-2A SCOTUS decisions. So here too, we have to be careful when assuming invoking Heller just closes the discussion.

Mesa Tactical
12-05-2012, 1:40 PM
But remember, not everyone systematically agrees with every single SCOTUS decisions.

Doesn't matter whether one agrees with it or not, until the SCOTUS reverses itself, this (http://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/06/07-290.pdf) is what the 2nd Amendment means:



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.

2. Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons.

3. The handgun ban and the trigger-lock requirement (as applied to self-defense) violate the Second Amendment. The District’s total ban on handgun possession in the home amounts to a prohibition on an entire class of “arms” that Americans overwhelmingly choose for the lawful purpose of self-defense. Under any of the standards of scrutiny the Court has applied to enumerated constitutional rights, this prohibition—in the place where the importance of the lawful defense of self, family, and property is most acute—would fail constitutional muster. Similarly, the requirement that any lawful firearm in the home be disassembled or bound by a trigger lock makes it impossible for citizens to use arms for the core lawful purpose of self-defense and is hence unconstitutional. Because Heller conceded at oral argument that the D. C. licensing law is permissible if it is not enforced arbitrarily and capriciously, the Court assumes that a license will satisfy his prayer for relief and does not address the licensing requirement. Assuming he is not disqualified from exercising Second Amendment rights, the District must permit Heller to register his handgun and must issue him a license to carry it in the home.


More details at the link above. Everything else is handwaving, with regard to what the 2nd Amendment means.

However, I agree with you that invoking Heller or the 2nd Amendment is a poor way to argue the merits of gun rights. There are lots of arguments in our favor without every having to mention the 2nd Amendment.

Drivedabizness
12-05-2012, 1:53 PM
The Second Amendment was expertly drafted to very specifically reflect the will of enough States to ratify it as part of the BoR. If one does a little reading in the Heller/McDonald rulings (especially the DC Circuit ruling in Heller) all of these issues were hashed out very nicely. The militia is "the whole people" (they didn't let women vote back then) just the male population capable of carying arms (all but the yoiung and very old for those days). The phrase "the Right of the People to keep and bear" is neither ambiguous nor limited to the home.
We just have a lot of bad precedent and jurisprudence to overcome in a relative few, recalcitrant States.

GOEX FFF
12-05-2012, 2:02 PM
I'll just leave this here -

7RgLEGibyXs

Hopalong
12-05-2012, 2:08 PM
The 2A has become a political football and a wedge issue

You would be naive to believe otherwise

scrubb
12-05-2012, 2:12 PM
Everytime after some incident involving guns (unfortunately) I fully expect the news media to bash guns for the next few weeks and leftie politicans to propose more gun restrictions.

We all know that spoons make people fat.

vantec08
12-05-2012, 2:12 PM
the national guard was created what, 100 years after the bill of rights was ratified? Plus heller dispells the anti-gun myth they keep touting that it pertains to militia service. Heller says it does NOT pertain to militia service.


Right. Plus, the national guard is a direct arm of the standing army. A militia is not a creature of the state.

Curley Red
12-05-2012, 2:16 PM
I fully expect the news media to bash guns for the next few weeks and leftie politicans to propose more gun restrictions.


I guess that explains why so many California gun laws were signed by republicans. AWB, right to open loaded carry, 50 BMG's, just to name a few. All signed by republicans. Stop blaming one side and open your eyes, we are being attacked by both sides, like it or not.

SilverTauron
12-05-2012, 2:18 PM
of all this nonsense.

Am I naive to the 2nd Amendment?

No. Rather, "They" are na´ve to the nature of the world.

You see, one consequence of our modern age is that people can acquire their basic needs at the push of a button. Its entirely possible for someone today to have lived their whole life at the service and in service to others.In this way entire societies are built upon a population born and raised to delegate their self defense to the state.

Unfortunately, the way most people wake up to the truth that protection is a personal prerogative is usually at the wrong end of a bad guy's assault . I'm not preaching from a holy pulpit on this point, because that's what snapped me out of complacency.

Millions of Americans have lived without exercising personal responsibility in personal defense or ANY OTHER ASPECT of their lives, and therefore see no problem outlawing a constitutional right which guarantees individual liberty to own firearms.

speedrrracer
12-05-2012, 3:02 PM
It's your understanding of people that's naive.

Could you please elaborate on your comment. I am interested in hearing everyones point of view.

My read of your post is that you're complaining because each time there's a high-profile shooting, the same old anti arguments come up, and there's a greater risk of politicians infringing on our RKBA.

And you are "tired of all this nonsense."

My take is that if you had a more nuanced understanding of human nature, you would understand why these things happen, that they will always happen, and therefore would not suffer from "Second Amendment combat fatigue".

There are many ways to label groups of people. Recent advances in cognitive science suggest that people can be divided into two groups.

If you want the full dissertation I'll get jiggy with it, but bottom line is that one of the two groups of people possesses a character trait which manifests itself as the preference for control over other people.

It's a viable evolutionary survival strategy, blah blah blah, again if you want the full text let me know, but this group of people prefers control, among other things. The other group prefers its independence, as it happens. I'll bet you're not shocked.

Fast forward a million years to the USA in 2012. How does a control-loving person approach an uncertain world? By enacting lots of controls. Stringent regulations. Tight controls. Lots of laws.

What feels like chains to one group feels like a security blanket to the other.

And that's why they will tend to behave this way. They don't hate you. They don't hate America, and they're not bad people. They're not necessarily even anti-gun.

They're just trying to make what they perceive to be a comfortable, secure world for everyone, and the way their brains are wired causes them to prefer the controlling / binding approach.

The problem, and the reason why this will remain a wedge issue, is that the other group generally prefers to be able to solve it own problems in its own way. They tend not to like the weight of restrictions, and limits tend to irritate them.

Obviously most of us are a blend of these two types, but we tend to lean one way or the other, and that's a far stronger predictor of where you'll land on the gun control issue than political party, parents, race, religion or income.

It's young science, but crazy interesting stuff.

Fatgunman
12-05-2012, 3:10 PM
Once again the basis for the 2nd Amendment is being discussed in of all places the news media. It seems like after a high profile shooting death of a celebrity or professional athlete that those on the left come out in droves to attack the 2nd Amendment or some how restrict its purpose.

Now I don't claim to be an expert in constitutional law here. I think am your average gun owner who is responsible,law obeying,good citizen who is tired of all this nonsense.

Am I naive to the 2nd Amendment?

Its my understanding that the 2nd Amendment was "NOT" put into the constitution for recreational use of arms. In fact, was not the 2nd Amendment's primary purpose is for "the people" to have uninfringed rights to military arms to protect themselves from a tyrannical government?

It seems our forefathers had the insight and wisdom to know that should the American people ever need to once again revolt and overthrow its current government, that it would have the means to properly and equally arm itself to have a fighting chance of success. Does not the 2nd Amendment give them that chance?

I could be wrong. But this is just my take and understanding of the 2nd Amendment. Please elaborate or discuss if anyone has a better take. Once again, this is my take.:chris:


Your right. That's why it says "in order to maintain a militia" in the second amendment also says that it "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED" but it is infringed upon a lot by left wing extremists, unfortunately they're beating that drum again.

stix213
12-05-2012, 3:24 PM
According to the antis in the media, the second amendment loophole is to allow criminals access to muskets.

cruising7388
12-05-2012, 3:55 PM
Doesn't matter whether one agrees with it or not, until the SCOTUS reverses itself, this (http://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/06/07-290.pdf) is what the 2nd Amendment means:



More details at the link above. Everything else is handwaving, with regard to what the 2nd Amendment means.

However, I agree with you that invoking Heller or the 2nd Amendment is a poor way to argue the merits of gun rights. There are lots of arguments in our favor without every having to mention the 2nd Amendment.

This is where things are really going to get interesting in California. You are effectively prevented from carrying concealed as a practical matter for most areas of the state that are "may issue" but there is also legislation that makes it a crime to carry unconcealed. As a practical matter, doesn't the confluence of these two conditions abridge the fundamental right expressed in the Second Amendment?

Sutcliffe
12-05-2012, 4:02 PM
I guess that explains why so many California gun laws were signed by republicans. AWB, right to open loaded carry, 50 BMG's, just to name a few. All signed by republicans. Stop blaming one side and open your eyes, we are being attacked by both sides, like it or not.

We have a ruling aristocracy that lords over us. Either side will gladly circumvent the Bill Of Rights to gain further power for their own party or power they can share with the criminals across the aisle.

scrubb
12-05-2012, 4:57 PM
I guess that explains why so many California gun laws were signed by republicans. AWB, right to open loaded carry, 50 BMG's, just to name a few. All signed by republicans. Stop blaming one side and open your eyes, we are being attacked by both sides, like it or not.


Ok boss, "ALL" politcians. Can we still snuggle tonight? :o

phrogg111
12-05-2012, 5:18 PM
The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

This right is in the bill of rights. It exists. It shall not be infringed.

The reason the right is in the bill of rights is because a well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state.

As the right exists, and shall not be infringed, the reason for excersizing the right is completely irrelevant.

Arms are weapons. These two words are synonyms.

Arms are for killing people.

Bearing arms has always meant not just carrying but using them when it is justified.

Keeping/bearing arms means possessing and using them for any justifiable purpose.

The second amendment protects only arms that can be used to kill people, for justifiable homicide.

The second amendment protects justifiable homicide, because that is what it is about. Not hunting. Not target shooting.

Nothing I have said is my opinion.

(That's cause it's all fact)