2nd Am. Question before Supreme Court Constitutionally Flawed and Dangerous

[aileron]

I don't know how true this is, it depends on how they interpret the bill of rights. If they first acknowledge that its a restriction on government than the question is not a threat. But hey, they could very well do that.

http://www.thepriceofliberty.org/07/12/17/greenslade.htm

The Flawed Second Amendment Debate

The Second Amendment and the Preamble to the Bill of Rights

Another Look at the Wording of the Second Amendment

Would the Repeal of the Second Amendment Empower the Federal Government and Negate the Right to Own a Firearm?


Tell me why the States needed the so-called "Collective Right" Second Amendment?

The Second Amendment is an Individual Right

A Question For The Supreme Court

[thedonger]

I think its not a question of true or false but of interpretation.

This leans toward the conspiracy side of the spectrum. As long as the court find in a way that supports the right to keep and bear arms its step in the right direction. What will be telling for the future of "Gun Control" is how strong the finding is.

If its a weak finding or weak right, then more "regulation" will be allowed. If it s a strong finding less "regulation" will be allowed.

[JawBone]

This article strikes me as semantic paranoia. Following it's logic we then have no 1st Amendment rights, 4th Amendment rights, etc...

The author fails to understand that the "right" in question is the right to be free from government infringement. It is called the "Bill of Rights" after all.

[FreshTapCoke]

Our Right to keep and bear arms is a natural one. There is no enumeration of our natural ones unless our Creator has been holding back on me.

Our Second Amendment Right is the one described in the Bill of Rights. It is not a right to give us our natural right to keep and bear arms; that would be redundant. The right given to us by the 2nd is the right to not have our natural right infringed!

I see no contradiction in the wording of the Supreme Court question in this manner.

[Fjold]

protected rights of individuals who are not affiliated with any state-regulated militia, but who wish to keep handguns and other firearms for private use in their homes


But I'm not unhappy with the question as it is.

[mblat]

I think that this is a typical case of "Ron Paulism". Kill good, because it isn't perfect. Sounds good, totally unpractical from policy point of view today.

I will gladly take "2nd gives individuals right to to keep and bear" decision. Yes "protects natural right" would be perfect, but "gives" are more than satisfactory.
In any foreseeable future 2nd won't be repealed. And if it comes to the point where it's repeal is plausible, then your "it is my natural right" won't do you any good anyway.

At that point it will be "are you ready to die today?"

[1911su16b870]

Clicked on the Price of Liberty link and in the upper right corner they have this:

"No human being has the right -- under any circumstances -- to initiate force against another human being, nor to threaten or delegate its initiation. The Zero Aggression Principle"

While I understand the arguement made, IMO they are writting the commentary because it adhears to their Zero Agression beliefs...

[Rob P.]

The article is only a different viewpoint of the issue. It postulates an argument which is as inseparable from the issue as asking which side of a sheet of paper is the "front" side.

[thedonger]

protected rights of individuals who are not affiliated with any state-regulated militia, but who wish to keep handguns and other firearms for private use in their homes


But I'm not unhappy with the question as it is.

Agreed. Its not a bad question as is. I would have liked your wording better.

[bridgeport]

You are all missing the Most important mistake in the restatement: STATE REGULATED. This is a ridiculous changing of the meaning of the original question and of the 2nd A itself which says NOTHING about STATE REGULATED.... It says a WELL REGULATED MILITIA being neccesary to the security of a FREE STATE. This is a BIG difference!

[Ironchef]

This article strikes me as semantic paranoia. Following it's logic we then have no 1st Amendment rights, 4th Amendment rights, etc...

The author fails to understand that the "right" in question is the right to be free from government infringement. It is called the "Bill of Rights" after all.

Kinda makes sense. I've usually referred to them as "2nd amendment protection." When explaining to another forum their 4th amendment protection against search and seizure from receipt checkers at Costco/Sam's/Best Buy, I would word it as a protection from being searched more than a right not to be searched.

[tgriffin]

Id rather see "natural", "inherent", "God-given", or perhaps the best in line with rest of constitution: "unalienable", rather than protected. Who protects it? How and how much? From what?