Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The right of the "people" shall not be infringed; however, the right of the individual is limited by law. It is a legal distinction; and one that makes a difference.
The links that you posted all have to do with state governments.
That was not what I asked for in my original post.
Sorry Bob, I thought I did answer you immediately after quoting the second amendment:
"That's it. At the Federal level, the 2nd Amendment is clear - it was limited to those needing to fight to protect a free state/republic.
.... As you point out, it says, "arms" are needed by a well regulated militia. It implies rules and regulations, a military order. "
I take it my answer wasn't sufficient for you, but I did answer directly.
Once again, it goes back to defining what "people" the founding fathers were addressing in the second amendment.
At the risk of repeating myself, I see no mention of the general population in that amendment.
People as I see it mentioned, are the people who formed a militia to protect their state from invasion by another military force.
If the people were not this formed militia, then why was a "well regulated militia" mention at all in the amendment?
The people of the militia are the same people mentioned in the amendment.
Now, as the original poster of this thread, I would appreciate anyone posting, to refrain from bringing gun control, liberals, right wing, or anything else other than your interpretation of the second amendment into the conversation.
Bob.
Quote:
Originally Posted by prospectheightsresident
My take (as well as a majority of the Supreme Court's take):
1) The "militia" referred to all able-bodied men, not a formal military body. Still (and this may be more so my view), that has to be read with the third clause, which states "the right of the people . . ." and the intent of the amendment, which was, in part, to secure freedom against a tyrannical Federal government.
2) The amendment as written was actually not intended to be very wide-reaching as it only applied to actions taken by Congress, not to actions taken by the states, which were only covered under the incorporation doctrine. This point is further supported by the fact that it was understood that the Federal government, at the time the Bill of Rights was adopted, had nowhere close to the power it has today (i.e. commerce was not as broadly interpreted as it is today, etc.).
3) The amendment is not as clear-cut as some make it out to be. Specifically, apart from getting an understanding of what "militia" meant to the Framers, its important to understand what is meant by "infringed." Did "infringe" mean that the Federal government could not regulate arms at all? (That's doubtful, especially as its tough to argue that the government was unable to ban cannons from private ownership at the time the amendment came into force or that it was unable to prohibit people who took up arms against the United States from owning certain arms.) Or did it mean something else?
I think that the amendment is meant to be read more broadly than some read it (McDonald v. Chicago and D.C. v. Heller provide some great insight into the history of the amendment and the intent of the Framers), but not as broad as some others want it read (i.e. to mean that regulation of arms is forbidden, period).
my take is this,
the first part indicating that the people should be ready to defend their land and country as needed, and when called to arms by the government. well regulated meaning their firearms are ready for use at a moments notice.
but the second part the right of the people to keep and bear arms was intended for the average person. remember the average person at the time would have been part of the militia in time of need, but they also would have been a separate entity as well. thus the reason for two separate parts of said second amendment. if the people do not own their own firearms, then in reality you have no militia unless they are official military reserves, which means the government would have to be paying them regularly to train and to serve on a part time basis, and our fledgling government would not have been able to afford that. heck they could barely afford professional military at the time.
That is what it says. It provides a rationale versus a contingency. It's more like saying "Because a well regulated Militia is necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" than it is to "The people in a militia have the right to keep and bear arms."
The problem I have with gun rights advocates is that almost all of them have a blind spot to that first part of the Second Amendment. I have actually had people quote the Second Amendment (unnecessary because I know it word for word) to me, and totally leave off that part of it. They just start with "the right of the people", and even if they somehow can get the first part through their thick sculls, they still just dismiss it, and continue on like the entire amendment is nothing more then their right to unrestricted gun ownership. You have to either accept the entire amendment or none of it. You can't just pick and choose which parts you like.
The problem I have with gun rights advocates is that almost all of them have a blind spot to that first part of the Second Amendment. I have actually had people quote the Second Amendment (unnecessary because I know it word for word) to me, and totally leave off that part of it. They just start with "the right of the people", and even if they somehow can get the first part through their thick sculls, they still just dismiss it, and continue on like the entire amendment is nothing more then their right to unrestricted gun ownership. You have to either accept the entire amendment or none of it. You can't just pick and choose which parts you like.
Certainly true. My point is that the second part is not contingent upon inclusion in a militia by the language of the first part. The first part simply provides a reason for the second part.
Clearly you see it as it was intended to be seen, not the abortion that the RW gun nuts want it to be seen.
Well, Us Right Wingers have provided plenty of Historical Context and quotes from the men themselves who drafted the Second Amendment, to support our position.......
What evidence have you shown to support your position, other than speculation, conjecture, and of course, your own political bias?
The wording in any amendment can only go so far. One needs to read of the Founder's thoughts on the subject. Jefferson, for one, was highly pro private ownership of guns. This is found in his many letters to various people(John Adams #1). He felt one needed protection from criminals and I agree.
There are no absolute rights. There is one absolute privilege by law, but not one absolute right. The right “to keep and bear arms” secured by the Second Amendment is governed by law; and under the law that right can be forfeited. A person convicted of a felony - even a non-violent offense - loses the right to purchase or possess a gun. 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). See article at: From Behind Bars, Randy "Duke" Cunningham Begs For The Right To Own A Gun And, under federal law, a person convicted of misdemeanor domestic violence forfeits the right to have a gun permanently. 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(9); United States v. Chovan,735 F.3d 1127 (9th Cir. 20`3); cert. denied (Oct. 6, 2013). http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastor...8/11-50107.pdf
What are you saying that's pertinent to this discussion? You're saying a bunch of nothing, that nobody here disputes. Perhaps you just like to hear yourself speak.
Once again, it goes back to defining what "people" the founding fathers were addressing in the second amendment.
At the risk of repeating myself, I see no mention of the general population in that amendment.
People as I see it mentioned, are the people who formed a militia to protect their state from invasion by another military force.
If the people were not this formed militia, then why was a "well regulated militia" mention at all in the amendment?
The people of the militia are the same people mentioned in the amendment.
Now, as the original poster of this thread, I would appreciate anyone posting, to refrain from bringing gun control, liberals, right wing, or anything else other than your interpretation of the second amendment into the conversation.
Bob.
I always took it to mean the same people that were addressed in the preamble to the Constitution: "We the people...."
Quote:
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
Those same people..which would be all of us.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
