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 Second Amendment wasn't on trial here. The permissibility of DC's gun laws under it was at issue. In what may turn out to be a classic case of Be Careful What You Wish For, DC and other urban areas will now begin in earnest the search for other means of limiting guns that will conform to the terms of the new opinion. There is no guaranty that these new laws will not seem even more onerous to gun rights proponents than what went before.
Meanwhile, the gun people cheer a great victory for their rights, rights, rights. And as ever, there is nary a word over their responsibilities, responsibilities, responsibilities. And please, don't give me the NRA and their gun safety classes. In large part, this is an urban-rural issue, and you don't have to pull the covers back very far to discover that guns are a significant problem in urban areas. What are all you ammo-packers willing to see done about that problem? Or is the continuing waste of young urban lives just a part of the price that you're willing to see other people pay?
And you don't have to be a member of the NRA to realize that a right is a right. And please show me where the gun regulations have helped stop gun violence. All it does is ensure real people have a harder time defending their home against criminals who get their guns the illegal way. And sorry to tell you but this was a second amendment issue, hence the argument over DC gun regulations. I own one gun, a shotgun, and I will accept full RESPONSIBILITY for that fire-arm. The issue here shouldn't be the improper use of guns, but the right to own and possess one if you so desire. You can take away all the legal guns you want and there will still be an arsenal of guns at the criminals disposal.
Rule #1: You're not allowed to construe the words of the Constitution so as to give them no meaning.
If the word "militia" was not meant to establish some sort of limit upon the right to keep and bear arms, why does the word appear in the Amendment?
If you will actually read the 2nd Amendment carefully I think even you should be able to see that the militia issue and the citizen issue are separate. It is the right of the state to maintain a militia and the right for the citizen to own and bear arms. Actually, if taken literally this means I can walk around town with my shotgun on my shoulder and there should be nothing they can do about it. Not that I would do this but the words "bear arms" means on your person. So there are already numerous laws on the books that directly contradict this amendment. We don't need anymore.
I doubt walking down the road with a shotgun around your shoulder would have alarmed too many people back when the Constitution was written. Based on this, I doubt the framers would agree that we don't have the right to own guns as private citizens.
If you will actually read the 2nd Amendment carefully I think even you should be able to see that the militia issue and the citizen issue are separate.
Let me see if I have this straight. You suggest that the Amendment should be construed as...
Part I -- A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,
and
Part II -- the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Well, I think the decision is about right, although I felt that the court should have set a standard for interpreting what regulations are allowed and which are not. Is it a reasonableness standard? Strict scrutiny? Intermediate scrutiny? That is the real weakness of the ruling.
I agree & expect a reasonability standard will need being set. After all the rigamoarole is over I expect that reasonableness standard will be strict scrutiny as it should be for every right preserved in the constitution.
Rule #1: You're not allowed to construe the words of the Constitution so as to give them no meaning.
If the word "militia" was not meant to establish some sort of limit upon the right to keep and bear arms, why does the word appear in the Amendment?
It does not establish a limit, Thats obvious & I know, judging by your otherwise normal reading comprehension that you do too. Its simply an explanation of the most important reason its was being added, in their minds it was entirely conceivable that they might need to re-establish control if the Fed got too big.
But the fact is that the term "Bear arms" then & now just meant people carrying gun with them. If you bother looking into period writings you would see many instances of it being said people could bear arms "Where ever they may be" Unlike today they recognized the stupidity in thinking that someone bent on killing isn't going to change their mind because of another law.
All that aside, the correct way is to ammend the constitution, not render it impotent.
Let me see if I have this straight. You suggest that the Amendment should be construed as...
Part I -- A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,
and
Part II -- the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
May I ask...what the heck does Part I mean???
Maybe I can help.
Part one,
Since a well regulated militia is necessary to a free state,
Part II,,, the right of the people to keep & bear arms shall not be took away because if they cant get guns, the state cant form a militia.
What it doesn't mention is that if the states neglect to form a militia the people lose this right. What it doesn't mention is we only have a right to keep & bear arms if theres no crime, it dont say we only have the right if we stay in our home state or out of certain cities.
I agree & expect a reasonability standard will need being set. After all the rigamoarole is over I expect that reasonableness standard will be strict scrutiny as it should be for every right preserved in the constitution.
Well, hate to break it to you but strict scrutiny is not the standard for every right in the constitution. Never has been and never will.
Scalia points out that contemporaneous state level gun rights explicitly included the right to be armed for self defense. In reading the Constitution as Scalia asserts one should, one would have to conclude the the omission of a right to be armed for self defense was intentional. While there's a long standing common law right to self defense, it's seems clear that the founders felt no need to enshrine it as a federally protected right.
Since we no longer "call the militia" in times of crisis, we no longer need to assure an armed civilian population. Applying simple logic to Scalia's own arguments leads you inextricably to the conclusion that this should be a state/local level issue.
Let me see if I have this straight. You suggest that the Amendment should be construed as...
Part I -- A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,
and
Part II -- the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
May I ask...what the heck does Part I mean???
Part 1 means each individual state has the right to maintain a militia for purposes of security and defense. See, a lot of people have forgotten that before the rise of the federal government separate states were sovereign lands. Each with their own separate Constitution and working governments. So each state was granted the right to maintain their own militia while also being part of the Union. And that is the answer to your question.
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.
