Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 12-17-2013, 05:41 PM
 
Location: Ohio
13,933 posts, read 12,869,476 times
Reputation: 7399

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by weltschmerz View Post
Everyone quotes this particular amendment as the right for EVERONE to own whatever arms they want.
How the hell do you know what they meant? Who is the militia anyway? Everyone, including crazy Joe Blow down the street who is hearing voices, or a select few? Do you need to belong to a club, with a membership card, to be in the militia, or does it mean the general populace?
You fail.
Doesn't matter.... The Right to keep and bear arms exists WITHOUT there being any militia. A well regulated militia is merely the reason why the Right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed...

you fail.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 12-17-2013, 05:42 PM
 
Location: USA
5,738 posts, read 5,428,064 times
Reputation: 3668
Quote:
Originally Posted by WhipperSnapper 88 View Post
It is spelled out for you, rather plainly I might add. A well regulated militia is the reason why the right of the people to keep and bear arms cannot be infringed. It doesn't say you have to be in a militia to keep and bear arms.
"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."

The first clause says that a well-regulated militia is necessary, implying that there SHOULD be regulations on the militia, but the second clause says that there should, in fact, not be regulations on the people's right to bear arms. Obviously, the members of a militia are, in fact, "people" as well, so there can't exactly be regulations on militias but not on individuals.

Which side of the comma should we go with?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-17-2013, 05:44 PM
 
Location: Ohio
13,933 posts, read 12,869,476 times
Reputation: 7399
Quote:
Originally Posted by It'sAutomatic View Post
"The law is the law" is an awful argument foranything. You can defend anything written into law with this (Man 1: "Why should
I be enslaved to another human being?" Man 2: "The law is the law, buddy.")


Welp.... that's pretty accurate. That's how it was. It took an overwhelming effort to abolish slavery, but it got done.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-17-2013, 05:49 PM
 
Location: Ohio
13,933 posts, read 12,869,476 times
Reputation: 7399
Quote:
Originally Posted by It'sAutomatic View Post
"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."

The first clause says that a well-regulated militia is necessary, implying that there SHOULD be regulations on the militia, but the second clause says that there should, in fact, not be regulations on the people's right to bear arms. Obviously, the members of a militia are, in fact, "people" as well, so there can't exactly be regulations on militias but not on individuals.

Which side of the comma should we go with?
You are having trouble understanding the amendment because you are applying a false meaning to the phrase "well-regulated"

They didn't mean laws on what types of weapons the militias own or how much ammunition they could own or anything like that. What the founders meant by well-regulated is well drilled, well trained, and well practiced.

Last edited by WhipperSnapper 88; 12-17-2013 at 05:57 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-17-2013, 06:04 PM
 
Location: USA
5,738 posts, read 5,428,064 times
Reputation: 3668
Quote:
Originally Posted by WhipperSnapper 88 View Post
You are having trouble understanding the amendment because you are applying a false meaning to the phrase "well-regulated"

They didn't mean laws on what types of weapons the militias own or how much ammunition they could own or anything like that. What the founders meant by well-regulated is well drilled, well trained, and well practiced.
So should Americans be forced to take gun classes in order to own a gun (as a "regulation", by our modern sense of the word), or should their right to own one not be infringed?

And STILL (you haven't answered this), does a legal immigrant from Saudi Arabia, like the 9/11 hijackers, have the Constitutional right to own a nuclear weapon? I imagine the materials used to make the bomb could Constitutionally be banned but if they're assembled into a deadly weapon (an "arm"), it appears the 'tution would make it unlawful to stop anyone from possessing it.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-17-2013, 06:36 PM
 
Location: Ohio
13,933 posts, read 12,869,476 times
Reputation: 7399
Quote:
Originally Posted by It'sAutomatic View Post
So should Americans be forced to take gun classes
in order to own a gun (as a "regulation", by our modern sense of the word), or
should their right to own one not be infringed?
No, they shouldn't have to take a class, because the people do not have to be a part of a well-regulated militia. The Right exists whether they are part of a well-regulated militia or not. The amendment does not stipulate that a person must be a part of a militia in order to keep and bear arms. The first part of the amendment merely provides a reason why the right recognized in the second part of the amendment must not be infringed.

The "well-regulated" part of the amendment as written, does not apply to the people.

Quote:
And STILL (you haven't answered this), does a legal immigrant from Saudi
Arabia, like the 9/11 hijackers, have the Constitutional right to own a nuclear
weapon? I imagine the materials used to make the bomb could Constitutionally be
banned but if they're assembled into a deadly weapon (an "arm"), it appears the
'tution would make it unlawful to stop anyone from possessing it.
Obviously I don't believe that any one person should be allowed to own a nuke, so I hope we can move on from this asinine question. The 2A doesn't protect the ownership of such weapons as ruled by the SCOTUS.

Last edited by WhipperSnapper 88; 12-17-2013 at 06:44 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-17-2013, 06:52 PM
 
Location: USA
5,738 posts, read 5,428,064 times
Reputation: 3668
Quote:
Originally Posted by WhipperSnapper 88 View Post
No, they shouldn't have to take a class, because the people do not have to be a part of a well-regulated militia. The Right exists whether they are part of a well-regulated militia or not. The amendment does not stipulate that a person must be a part of a militia in order to keep and bear arms. The first part of the amendment merely provides a reason why the right recognized in the second part of the amendment must not be infringed.

The "well-regulated" part of the amendment as written, does not apply to the people.



Obviously I don't believe that any one person should be allowed to own a nuke, so I hope we can move on from this asinine question. The 2A doesn't protect the ownership of such weapons as ruled by the SCOTUS.

I'm getting a better understanding about the Constitution here. The more I read about it, the more it seems to be a collection of ideas and, in reality, a pretty ****-poor legal document. For what's meant to be the foundation of a country, I mean the Terms of Use on my iTunes for example has 100X less ambiguity towards my rights. It's cute to throw in little side notes meant to be ignored like the "well-regulated militia" clause as you say, but when it comes to deciding whether or not the Constitution gives the government the authority to imprison a man and strip him of his rights, no one can possibly say that it's good to be so unclear.


When has the Supreme Court ruled that we can't own nukes, and where exactly in the American Constitution did they find something that trumped what the Second Amendment clearly states?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-17-2013, 07:01 PM
 
Location: Ohio
13,933 posts, read 12,869,476 times
Reputation: 7399
Quote:
Originally Posted by It'sAutomatic View Post
I'm getting a better understanding about the
Constitution here
Wow. If you sincerely mean that then my time here has not been wasted and it's all been worth it.
Quote:

The more I read about it, the more it seems to be a collection of ideas
and, in reality, a pretty ****-poor legal document
Well, it's only the foundation for one of the worlds greatest superpowers.

Quote:
For what's meant to be the foundation of a country, I mean the Terms of
Use on my iTunes for example has 100X less ambiguity towards my rights.
I don't find it ambiguous at all as far as the Second Amendment is concerned. Admittedly, the 2A would have been far better off divided in to two sentences instead of one.

Quote:
When has the Supreme Court ruled that we can't own nukes, and where exactly
in the American Constitution did they find something that trumped what the
Second Amendment clearly states?
SCOTUS ruled in either the Heller decision of 2008 or the McDonald decision of 2010 that the Second Amendment protects weapons that are commonly owned by US citizens and are practical for use in lawful purposes like self defense or hunting. That doesn't describe a nuclear warhead. You are free to research these Decisions on your own and find out how they came to their conclusions.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-17-2013, 07:16 PM
 
Location: Ohio
13,933 posts, read 12,869,476 times
Reputation: 7399
Quote:
Originally Posted by It'sAutomatic View Post
It's cute to throw in little side notes meant to
be ignored like the "well-regulated militia" clause as you say,
It's not supposed to be ignored. Lets dissect this:

" A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state"

This part of the amendment is nothing more than a declaration. A declaration that a well-regulated militia is necessary for a free state to remain secure.

"the Right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"

This part of the amendment recognizes a Right that the people have, and limits oversight of that Right.

Hopefully this clears things up a bit. It's pretty simple really.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-17-2013, 07:17 PM
 
Location: Wasilla, Alaska
17,823 posts, read 23,400,833 times
Reputation: 6541
Quote:
Originally Posted by It'sAutomatic View Post
I'm getting a better understanding about the Constitution here. The more I read about it, the more it seems to be a collection of ideas and, in reality, a pretty ****-poor legal document. For what's meant to be the foundation of a country, I mean the Terms of Use on my iTunes for example has 100X less ambiguity towards my rights.


When has the Supreme Court ruled that we can't own nukes, and where exactly in the American Constitution did they find something that trumped what the Second Amendment clearly states?
Anyone with a high school education in physics can make a nuke, that part is easy. The hard part is obtaining fissionable material. It would be like making a firearm, including the bullets and the primer, but unable to make the gunpowder. Without gunpowder, firearms do not function. Just as without fissionable material, nukes cannot function as intended.

Gunpowder is something we have known how to make for 969 years. The components are relatively common, and easily combined.

Fissionable material, on the other hand, is actually quite rare. Far more rare than gold. Furthermore, the fissionable components much be refined to a point that is extremely difficult to obtain. Most nations are not willing to put up the expense. Which means only a very small hand full of individuals could possibly contemplate creating their own fissionable material. Nuclear weapons cost billions to manufacture, and millions to maintain.

As far as the Second Amendment is concerned, there is already a built-in limitation. The US Constitution, including the Bill of Rights, is only applicable within the jurisdiction of the US.

Furthermore, the US created the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty in 1968. Since that treaty was approved by the Senate, and ratified by the President, it has the same effective legal weight as the US Constitution itself. Since that treaty would prohibit personal ownership of a nuclear weapon, it effectively amends the Second Amendment.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 10:26 AM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top