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.
Garland was far from an extreme leftist. I am guessing to you anybody with a tiny slight lean to the left is an extremist leftist communist socialist liberal snowflake.
The 5-4 Heller decision was strictly along partisan lines it would not have taken a extreme leftist to reverse Heller. Garland would have been sufficient.
Location: Free State of Florida, Support our police
5,859 posts, read 3,295,032 times
Reputation: 9145
Quote:
Originally Posted by whogo
The 5-4 Heller decision was strictly along partisan lines it would not have taken a extreme leftist to reverse Heller. Garland would have been sufficient.
The very same could be said that the "people" were,. the militia, and the people of the militia could very well have been the reference the founding fathers were referring too, when they stated" the people".
Now, I don't have the constitution in front of me, but from memory it states," A well regulated militia, the right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed".
Remember, the country had just finished a war, and common "people" joined a militia to fight off the British.
The founding fathers, in one sentence stated, a well regulated militia, then without so much as a coma, continued, the right of the people to bear arms.
It is more than obvious to me, the meaning of the word "people" referred to people who make up the militia, not those who were never a part of the militia.
It was the militia that defended the country(such as it was) from the British,so it only seems practical that when writing the 2nd, the militia would be the focus of the amendment.
Why would women, and the elderly, who were not part of the militia, be a part of the "people" included in the 2nd?
I am sure there were many back then who were not part of the militia, or had any part in defending the country from the British.
Why would the founding fathers even reference the militia in the 2nd if they didn't intend to assure they would be well regulated and armed?
The fathers wanted to make sure the country would be protected in the future by a well regulated militia, and in writing the 2nd, assured that the militia's right to bear arms would not be infringed by any government.
Bob.
You're complicating the 2nd amendment in an effort to twist it to how you would prefer it be defined.
Do you understand the purpose of the Bill of Rights?
It says in order to have a well regulated militia, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
The problem I have with the 2nd amendment is that doesn't clearly define "arms."
It doesn't say firearms, it just says arms which could mean anything from a pistol, grenade, tank, nuclear weapons, etc. Is there a more clear definition of the word "arms" in the constitution? Does the average person have the right own military grade weapons?
At the time of 2nd amendment was written tanks and nukes did not exist, nor did automatic weapons, but artillery and cannon, dynamite, certainly did. Does the average citizen have the right to own a working cannon? The term "arms" seems to be poorly defined or not at all in the constitution.
This is an interesting case for California, Illinois, Connecticut and a few other states that makes gun possession extremely tough.
The issue is that citizens can own guns in the home, but few homes come equipped with shooting ranges or hunting fields. Having a gun, even for personal protection, doesn't make a whole lot of sense if you can't practice and train to a proficiency level that ensures you will only hit what you are supposed to.
But California law prohibits open carry and acutely restricts concealed carry outside of the home. Hence, otherwise lawful gun owners can't do anything with their guns other than sit and look at them. There seems to be no middle accommodation, and that if the Supremes frame the debate in that context, it might just get heard.
Interesting. Thanks, OP, for the thread.
You can take an assault weapon legally to range, gunsmith, selling point etc (it must be unloaded and in a locked container).
You can have handguns and other non-assault weapons in your car with you, if they are unloaded and in a locked container.
The Second Amendment of the United States Constitution reads: "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."
It says in order to have a well regulated militia, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
Where does it say only militias can bear arms? That language is very clear that it meant all citizens, not just militia.
Where does it state the general public can be armed?
It states a well regulated militia, then follows with the right of the people.
If the general public, and not the militia was the intended subject of the 2nd, then why mention a well regulated militia at all in the amendment?
The founding fathers knew many common people joined the militia, so when it stated "people", the logical conclusion would be they were referring to the people who made up a militia, not Joe Blow, and all his relatives.
I support open carry, we have it here in our town in Kansas. I like the "feel" of open carry, the atmosphere it produces! Yep, Kansas!
Geesh, in San Diego? That alone should justify concealed carry or open carry!
I take issue with this one statement in the article you linked to.
"The overriding purpose of the Framers in guaranteeing the right of the people to keep and bear arms was as a check on the standing army, which the Constitution gave the Congress the power to "raise and support."
That is only the opinion of the person who wrote that article.
I believe the framers were intent on protecting the militia from invasion from another foreign entity, not the government or a federal army of this country.
The framers wanted to make sure a well armed, and regulated militia was at the ready, should another British, or any other invasion take place.
No where in the amendment does it state, John Q. Public should be armed.
The amendment specifically addresses the need for a well regulated militia made up of "People".
Those who joined the militia are the "people" being addressed in the 2nd, not the general population.
You can spin it anyway you want, but the obvious intention is there in black and white when the words"well regulated militia" was the intent of the framers in the 2nd amendment.
If that were not their intention, why mention well regulated militia at all?
Now a purely hypothetical question dealing in the same subject matter as this thread.
Now I don't expect to hear"never, they will never get my weapons", or anything else along those lines.
Nothing about a revolution, or civil war etc.
The question is plain and simple, and answers should only apply to the question being asked.
If the 2nd amendment were repealed, how would the confiscation of weapons be handled, and by whom?
The problem I have with the 2nd amendment is that doesn't clearly define "arms."
It doesn't say firearms, it just says arms which could mean anything from a pistol, grenade, tank, nuclear weapons, etc. Is there a more clear definition of the word "arms" in the constitution? Does the average person have the right own military grade weapons?
At the time of 2nd amendment was written tanks and nukes did not exist, nor did automatic weapons, but artillery and cannon, dynamite, certainly did. Does the average citizen have the right to own a working cannon? The term "arms" seems to be poorly defined or not at all in the constitution.
does the average citizen have the right to own a working cannon? yes they do. same with tanks, and aircraft. dynamite, hand grenades, land mines, C4, etc. are all explosives, and thus technically are not arms in the original sense of the word. and yes there were land mines around at the time.
when the constitution was written, ALL firearms were military arms. so yes again citizens CAN own military grade firearms. even today you can own military grade firearms, you just need to fill out a bit of paperwork and pay the proper fee to the BATF.
Quote:
Originally Posted by CALGUY
Where does it state the general public can be armed?
It states a well regulated militia, then follows with the right of the people.
If the general public, and not the militia was the intended subject of the 2nd, then why mention a well regulated militia at all in the amendment?
The founding fathers knew many common people joined the militia, so when it stated "people", the logical conclusion would be they were referring to the people who made up a militia, not Joe Blow, and all his relatives.
Bob.
ok lets start by determining what the founders meant when they used the term "the people". we start right at the top of the constitution with the preamble where it starts off with WE THE PEOPLE of the united states-------that means they were referring to the citizenry of the country. in fact everywhere they used the term "the people", they indicated that it indeed meant the individual citizen.
and again you need to understand that the term "well regulated" did not mean loaded with regulations, but rather it meant in good working order. so a well regulated militia meant a professional military.
so lets again look at the first part of the second amendment;
a well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, this means that the founders recognized the fact that the country needed a military, but that with a weak federal government it couldnt pay such a military except in times of national emergency. it also meant that the army was a citizen army, and for defensive purposes only. the navy was created, and authorized by the constitution, to maintain open sea lanes for trade with other countries, the founders recognized this was necessary.
now on to the second part of the amendment;
the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
this means that the individual has the right to not only keep arms, but bear them, or keep them with him at all times. and the shall not be infringed part means that the government can make no laws that prevent law abiding citizens from keeping and bearing said arms.
in the end the founders recognized the fact that a military was necessary to protect the state, and the nation, but they also recognized that the people have the right to own firearms without infringement.
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.
