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.
When a liberal fanatics starts yet another thread with a silly lie, there's not much point in reading further.
Don't we need well regulated militias to protect us from criminals and insane people who want to blow our heads off? Where was the militia in Las Vegas?
The 2A is in the Bill of RIGHTS, a document whose sole purpose is to preserve individual rights.
What does the first half of the 2nd Amendment have to do with individual rights, which reads, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State..."
Don't we need well regulated militias to protect us from criminals and insane people who want to blow our heads off? Where was the militia in Las Vegas?
TRANSLATION: If I can find even one case out of the 320,000,000 Americans where the law didn't work to perfection, I'm going to try to fool them all into believing that entire law should be thrown out, or ignored in place.
What does the first half of the 2nd Amendment have to do with individual rights, which reads, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State..."
It's explaining to normal Americans why the government is forbidden to restrict or take away that particular individual right.
Anything else you need explained to you for the 16th time?
Just a reminder that the current cry for unrestricted gun ownership is from the relatively recent push by the NRA to increase the profits for gun manufactures. A lot of people complain that the government is manipulating them, but they don't notice how corporations manipulate them.
At the time, the Supreme Court’s last word on the Second Amendment dated from 1939, when the justices found unanimously that the right to bear arms applied only to weapons with a reasonable relationship to a militia. In the 1980s, originalists like Bork agreed that the Second Amendment didn’t give individuals a right to bear arms. But over the next decade, gun rights became a newly invigorating issue for Republicans, fueled by the National Rifle Association.
The Second Amendment was not about self-defense. “The right to keep and bear arms became an issue in 1787-88 only because the Constitution proposed significant changes in the governance of the militia,” they wrote in an amicus brief. The Federalists wanted Congress to determine exactly what kind of militia the nation should have. A few Anti-Federalists did refer to the personal use of guns. But the debate always focused on the role of the militia, not a personal right of self-defense. https://twnews.us/us-news/how-will-t...remake-america
That's discussing weapons, not ownership.
Indeed you're discussing Miller as your 1939 case, which... was the following...
Miller transported an unregistered short double barrel shotgun from Oklahoma to Arkansas, when he was found in possession of it. The district court dismissed his case, finding no crime, the prosecution appealed and the SCOTUS took it. Miller died a month before the appeal, no defense brief or party was present (since the defense moved to dismiss since there was no defendant). The court found only that an SBS (short barreled shotgun) was not a military weapon commonly used by the military, as no evidence was provided by the defense, however it was common knowledge that US troops used trench guns (short barreled shotguns) in the Trenches of WWI.
Bork is right, the 2nd amendment does not give individuals the right to bear arms, however the doesn't mean there is no individual right to bear arms. The issue you miss is that the individual right to bear arms is not given by the Constitution nor Bill of Rights, its inherent. The 2nd only tells the government what it can or cannot do (the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed), which presumably means the right pre-exists the amendment or there would be nothing that the government could infringe.
Republicans stocked up during the Obama years. You seldom hear of them hoarding Ammo and Firearms anymore.
Just waiting for Beto to knock on the door at 2am and try to take them.
I don't think there will be any knocking. They are either going to bust your door down and you are going to go out in a blaze of glory, or they are going to wait until you aren't home and raid your gun cabinet while you helplessly watch on your ring video app.
I think the knocking on your door thing is more about how, after the rapture, the government is going to knock on your door and ask you if you believe in Jesus. And if you say yes, you are done for.
Just a reminder that the current cry for unrestricted gun ownership is from the relatively recent push by the NRA to increase the profits for gun manufactures. A lot of people complain that the government is manipulating them, but they don't notice how corporations manipulate them.
At the time, the Supreme Court’s last word on the Second Amendment dated from 1939, when the justices found unanimously that the right to bear arms applied only to weapons with a reasonable relationship to a militia. In the 1980s, originalists like Bork agreed that the Second Amendment didn’t give individuals a right to bear arms. But over the next decade, gun rights became a newly invigorating issue for Republicans, fueled by the National Rifle Association.
The Second Amendment was not about self-defense. “The right to keep and bear arms became an issue in 1787-88 only because the Constitution proposed significant changes in the governance of the militia,” they wrote in an amicus brief. The Federalists wanted Congress to determine exactly what kind of militia the nation should have. A few Anti-Federalists did refer to the personal use of guns. But the debate always focused on the role of the militia, not a personal right of self-defense. https://twnews.us/us-news/how-will-t...remake-america
If that's the case, why didn't the Founders restrict the ownership of arms only to active militia members?
Why are there no historical accounts of this theory actually being enforced?
Why would they feel that something as obvious as the militia's right to bear arms needed to be to codified into the Bill of Rights, second only to the freedom of speech?
If that's the case, why didn't the Founders restrict the ownership of arms only to active militia members?
Why are there no historical accounts of this theory actually being enforced?
Why would they feel that something as obvious as the militia's right to bear arms needed to be to codified into the Bill of Rights, second only to the freedom of speech?
Because that theory is a load of crap.
Actually the interpretation is BS. But the principle is sound.
The 2nd Amendment confers no rights, indeed no rights are provided by the State, if a right was provided it's not a right at all, but a state sanctioned privilege. If you even look at the wording of the 2nd it only applies to government (which levels is open to interpretation but certainly the Federal Government).
So even though Bork argued the 2nd conferred no right, it did not mean there was no right to bear arms. That right as you point out was demonstrated in the founders own time where firearms were unrestricted. It's also clear in the 2nd since the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Those words don't confer anything, they restrict the power of government against infringing a pre-existing right.
Thus the argument is misunderstanding of the statement Bork made, and even our fundamental principles, that peoples rights are inherent and do not stem from our government.
Yet again the leftist logic on the 2A doesn't disappoint. Saying yet again that it is the one right in all of them that doesnt refer to the people as a whole. Makes sense right? Surrrrre it does.
Using that take I suppose the 1st amendment only refers to agents of the government officially designated to provide sanctioned information, and who also ensure the mythic separation of church and state.
Yep, if we listen to the leftist loons the people have no rights. Only the government does. This weak and nonsensical argument has gone on long enough. Its been proven wrong time and again.
These are INDIVIDUAL rights, not government rights. How anyone could think a bunch of 18th century types did not believe in personal defense with arms but only supervised national defense I just cant fathom.
Dueling was this an active tradition then let alone use of arms for a LOT of other personal and community purposes. Folks didnt go out their doors on a normal day unarmed.
The most common of men were always armed. With at least a pistol and knife. Yet arms were ONLY for collective militia service in cadre to the Army. Uh huh. Sure.
It was only in the latter half of the 20th century that these silly collectivist theories came up. And now the people dont even have any right to personal defense at all? Oh my!!!
Absolute lunacy.
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.
