Confusion: The wording of the Second Amendment

[Lakhota]

So confusing. Even Scalia said it's not absolute.

 

[Contumacious]

So confusing. Even Scalia said it's not absolute.

But now that you understand that Mike Pence is a danger to society, its no longer confusing that FREE PEOPLE have a right to defend their lives, right?

Now that you read Alexander Hamilton Hamilton's warning that the 2A confers no regulatory authority its no longer confusing that FREE PEOPLE have a right to defend their lives, right?

Or are you still "confused"?


.

 

[Lakhota]

So confusing. Even Scalia said it's not absolute.

But now that you understand that Mike Pence is a danger to society, its no longer confusing that FREE PEOPLE have a right to defend their lives, right?

Now that you read Alexander Hamilton Hamilton's warning that the 2A confers no regulatory authority its no longer confusing that FREE PEOPLE have a right to defend their lives, right?

Or are you still "confused"?


.

Yes...

A Well Regulated Right: The Early American Origins of Gun Control

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Progressives abhor a Free State, hence their Jihad against the 2nd

 

[Contumacious]

So confusing. Even Scalia said it's not absolute.

But now that you understand that Mike Pence is a danger to society, its no longer confusing that FREE PEOPLE have a right to defend their lives, right?

Now that you read Alexander Hamilton Hamilton's warning that the 2A confers no regulatory authority its no longer confusing that FREE PEOPLE have a right to defend their lives, right?

Or are you still "confused"?


.

Yes...

A Well Regulated Right: The Early American Origins of Gun Control

1- Forget Saul Cornell and the rest of the racist elitists, WHY shouldn't FREEMEN have the right to bear arms to defend their lives?


2- Where did Saul Cornell discussed Hamilton warning that the 2A confers no regulatory authority?

3- Justice Stevens' dissent in Heller cited a 2006 article by historian Saul Cornell. That article stated that Tucker's 1791-92 lecture notes described the Second Amendment as relating only to the militia.

David Hardy's article reviews Tucker's lecture notes, as they involve various freedoms enumerated in the Bill of Rights....

As for the Second Amendment, Hardy finds that Cornell's article, and therefore Justice Stevens' opinion, contains a major factual error: the militia language which Cornell quoted was not from Tucker's description of the Second Amendment. The language was from Tucker's explanation of Article I's grant of militia powers to Congress. Tucker's description of the Second Amendment comes 20 pages later in the 1791-92 lecture notes, and is nearly a verbatim match with the text Tucker's 1803 book, unambiguously describing the Second Amendment as encompassing a personal right for a variety of purposes, not just for militia service."


.

 

[Lakhota]

So confusing. Even Scalia said it's not absolute.

But now that you understand that Mike Pence is a danger to society, its no longer confusing that FREE PEOPLE have a right to defend their lives, right?

Now that you read Alexander Hamilton Hamilton's warning that the 2A confers no regulatory authority its no longer confusing that FREE PEOPLE have a right to defend their lives, right?

Or are you still "confused"?


.

Yes...

A Well Regulated Right: The Early American Origins of Gun Control

1- Forget Saul Cornell and the rest of the racist elitists, WHY shouldn't FREEMEN have the right to bear arms to defend their lives?


2- Where did Saul Cornell discussed Hamilton warning that the 2A confers no regulatory authority?

3- Justice Stevens' dissent in Heller cited a 2006 article by historian Saul Cornell. That article stated that Tucker's 1791-92 lecture notes described the Second Amendment as relating only to the militia.

David Hardy's article reviews Tucker's lecture notes, as they involve various freedoms enumerated in the Bill of Rights....

As for the Second Amendment, Hardy finds that Cornell's article, and therefore Justice Stevens' opinion, contains a major factual error: the militia language which Cornell quoted was not from Tucker's description of the Second Amendment. The language was from Tucker's explanation of Article I's grant of militia powers to Congress. Tucker's description of the Second Amendment comes 20 pages later in the 1791-92 lecture notes, and is nearly a verbatim match with the text Tucker's 1803 book, unambiguously describing the Second Amendment as encompassing a personal right for a variety of purposes, not just for militia service."


.

That shit is like saying who shot who with a butcher knife. It doesn't mean shit. The 2nd Amendment means whatever SCOTUS says it means at any point in time.

The Second Amendment doesn't say what you think it does

The Second Amendment Has Nothing to Do with Gun Ownership

The Second Amendment Does Not Guarantee Gun Ownership for All

 

[Contumacious]

Progressives abhor a Free State, hence their Jihad against the 2nd

You should NOT call then "progressives" because they are not. Their actions are REGRESSIVE from a freedom standpoint. They are left wing fascists.

Furthermore, Comrade Sanders has cometh out of the closet.

.

 

[Auld Phart]

So confusing. Even Scalia said it's not absolute.

But now that you understand that Mike Pence is a danger to society, its no longer confusing that FREE PEOPLE have a right to defend their lives, right?

Now that you read Alexander Hamilton Hamilton's warning that the 2A confers no regulatory authority its no longer confusing that FREE PEOPLE have a right to defend their lives, right?

Or are you still "confused"?


.

Yes...

A Well Regulated Right: The Early American Origins of Gun Control

1- Forget Saul Cornell and the rest of the racist elitists, WHY shouldn't FREEMEN have the right to bear arms to defend their lives?


2- Where did Saul Cornell discussed Hamilton warning that the 2A confers no regulatory authority?

3- Justice Stevens' dissent in Heller cited a 2006 article by historian Saul Cornell. That article stated that Tucker's 1791-92 lecture notes described the Second Amendment as relating only to the militia.

David Hardy's article reviews Tucker's lecture notes, as they involve various freedoms enumerated in the Bill of Rights....

As for the Second Amendment, Hardy finds that Cornell's article, and therefore Justice Stevens' opinion, contains a major factual error: the militia language which Cornell quoted was not from Tucker's description of the Second Amendment. The language was from Tucker's explanation of Article I's grant of militia powers to Congress. Tucker's description of the Second Amendment comes 20 pages later in the 1791-92 lecture notes, and is nearly a verbatim match with the text Tucker's 1803 book, unambiguously describing the Second Amendment as encompassing a personal right for a variety of purposes, not just for militia service."


.

That shit is like saying who shot who with a butcher knife. It doesn't mean shit. The 2nd Amendment means whatever SCOTUS says it means at any point in time.

The Second Amendment doesn't say what you think it does

The Second Amendment Has Nothing to Do with Gun Ownership

The Second Amendment Does Not Guarantee Gun Ownership for All

Hilarious

 

[Contumacious]

So confusing. Even Scalia said it's not absolute.

But now that you understand that Mike Pence is a danger to society, its no longer confusing that FREE PEOPLE have a right to defend their lives, right?

Now that you read Alexander Hamilton Hamilton's warning that the 2A confers no regulatory authority its no longer confusing that FREE PEOPLE have a right to defend their lives, right?

Or are you still "confused"?


.

Yes...

A Well Regulated Right: The Early American Origins of Gun Control

1- Forget Saul Cornell and the rest of the racist elitists, WHY shouldn't FREEMEN have the right to bear arms to defend their lives?


2- Where did Saul Cornell discussed Hamilton warning that the 2A confers no regulatory authority?

3- Justice Stevens' dissent in Heller cited a 2006 article by historian Saul Cornell. That article stated that Tucker's 1791-92 lecture notes described the Second Amendment as relating only to the militia.

David Hardy's article reviews Tucker's lecture notes, as they involve various freedoms enumerated in the Bill of Rights....

As for the Second Amendment, Hardy finds that Cornell's article, and therefore Justice Stevens' opinion, contains a major factual error: the militia language which Cornell quoted was not from Tucker's description of the Second Amendment. The language was from Tucker's explanation of Article I's grant of militia powers to Congress. Tucker's description of the Second Amendment comes 20 pages later in the 1791-92 lecture notes, and is nearly a verbatim match with the text Tucker's 1803 book, unambiguously describing the Second Amendment as encompassing a personal right for a variety of purposes, not just for militia service."


.

That shit is like saying who shot who with a butcher knife. It doesn't mean shit. The 2nd Amendment means whatever SCOTUS says it means at any point in time.

The Second Amendment doesn't say what you think it does

The Second Amendment Has Nothing to Do with Gun Ownership

The Second Amendment Does Not Guarantee Gun Ownership for All

Well, it appears that your "confusion" is intentional.

The worse blind is he/she who does not want to see.

WE WILL NOT BE DISARMED EVEN IF SCOTUS "INTERPRETS" THE 2A AS PROVIDING NO RIGHT TO CARRY FIREARMS IN A 9-0 DECISION.


WE WILL NOT BE DISARMED , NO WAY, NO HOW


.

 

[yiostheoy]

One of the primary arguments of gun advocates in that the Second Amendment guarantees the right for citizens to own and carry guns. Their argument has been repeated so many times that many progressives or moderates parrot the same line. Then they offer arguments as to why there should be limitations on gun ownership, such as bans on assault weapons.

There are two problems with the Second Amendment. First, under any circumstance, it is confusing; something that an English teacher would mark up in red ink and tell the author to redo and clarify. Secondly, there are actually two versions of the Amendment; The first passed by two-thirds of the members of each house of Congress (the first step for ratifying a constitutional amendment). A different version passed by three-fourths of the states (the second step for ratifying a constitution amendment). The primary difference between the two versions are a capitalization and asimple comma.

The version passed by Congress is:

• 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 version ratified by the states and authenticated by Secretary of State Thomas Jefferson 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’s difficult to determine the difference between having a capital M and a lower-case m in the word militia. Generally, a capital letter means a proper noun. In that case, the upper case M, as in the Congressional version, references a particular militia, that being the armed forces of the United States. The lower-case m in the second version would refer to a group of individuals who form an ad hoc army, most likely to oppose the armed forces of the United States. Therefore, it would be okay to keep and bear arms only as part of the official armed forces of the United States. This argument supports a limited version of the right to bear arms; only when serving in the official armed forces of the United States.

The comma in the first version (between the words Arms and shall) also changes the meaning of the amendment. The first version with the comma maintains the reference to the official armed forces of the United States. That is further evidence that the right to bear arms is limited to serving in the official military of the United States. The lack of a comma (between arms and shall) in the second version, implies that there is equality or parity between bearing arms for the official forces of the United States and for personal use of firearms. This supports the N.R.A. position on the Second Amendment. as does the lower case m.

The provision for passing an amendment to the U.S. Constitution requires ratification of the same language by two-thirds of the members of each house of Congress, and the legislatures of three-fourths of the states, as described in Article V of the Constitution. It states:

[shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress;]​

But in the case of the Second Amendment, the language between the Congressional and state versions have different meanings.

What this does is to throw out either meaning of the Second Amendment. It puts the definition of the right to bear arms in the same category as other items not mentioned in the Constitution and Bill of Rights, such as the right to privacy, the right to reproductive freedom, the right to gay marriage.

Bearing arms is then a legislative issue. It may be that the policy desired by Congress, the states of the U.S., and most importantly the people, is to permit individuals to own assault weapons. It also may be to prohibit them. In any case, the decision should be made on wise policy, without constitutional reference to the Second Amendment. The Second Amendment should be null and void, because its ratification did not follow the prescribed method for passing an amendment. This makes it blatantly confusing.

More: Confusion -- the wording of the Second Amendment

Undoubtedly, the latest gun massacre in Orlando, Florida will prompt another round of gun debates - including the Second Amendment.

You should read Heller v. DC to get the straight scoop on who are the 4 surviving SCOTUS justices who believe in the right of the People to keep and bear arms versus the 4 who do not.

Scalia was the deciding vote and he is now dead.

Ginsberg will die of old age someday soon and then there will be 7 left.

I do not expect Mitch McConnell to ratify ANY of Hillary's nominations to the Court in the next 4 years.

If McConnell loses his job then I expect Cruz and Rand Paul the filibuster kings to filibust all of them.

 

[yiostheoy]

So confusing. Even Scalia said it's not absolute.

But now that you understand that Mike Pence is a danger to society, its no longer confusing that FREE PEOPLE have a right to defend their lives, right?

Now that you read Alexander Hamilton Hamilton's warning that the 2A confers no regulatory authority its no longer confusing that FREE PEOPLE have a right to defend their lives, right?

Or are you still "confused"?


.

Yes...

A Well Regulated Right: The Early American Origins of Gun Control

1- Forget Saul Cornell and the rest of the racist elitists, WHY shouldn't FREEMEN have the right to bear arms to defend their lives?


2- Where did Saul Cornell discussed Hamilton warning that the 2A confers no regulatory authority?

3- Justice Stevens' dissent in Heller cited a 2006 article by historian Saul Cornell. That article stated that Tucker's 1791-92 lecture notes described the Second Amendment as relating only to the militia.

David Hardy's article reviews Tucker's lecture notes, as they involve various freedoms enumerated in the Bill of Rights....

As for the Second Amendment, Hardy finds that Cornell's article, and therefore Justice Stevens' opinion, contains a major factual error: the militia language which Cornell quoted was not from Tucker's description of the Second Amendment. The language was from Tucker's explanation of Article I's grant of militia powers to Congress. Tucker's description of the Second Amendment comes 20 pages later in the 1791-92 lecture notes, and is nearly a verbatim match with the text Tucker's 1803 book, unambiguously describing the Second Amendment as encompassing a personal right for a variety of purposes, not just for militia service."


.

That shit is like saying who shot who with a butcher knife. It doesn't mean shit. The 2nd Amendment means whatever SCOTUS says it means at any point in time.

The Second Amendment doesn't say what you think it does

The Second Amendment Has Nothing to Do with Gun Ownership

The Second Amendment Does Not Guarantee Gun Ownership for All

Well, it appears that your "confusion" is intentional.

The worse blind is he/she who does not want to see.

WE WILL NOT BE DISARMED EVEN IF SCOTUS "INTERPRETS" THE 2A AS PROVIDING NO RIGHT TO CARRY FIREARMS IN A 9-0 DECISION.


WE WILL NOT BE DISARMED , NO WAY, NO HOW


.

All that the SCOTUS ever does is say whether or not the cities, counties and states can further regulate gun ownership.

NYC, Chicago and DC obviously by popular vote and their legislatures do NOT want guns around them.

California although very similar to them all does NOT was assault guns.

California is very good about it's grandfather rules. If you have an assault gun you can keep it as long as you register it in California. That's what I expect will happen here in the Peoples Republic of Calif.

Arizona, Oregon, and Nevada love assault guns though. So anyone in California that wants an assault gun of their own will need to move to Arizona, Oregon, or Nevada and telecommute.

Problem solved.

 

[Lakhota]

One of the primary arguments of gun advocates in that the Second Amendment guarantees the right for citizens to own and carry guns. Their argument has been repeated so many times that many progressives or moderates parrot the same line. Then they offer arguments as to why there should be limitations on gun ownership, such as bans on assault weapons.

There are two problems with the Second Amendment. First, under any circumstance, it is confusing; something that an English teacher would mark up in red ink and tell the author to redo and clarify. Secondly, there are actually two versions of the Amendment; The first passed by two-thirds of the members of each house of Congress (the first step for ratifying a constitutional amendment). A different version passed by three-fourths of the states (the second step for ratifying a constitution amendment). The primary difference between the two versions are a capitalization and asimple comma.

The version passed by Congress is:

• 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 version ratified by the states and authenticated by Secretary of State Thomas Jefferson 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’s difficult to determine the difference between having a capital M and a lower-case m in the word militia. Generally, a capital letter means a proper noun. In that case, the upper case M, as in the Congressional version, references a particular militia, that being the armed forces of the United States. The lower-case m in the second version would refer to a group of individuals who form an ad hoc army, most likely to oppose the armed forces of the United States. Therefore, it would be okay to keep and bear arms only as part of the official armed forces of the United States. This argument supports a limited version of the right to bear arms; only when serving in the official armed forces of the United States.

The comma in the first version (between the words Arms and shall) also changes the meaning of the amendment. The first version with the comma maintains the reference to the official armed forces of the United States. That is further evidence that the right to bear arms is limited to serving in the official military of the United States. The lack of a comma (between arms and shall) in the second version, implies that there is equality or parity between bearing arms for the official forces of the United States and for personal use of firearms. This supports the N.R.A. position on the Second Amendment. as does the lower case m.

The provision for passing an amendment to the U.S. Constitution requires ratification of the same language by two-thirds of the members of each house of Congress, and the legislatures of three-fourths of the states, as described in Article V of the Constitution. It states:

[shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress;]​

But in the case of the Second Amendment, the language between the Congressional and state versions have different meanings.

What this does is to throw out either meaning of the Second Amendment. It puts the definition of the right to bear arms in the same category as other items not mentioned in the Constitution and Bill of Rights, such as the right to privacy, the right to reproductive freedom, the right to gay marriage.

Bearing arms is then a legislative issue. It may be that the policy desired by Congress, the states of the U.S., and most importantly the people, is to permit individuals to own assault weapons. It also may be to prohibit them. In any case, the decision should be made on wise policy, without constitutional reference to the Second Amendment. The Second Amendment should be null and void, because its ratification did not follow the prescribed method for passing an amendment. This makes it blatantly confusing.

More: Confusion -- the wording of the Second Amendment

Undoubtedly, the latest gun massacre in Orlando, Florida will prompt another round of gun debates - including the Second Amendment.

You should read Heller v. DC to get the straight scoop on who are the 4 surviving SCOTUS justices believe in the right of the People to keep and bear arms versus the 4 who do not.

Scalia was the deciding vote and he is now dead.

Ginsberg will die of old age someday soon and then there will be 7 left.

I'm well aware of who they were. Kennedy surprised me a little.

 

[yiostheoy]

One of the primary arguments of gun advocates in that the Second Amendment guarantees the right for citizens to own and carry guns. Their argument has been repeated so many times that many progressives or moderates parrot the same line. Then they offer arguments as to why there should be limitations on gun ownership, such as bans on assault weapons.

There are two problems with the Second Amendment. First, under any circumstance, it is confusing; something that an English teacher would mark up in red ink and tell the author to redo and clarify. Secondly, there are actually two versions of the Amendment; The first passed by two-thirds of the members of each house of Congress (the first step for ratifying a constitutional amendment). A different version passed by three-fourths of the states (the second step for ratifying a constitution amendment). The primary difference between the two versions are a capitalization and asimple comma.

The version passed by Congress is:

• 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 version ratified by the states and authenticated by Secretary of State Thomas Jefferson 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’s difficult to determine the difference between having a capital M and a lower-case m in the word militia. Generally, a capital letter means a proper noun. In that case, the upper case M, as in the Congressional version, references a particular militia, that being the armed forces of the United States. The lower-case m in the second version would refer to a group of individuals who form an ad hoc army, most likely to oppose the armed forces of the United States. Therefore, it would be okay to keep and bear arms only as part of the official armed forces of the United States. This argument supports a limited version of the right to bear arms; only when serving in the official armed forces of the United States.

The comma in the first version (between the words Arms and shall) also changes the meaning of the amendment. The first version with the comma maintains the reference to the official armed forces of the United States. That is further evidence that the right to bear arms is limited to serving in the official military of the United States. The lack of a comma (between arms and shall) in the second version, implies that there is equality or parity between bearing arms for the official forces of the United States and for personal use of firearms. This supports the N.R.A. position on the Second Amendment. as does the lower case m.

The provision for passing an amendment to the U.S. Constitution requires ratification of the same language by two-thirds of the members of each house of Congress, and the legislatures of three-fourths of the states, as described in Article V of the Constitution. It states:

[shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress;]​

But in the case of the Second Amendment, the language between the Congressional and state versions have different meanings.

What this does is to throw out either meaning of the Second Amendment. It puts the definition of the right to bear arms in the same category as other items not mentioned in the Constitution and Bill of Rights, such as the right to privacy, the right to reproductive freedom, the right to gay marriage.

Bearing arms is then a legislative issue. It may be that the policy desired by Congress, the states of the U.S., and most importantly the people, is to permit individuals to own assault weapons. It also may be to prohibit them. In any case, the decision should be made on wise policy, without constitutional reference to the Second Amendment. The Second Amendment should be null and void, because its ratification did not follow the prescribed method for passing an amendment. This makes it blatantly confusing.

More: Confusion -- the wording of the Second Amendment

Undoubtedly, the latest gun massacre in Orlando, Florida will prompt another round of gun debates - including the Second Amendment.

Dallas ... don't forget Dallas ... current events update.

But nothing will hopefully change.

The worst case right now is that Hillary will also win the Senate and House. But she needs a supermajority in the Senate to stop a filibuster for another Federal gun ban.

And she needs a super majority in the Senate to seat any new SCOTUS justices.

After Ginsberg resigns there will be 7.

 

[yiostheoy]

One of the primary arguments of gun advocates in that the Second Amendment guarantees the right for citizens to own and carry guns. Their argument has been repeated so many times that many progressives or moderates parrot the same line. Then they offer arguments as to why there should be limitations on gun ownership, such as bans on assault weapons.

There are two problems with the Second Amendment. First, under any circumstance, it is confusing; something that an English teacher would mark up in red ink and tell the author to redo and clarify. Secondly, there are actually two versions of the Amendment; The first passed by two-thirds of the members of each house of Congress (the first step for ratifying a constitutional amendment). A different version passed by three-fourths of the states (the second step for ratifying a constitution amendment). The primary difference between the two versions are a capitalization and asimple comma.

The version passed by Congress is:

• 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 version ratified by the states and authenticated by Secretary of State Thomas Jefferson 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’s difficult to determine the difference between having a capital M and a lower-case m in the word militia. Generally, a capital letter means a proper noun. In that case, the upper case M, as in the Congressional version, references a particular militia, that being the armed forces of the United States. The lower-case m in the second version would refer to a group of individuals who form an ad hoc army, most likely to oppose the armed forces of the United States. Therefore, it would be okay to keep and bear arms only as part of the official armed forces of the United States. This argument supports a limited version of the right to bear arms; only when serving in the official armed forces of the United States.

The comma in the first version (between the words Arms and shall) also changes the meaning of the amendment. The first version with the comma maintains the reference to the official armed forces of the United States. That is further evidence that the right to bear arms is limited to serving in the official military of the United States. The lack of a comma (between arms and shall) in the second version, implies that there is equality or parity between bearing arms for the official forces of the United States and for personal use of firearms. This supports the N.R.A. position on the Second Amendment. as does the lower case m.

The provision for passing an amendment to the U.S. Constitution requires ratification of the same language by two-thirds of the members of each house of Congress, and the legislatures of three-fourths of the states, as described in Article V of the Constitution. It states:

[shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress;]​

But in the case of the Second Amendment, the language between the Congressional and state versions have different meanings.

What this does is to throw out either meaning of the Second Amendment. It puts the definition of the right to bear arms in the same category as other items not mentioned in the Constitution and Bill of Rights, such as the right to privacy, the right to reproductive freedom, the right to gay marriage.

Bearing arms is then a legislative issue. It may be that the policy desired by Congress, the states of the U.S., and most importantly the people, is to permit individuals to own assault weapons. It also may be to prohibit them. In any case, the decision should be made on wise policy, without constitutional reference to the Second Amendment. The Second Amendment should be null and void, because its ratification did not follow the prescribed method for passing an amendment. This makes it blatantly confusing.

More: Confusion -- the wording of the Second Amendment

Undoubtedly, the latest gun massacre in Orlando, Florida will prompt another round of gun debates - including the Second Amendment.

You should read Heller v. DC to get the straight scoop on who are the 4 surviving SCOTUS justices believe in the right of the People to keep and bear arms versus the 4 who do not.

Scalia was the deciding vote and he is now dead.

Ginsberg will die of old age someday soon and then there will be 7 left.

I'm well aware of who they were. Kennedy surprised me a little.

Kennedy and Roberts are both swing voters and as such probably the best justices on the Court.

I think Kennedy realizes that without guns the People are helpless to defend themselves.

However he did not want to review the assault ban case, so he is not crazy about AK's and AR's though.

I don't think Roberts is crazy about AK's and AR's either.

 

[yiostheoy]

If anyone every came to my door like in New Orleans to take any of my guns there would be a shoot out.

 

[Wyatt earp]

One of the primary arguments of gun advocates in that the Second Amendment guarantees the right for citizens to own and carry guns. Their argument has been repeated so many times that many progressives or moderates parrot the same line. Then they offer arguments as to why there should be limitations on gun ownership, such as bans on assault weapons.

There are two problems with the Second Amendment. First, under any circumstance, it is confusing; something that an English teacher would mark up in red ink and tell the author to redo and clarify. Secondly, there are actually two versions of the Amendment; The first passed by two-thirds of the members of each house of Congress (the first step for ratifying a constitutional amendment). A different version passed by three-fourths of the states (the second step for ratifying a constitution amendment). The primary difference between the two versions are a capitalization and asimple comma.

The version passed by Congress is:

• 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 version ratified by the states and authenticated by Secretary of State Thomas Jefferson 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’s difficult to determine the difference between having a capital M and a lower-case m in the word militia. Generally, a capital letter means a proper noun. In that case, the upper case M, as in the Congressional version, references a particular militia, that being the armed forces of the United States. The lower-case m in the second version would refer to a group of individuals who form an ad hoc army, most likely to oppose the armed forces of the United States. Therefore, it would be okay to keep and bear arms only as part of the official armed forces of the United States. This argument supports a limited version of the right to bear arms; only when serving in the official armed forces of the United States.

The comma in the first version (between the words Arms and shall) also changes the meaning of the amendment. The first version with the comma maintains the reference to the official armed forces of the United States. That is further evidence that the right to bear arms is limited to serving in the official military of the United States. The lack of a comma (between arms and shall) in the second version, implies that there is equality or parity between bearing arms for the official forces of the United States and for personal use of firearms. This supports the N.R.A. position on the Second Amendment. as does the lower case m.

The provision for passing an amendment to the U.S. Constitution requires ratification of the same language by two-thirds of the members of each house of Congress, and the legislatures of three-fourths of the states, as described in Article V of the Constitution. It states:

[shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress;]​

But in the case of the Second Amendment, the language between the Congressional and state versions have different meanings.

What this does is to throw out either meaning of the Second Amendment. It puts the definition of the right to bear arms in the same category as other items not mentioned in the Constitution and Bill of Rights, such as the right to privacy, the right to reproductive freedom, the right to gay marriage.

Bearing arms is then a legislative issue. It may be that the policy desired by Congress, the states of the U.S., and most importantly the people, is to permit individuals to own assault weapons. It also may be to prohibit them. In any case, the decision should be made on wise policy, without constitutional reference to the Second Amendment. The Second Amendment should be null and void, because its ratification did not follow the prescribed method for passing an amendment. This makes it blatantly confusing.

More: Confusion -- the wording of the Second Amendment

Undoubtedly, the latest gun massacre in Orlando, Florida will prompt another round of gun debates - including the Second Amendment.

LMFAO

 

[Sun Devil 92]

I was down on the reservations a couple of weeks ago. Virtually every nation from 4 corners to canyon de chelly were selling these shirts:

Well, sparky, times have changed. Today, if the government doesn't look out for Native American rights - who will?

And I have 2nd amendment rights, so call it a wash.

Yes, you do - temporarily...

Tray to take them away.

You'll be the first to go.

 

[Lakhota]

I was down on the reservations a couple of weeks ago. Virtually every nation from 4 corners to canyon de chelly were selling these shirts:

Well, sparky, times have changed. Today, if the government doesn't look out for Native American rights - who will?

And I have 2nd amendment rights, so call it a wash.

Yes, you do - temporarily...

Tray to take them away.

You'll be the first to go.

Oh, I love that big Bundy talkin' shit - until the feds kick ass and put a cap in one. Then they're all like little lambs. Go Feds!!!!!

 

[OKTexas]

Progressives abhor a Free State, hence their Jihad against the 2nd

You should NOT call then "progressives" because they are not. Their actions are REGRESSIVE from a freedom standpoint. They are left wing fascists.

Furthermore, Comrade Sanders has cometh out of the closet.

.

Damn, where have I heard that before?

 

[Wyatt earp]

I was down on the reservations a couple of weeks ago. Virtually every nation from 4 corners to canyon de chelly were selling these shirts:

Well, sparky, times have changed. Today, if the government doesn't look out for Native American rights - who will?

And I have 2nd amendment rights, so call it a wash.

Yes, you do - temporarily...

Tray to take them away.

You'll be the first to go.

Oh, I love that big Bundy talkin' shit - until the feds kick ass and put a cap in one. Then they're all like little lambs. Go Feds!!!!!

What?