Navigation
Install the app
How to install the app on iOS
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
More options
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
The 2nd Amendment doesn't prohibit regulation...
- Thread starter wihosa
- Start date
Doc1
Gold Member
Many folks have found that is not necessarily so.And?I don't care what Scalia said the Constitution specifically states the right of the people and all the following writings of the framers confirm this.In fact it mandates it.
In the Supreme Court majority opinion in the Heller case written by Justice Scalia the point is made that formal membership in the state militia is not required by the individual for that individual to secure a personal right to keep and bear arms ...because in the wording of the time "all male adults" are considered to be members of the "citizen militia " to be called upon in times of national defense. Hence, all adult citizens (women too) are members of the general citizens militia and entitled to keep and bear arms.
The plain reading of the Second Amendment " A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bears arms, shall not be infringed " obviously requires a well regulated militia
Well, the general citizens militia is not "well regulated", it's hardly regulated at all!
We need general regulations of the type the state militias use such as, instruction, training, certification, review, arms storage and yes arms type. It's important to note that in the Heller decision Scalia made the expressed point that the 2nd Amendment does not prohibit regulation.
Our leaders have failed us and allowed the NRA to make a perversion of the 2nd Amendment and our daily lives a game of Russian roulette - who will be next to be in the wrong place at the wrong time?
Please point out the parts of the 2nd Amendment that mention anything resembling regulation. It does not say anything about the rights of the Militia its states undeniably that the rights of the people shall not be infringed.
If people like yourself want to change the 2nd then call for a Convention it would be great to see it never make it out of the Senate because you gun grabbers will never get 2/3 of them voting to take away people's rights
No need for amendment, just the understanding that all adult citizens are members of the citizens militia as Scalia said and subject to the regulations mandated by the 2nd Amendment.
The opinion of the Court is the only one that matters.
Clayton knows everything, just ask him.
Shall not be infringed.....
a well-regulated militia, dum dum
The States get the right to a Militia, the People get the RKBA.
Commas mean things.
and every judge before Antonin said they meant the opposite of what Antonin made up.
Wrong....
Interesting, if Scalias opinion was not the majority then only people officially in active or reserve duty in a state or federal militia would have had a personal right to keep and bear arms so maybe some regulation is not so bad.
The Bill of Rights is almost entirely restrictions on the federal government only.
So in no way is it possible for the 2nd amendment to at all intend to say what states can or can not restrict.
It simply prohibits any and all federal jurisdiction.
And stop using the word "regulation" when you do not know what it means.
Use the word "restriction", because that is what you really mean.
And by the way, if you read any state constitution, all able bodied males are members of the militia.
This is Washington State constitution:
{...
ARTICLE XMILITIA
SECTION 1 WHO LIABLE TO MILITARY DUTY. All able-bodied male citizens of this state between the ages of eighteen (18) and forty-five (45) years except such as are exempt by laws of the United States or by the laws of this state, shall be liable to military duty.
...}
The Second Amendment was incorporated to the states in 2010 (McDonald v. Chicago).
The Federal government and state and local governments are subject to Second Amendment case law.
And that case law currently holds that it is perfectly Constitutional to ban AR platform rifles; it may not be good law, it may not have the desired effect of reducing gun crime and violence, but to do so in no manner violates the Second Amendment.
Last, firearm regulatory measures can both regulate guns and restrict their access: background checks are an example of regulation, having nothing to do with specific types of firearms; magazine capacity laws are an example of restrictive firearm measures.
What’s both telling and amusing is that many – perhaps most – on the right have come to loath Heller and feel betrayed by Scalia, particularly the ignorant extremists who incorrectly believe the Second Amendment right is ‘absolute.’Shall not be infringed.....
a well-regulated militia, dum dum
The States get the right to a Militia, the People get the RKBA.
Commas mean things.
and every judge before Antonin said they meant the opposite of what Antonin made up.
- Moderator
- #86
We need general regulations of the type the state militias use such as, instruction, training, certification, review, arms storage and yes arms type.
Most states already have some or most of these requirements.
What’s both telling and amusing is that many – perhaps most – on the right have come to loath Heller and feel betrayed by Scalia, particularly the ignorant extremists who incorrectly believe the Second Amendment right is ‘absolute.’Shall not be infringed.....
a well-regulated militia, dum dum
The States get the right to a Militia, the People get the RKBA.
Commas mean things.
and every judge before Antonin said they meant the opposite of what Antonin made up.
not even the 1st amendment, which the founders saw as probably the cornerstone of democracy, is "absolutely".
this is the problem with rightiwngnuts.
toobfreak
Tungsten/Glass Member
In fact it mandates it.
What you smokin', Fool? A "well-regulated" militia in the context of the Founder's day meant well armed. And what part of "shall not be infringed" don't you understand? The 2nd Amendment means a CIVILIAN ARMY for the national defense against any threat from without OR within. It has already stopped the Japanese from invading our mainland after Pearl Harbor.
toobfreak
Tungsten/Glass Member
What’s both telling and amusing is that many – perhaps most – on the right have come to loath Heller and feel betrayed by Scalia, particularly the ignorant extremists who incorrectly believe the Second Amendment right is ‘absolute.’Shall not be infringed.....
a well-regulated militia, dum dum
The States get the right to a Militia, the People get the RKBA.
Commas mean things.
and every judge before Antonin said they meant the opposite of what Antonin made up.
not even the 1st amendment, which the founders saw as probably the cornerstone of democracy, is "absolutely".
this is the problem with rightiwngnuts.
Sorry, Princess, the 2nd Amendment is the cornerstone upon which all other inalienable rights depend.
Shall not be infringed.....
"Congress shall make no law... 1st
Yet we have many exceptions....limits, all reasonable
Care to explain?
What’s both telling and amusing is that many – perhaps most – on the right have come to loath Heller and feel betrayed by Scalia, particularly the ignorant extremists who incorrectly believe the Second Amendment right is ‘absolute.’a well-regulated militia, dum dum
The States get the right to a Militia, the People get the RKBA.
Commas mean things.
and every judge before Antonin said they meant the opposite of what Antonin made up.
not even the 1st amendment, which the founders saw as probably the cornerstone of democracy, is "absolutely".
this is the problem with rightiwngnuts.
Sorry, Princess, the 2nd Amendment is the cornerstone upon which all other inalienable rights depend.
BS.... the 2nd was to help you DEFEND the government as part of a WELL-ORGANIZED MILITIA.\
it was never intended for a bunch of insane yahoos to use it against the gubmint.... if it were, the only criminal act defined in the constitution wouldn't be treason.
and again, even nutty Scalia said that guns could be regulated.... just not totally banned.
you're welcome.
What’s both telling and amusing is that many – perhaps most – on the right have come to loath Heller and feel betrayed by Scalia, particularly the ignorant extremists who incorrectly believe the Second Amendment right is ‘absolute.’a well-regulated militia, dum dum
The States get the right to a Militia, the People get the RKBA.
Commas mean things.
and every judge before Antonin said they meant the opposite of what Antonin made up.
not even the 1st amendment, which the founders saw as probably the cornerstone of democracy, is "absolutely".
this is the problem with rightiwngnuts.
Sorry, Princess, the 2nd Amendment is the cornerstone upon which all other inalienable rights depend.
No. It was added because they were concerned the brits would come back and try to retake the colonies and they wanted the folks to be ready.
For the love of God, buy a history book..
Shall not be infringed.....
Infringed, not a synonym for regulation.
Shall not be infringed..regulation would be an infringement
That's not how SCOTUS sees it fatty.
2aguy
Diamond Member
- Jul 19, 2014
- 111,978
- 52,261
- 2,290
In fact it mandates it.
In the Supreme Court majority opinion in the Heller case written by Justice Scalia the point is made that formal membership in the state militia is not required by the individual for that individual to secure a personal right to keep and bear arms ...because in the wording of the time "all male adults" are considered to be members of the "citizen militia " to be called upon in times of national defense. Hence, all adult citizens (women too) are members of the general citizens militia and entitled to keep and bear arms.
The plain reading of the Second Amendment " A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bears arms, shall not be infringed " obviously requires a well regulated militia
Well, the general citizens militia is not "well regulated", it's hardly regulated at all!
We need general regulations of the type the state militias use such as, instruction, training, certification, review, arms storage and yes arms type. It's important to note that in the Heller decision Scalia made the expressed point that the 2nd Amendment does not prohibit regulation.
Our leaders have failed us and allowed the NRA to make a perversion of the 2nd Amendment and our daily lives a game of Russian roulette - who will be next to be in the wrong place at the wrong time?
You really need to read the whole opinion...not just what the most recent anti gunner spewed about it...
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf
Page 21...
Thus, the right secured in 1689 as a result of the Stuarts’ abuses was by the time of the founding understood to be an individual right protecting against both public and private violence.
--------------
Reading the Second Amendment as protecting only the right to “keep and bear Arms” in an organized militia therefore fits poorly with the operative clause’s description of the holder of that right as “the people.” We start therefore with a strong presumption that the Second Amendment right is exercised individually and belongs to all Americans.
-----
(c) The Court’s interpretation is confirmed by analogous armsbearing rights in state constitutions that preceded and immediately followed the Second Amendment. Pp. 28–30. (d) The Second Amendment’s drafting history, while of dubious interpretive worth, reveals three state Second Amendment proposals that unequivocally referred to an individual right to bear arms. Pp. 30–32. (e) Interpretation of the Second Amendment by scholars, courts and legislators, from immediately after its ratification through the late 19th century also supports the Court’s conclusion. Pp. 32–47. (f) None of the Court’s precedents forecloses the Court’s interpretation. Neither United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542, 553, nor Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 252, 264–265, refutes the individualrights interpretation. United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174, does not limit the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes, but rather limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by the militia, i.e., those in common use for lawful purposes. Pp. 47–54. 2.
---
1. Operative Clause. a. “Right of the People.” The first salient feature of the operative clause is that it codifies a “right of the people.” The unamended Constitution and the Bill of Rights use the phrase “right of the people” two other times, in the First Amendment’s Assembly-and-Petition Clause and in the Fourth Amendment’s Search-and-Seizure Clause. The Ninth Amendment uses very similar terminology (“The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people”).
All three of these instances unambiguously refer to individual rights, not “collective” rights, or rights that may be exercised only through participation in some corporate body.5
------
There seems to us no doubt, on the basis of both text and history, that the Second Amendment conferred an individual right to keep and bear arms
2aguy
Diamond Member
- Jul 19, 2014
- 111,978
- 52,261
- 2,290
What’s both telling and amusing is that many – perhaps most – on the right have come to loath Heller and feel betrayed by Scalia, particularly the ignorant extremists who incorrectly believe the Second Amendment right is ‘absolute.’The States get the right to a Militia, the People get the RKBA.
Commas mean things.
and every judge before Antonin said they meant the opposite of what Antonin made up.
not even the 1st amendment, which the founders saw as probably the cornerstone of democracy, is "absolutely".
this is the problem with rightiwngnuts.
Sorry, Princess, the 2nd Amendment is the cornerstone upon which all other inalienable rights depend.
BS.... the 2nd was to help you DEFEND the government as part of a WELL-ORGANIZED MILITIA.\
it was never intended for a bunch of insane yahoos to use it against the gubmint.... if it were, the only criminal act defined in the constitution wouldn't be treason.
and again, even nutty Scalia said that guns could be regulated.... just not totally banned.
you're welcome.
Yes....he stated felons and the dangerously mentally ill....those were the people that were regulated.......try to actually read Heller...
2aguy
Diamond Member
- Jul 19, 2014
- 111,978
- 52,261
- 2,290
Shall not be infringed.....
"Congress shall make no law... 1st
Yet we have many exceptions....limits, all reasonable
Care to explain?
Here ...this will explain it for you......
Countering Gun Control Advocates' "No Right is Absolute" Argument - The Truth About Guns
As Second Amendment absolutists say, what part of “shall not be infringed” don’t you understand? Answer: “the right to keep and bear arms.”
Keep means have, as in possess. Bear means to carry on one’s person. And . . . that’s it. The Second Amendment doesn’t prohibit the government from limiting the use of these arms. For example . . .
In Texas, a municipality can ban citizens from discharging a firearm on a tract of land smaller than 10 acres (unless it’s for lawful self-defense). Residents can keep and bearfirearms on a sub-10 acre plot, but cities can ban them from shooting those guns (unless it’s for lawful self-defense). That’s not unconstitutional.
In contrast, residents who want to carry (i.e. “bear”) a firearm in Texas have to get a government permission slip; requiring an application, fingerprinting, background check, four hours of training, a shooting test and a fee. That is clearly unconstitutional.
----
Big Bill is correct when he insists that the First Amendment doesn’t protect someone shouting “FIRE!” in a crowded movie house — if doing so causes harm. But you can shout FIRE! if there’s a fire.
By the same token, Uncle Sam can’t stop someone from entering a theater because the government has reason to believes the parton might shout FIRE! in a crowded movie house, creating panic and harm. This is no small point . .
The First Amendment prohibits prior suppression of free speech.
Nothing prohibits the government from holding citizens accountable for the effects of their free speech — save the difficulty proving that a speaker directly, knowingly and maliciously caused harm by his or her speech. Unless it’s something like creating panic or physical harm by falsely and maliciously shouting FIRE! in a crowded movie house.
The First and Second Amendment forbid the government from prohibiting the keeping and bear arms or the exercise of free speech. They don’t stop the government from punishing citizens whose firearms or speech causes harm AFTER THE FACT.
Our Founding Fathers knew that laws that attempt to stop unwanted activities before they occur are both ineffective and dangerous. Inherently tyrannical.
What would the FFs have made of FBI background checks for gun purchases, ammunitionmagazine limitations, “assault weapons” bans, carry permits, bullet taxes and the like? A constitutional abomination and a direct affront to freedom. Like . . .
Banning the word “FIRE” in case someone might use it in a crowded theater (that wasn’t on fire).
So, in fact, the right to keep and bear arms is absolute, as is the right to free speech.
What’s both telling and amusing is that many – perhaps most – on the right have come to loath Heller and feel betrayed by Scalia, particularly the ignorant extremists who incorrectly believe the Second Amendment right is ‘absolute.’and every judge before Antonin said they meant the opposite of what Antonin made up.
not even the 1st amendment, which the founders saw as probably the cornerstone of democracy, is "absolutely".
this is the problem with rightiwngnuts.
Sorry, Princess, the 2nd Amendment is the cornerstone upon which all other inalienable rights depend.
BS.... the 2nd was to help you DEFEND the government as part of a WELL-ORGANIZED MILITIA.\
it was never intended for a bunch of insane yahoos to use it against the gubmint.... if it were, the only criminal act defined in the constitution wouldn't be treason.
and again, even nutty Scalia said that guns could be regulated.... just not totally banned.
you're welcome.
Yes....he stated felons and the dangerously mentally ill....those were the people that were regulated.......try to actually read Heller...
I did read Helle. you are clearly reading the NRA abridged version.
or perhaps you don't understand what you're reading given you get your con law lessons from the internet.
he made no such specific ruling. he couldn't have. it wasn't before him and the Supreme Court does not deal in hypotheticals.
all he said was a total ban is not permissible. and it isn't....
even though his "interpretation" (and let's face it, that's all it is) of the 2nd goes against more than 200 years of judicial thinking.
you think it's ok for domestic abusers to have guns? people who commit assault?
In fact it mandates it.
In the Supreme Court majority opinion in the Heller case written by Justice Scalia the point is made that formal membership in the state militia is not required by the individual for that individual to secure a personal right to keep and bear arms ...because in the wording of the time "all male adults" are considered to be members of the "citizen militia " to be called upon in times of national defense. Hence, all adult citizens (women too) are members of the general citizens militia and entitled to keep and bear arms.
The plain reading of the Second Amendment " A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bears arms, shall not be infringed " obviously requires a well regulated militia
Well, the general citizens militia is not "well regulated", it's hardly regulated at all!
We need general regulations of the type the state militias use such as, instruction, training, certification, review, arms storage and yes arms type. It's important to note that in the Heller decision Scalia made the expressed point that the 2nd Amendment does not prohibit regulation.
Our leaders have failed us and allowed the NRA to make a perversion of the 2nd Amendment and our daily lives a game of Russian roulette - who will be next to be in the wrong place at the wrong time?
You really need to read the whole opinion...not just what the most recent anti gunner spewed about it...
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf
Page 21...
Thus, the right secured in 1689 as a result of the Stuarts’ abuses was by the time of the founding understood to be an individual right protecting against both public and private violence.
--------------
Reading the Second Amendment as protecting only the right to “keep and bear Arms” in an organized militia therefore fits poorly with the operative clause’s description of the holder of that right as “the people.” We start therefore with a strong presumption that the Second Amendment right is exercised individually and belongs to all Americans.
-----
(c) The Court’s interpretation is confirmed by analogous armsbearing rights in state constitutions that preceded and immediately followed the Second Amendment. Pp. 28–30. (d) The Second Amendment’s drafting history, while of dubious interpretive worth, reveals three state Second Amendment proposals that unequivocally referred to an individual right to bear arms. Pp. 30–32. (e) Interpretation of the Second Amendment by scholars, courts and legislators, from immediately after its ratification through the late 19th century also supports the Court’s conclusion. Pp. 32–47. (f) None of the Court’s precedents forecloses the Court’s interpretation. Neither United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542, 553, nor Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 252, 264–265, refutes the individualrights interpretation. United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174, does not limit the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes, but rather limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by the militia, i.e., those in common use for lawful purposes. Pp. 47–54. 2.
---
1. Operative Clause. a. “Right of the People.” The first salient feature of the operative clause is that it codifies a “right of the people.” The unamended Constitution and the Bill of Rights use the phrase “right of the people” two other times, in the First Amendment’s Assembly-and-Petition Clause and in the Fourth Amendment’s Search-and-Seizure Clause. The Ninth Amendment uses very similar terminology (“The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people”).
All three of these instances unambiguously refer to individual rights, not “collective” rights, or rights that may be exercised only through participation in some corporate body.5
------
There seems to us no doubt, on the basis of both text and history, that the Second Amendment conferred an individual right to keep and bear arms
The point of thread went over your head.
Limits, regs, all constitutional.
We don't need the NRA to protect GUN rights. We have a perfectly good court system.
Shall not be infringed.....
"Congress shall make no law... 1st
Yet we have many exceptions....limits, all reasonable
Care to explain?
Here ...this will explain it for you......
Countering Gun Control Advocates' "No Right is Absolute" Argument - The Truth About Guns
As Second Amendment absolutists say, what part of “shall not be infringed” don’t you understand? Answer: “the right to keep and bear arms.”
Keep means have, as in possess. Bear means to carry on one’s person. And . . . that’s it. The Second Amendment doesn’t prohibit the government from limiting the use of these arms. For example . . .
In Texas, a municipality can ban citizens from discharging a firearm on a tract of land smaller than 10 acres (unless it’s for lawful self-defense). Residents can keep and bearfirearms on a sub-10 acre plot, but cities can ban them from shooting those guns (unless it’s for lawful self-defense). That’s not unconstitutional.
In contrast, residents who want to carry (i.e. “bear”) a firearm in Texas have to get a government permission slip; requiring an application, fingerprinting, background check, four hours of training, a shooting test and a fee. That is clearly unconstitutional.
----
Big Bill is correct when he insists that the First Amendment doesn’t protect someone shouting “FIRE!” in a crowded movie house — if doing so causes harm. But you can shout FIRE! if there’s a fire.
By the same token, Uncle Sam can’t stop someone from entering a theater because the government has reason to believes the parton might shout FIRE! in a crowded movie house, creating panic and harm. This is no small point . .
The First Amendment prohibits prior suppression of free speech.
Nothing prohibits the government from holding citizens accountable for the effects of their free speech — save the difficulty proving that a speaker directly, knowingly and maliciously caused harm by his or her speech. Unless it’s something like creating panic or physical harm by falsely and maliciously shouting FIRE! in a crowded movie house.
The First and Second Amendment forbid the government from prohibiting the keeping and bear arms or the exercise of free speech. They don’t stop the government from punishing citizens whose firearms or speech causes harm AFTER THE FACT.
Our Founding Fathers knew that laws that attempt to stop unwanted activities before they occur are both ineffective and dangerous. Inherently tyrannical.
What would the FFs have made of FBI background checks for gun purchases, ammunitionmagazine limitations, “assault weapons” bans, carry permits, bullet taxes and the like? A constitutional abomination and a direct affront to freedom. Like . . .
Banning the word “FIRE” in case someone might use it in a crowded theater (that wasn’t on fire).
So, in fact, the right to keep and bear arms is absolute, as is the right to free speech.
the Truth About Guns? This is the same bogus NRA funded BS you keep trying to ram down everyone's throats.
do you get a vig every time you post it?
nat4900
Diamond Member
- Mar 3, 2015
- 42,021
- 5,965
- 1,870
- Banned
- #100
Do you know what infringe means? Evidently not.
Infringe basically means "to set LIMITS"..........Right wingers' interpretation of the the 2nd amendment should then INCLUDE the right to walk around with bazookas.
The NRA has convinced morons that ANY sanity is an "infringement" on their imbecility........
Last edited:
Similar threads
- Replies
- 12
- Views
- 103
- Replies
- 105
- Views
- 2K
- Replies
- 3
- Views
- 165
Latest Discussions
- Replies
- 10
- Views
- 27
- Replies
- 814
- Views
- 9K
Forum List
-
-
-
-
-
Political Satire 8135
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
ObamaCare 781
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Member Usernotes 472
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-