The second amendment. Love it, or leave it

[Bassman007]

Second Amendment - U.S. Constitution - FindLaw 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.

2nd Amendment Annotations Prior to the Supreme Court's 2008 decision in District of Columbia v. Heller,1 the courts had yet to definitively state what right the Second Amendment protected. The opposing theories, perhaps oversimplified, were (1) an "individual rights" approach, whereby the Amendment protected individuals' rights to firearm ownership, possession, and transportation; and (2) a "states' rights" approach, under which the Amendment only protected the right to keep and bear arms in connection with organized state militia units.2 Moreover, it was generally believed that the Amendment was only a bar to federal action, not to state or municipal restraints.3 However, the Supreme Court has now definitively held that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that weapon for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Moreover, this right applies not just to the federal government, but to states and municipalities as well. In Heller, the Court held that (1) the District of Columbia's total ban on handgun possession in the home amounted to a prohibition on an entire class of "arms" that Americans overwhelmingly chose for the lawful purpose of self-defense, and thus violated the Second Amendment; and (2) the District's requirement that any lawful firearm in the home be disassembled or bound by a trigger lock also violated the Second Amendment, because the law made it impossible for citizens to use arms for the core lawful purpose of self-defense. The Court reasoned that the Amendment's prefatory clause, i.e., "[a] well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State," announced the Amendment's purpose, but did not limit or expand the scope of the operative clause, i.e., "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." Moreover, the prefatory clause's history comported with the Court's interpretation, because the prefatory clause stemmed from the Anti-Federalists' concern that the federal government would disarm the people in order to disable the citizens' militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. Further, the Court distinguished United States v.Miller,4 in which the Court upheld a statute requiring registration under the National Firearms Act of sawed-off shotguns, on the ground that Miller limited the type of weapon to which the Second Amendment right applied to those in common use for lawful purposes. In McDonald v. Chicago,5 the Court struck down laws enacted by Chicago and the village of Oak Park effectively banning handgun possession by almost all private citizens, holding that the Fourteenth Amendment incorporated the Second Amendment right, recognized in Heller, to keep and bear arms for the purpose of self-defense. The Court reasoned that this right is fundamental to the nation's scheme of ordered liberty, given that self-defense was a basic right recognized by many legal systems from ancient times to the present, and Heller held that individual self-defense was "the central component" of the Second Amendment right. Moreover, a survey of the contemporaneous history also demonstrated clearly that the Fourteenth Amendment's Framers and ratifiers counted the right to keep and bear arms among those fundamental rights necessary to the Nation's system of ordered liberty. - See more at: Second Amendment - U.S. Constitution - FindLaw

 

[Contumacious]

Second Amendment - U.S. Constitution - FindLaw 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.

2nd Amendment Annotations Prior to the Supreme Court's 2008 decision in District of Columbia v. Heller,1 the courts had yet to definitively state what right the Second Amendment protected. The opposing theories, perhaps oversimplified, were (1) an "individual rights" approach, whereby the Amendment protected individuals' rights to firearm ownership, possession, and transportation; and (2) a "states' rights" approach, under which the Amendment only protected the right to keep and bear arms in connection with organized state militia units.2 Moreover, it was generally believed that the Amendment was only a bar to federal action, not to state or municipal restraints.3 However, the Supreme Court has now definitively held that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that weapon for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Moreover, this right applies not just to the federal government, but to states and municipalities as well. In Heller, the Court held that (1) the District of Columbia's total ban on handgun possession in the home amounted to a prohibition on an entire class of "arms" that Americans overwhelmingly chose for the lawful purpose of self-defense, and thus violated the Second Amendment; and (2) the District's requirement that any lawful firearm in the home be disassembled or bound by a trigger lock also violated the Second Amendment, because the law made it impossible for citizens to use arms for the core lawful purpose of self-defense. The Court reasoned that the Amendment's prefatory clause, i.e., "[a] well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State," announced the Amendment's purpose, but did not limit or expand the scope of the operative clause, i.e., "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." Moreover, the prefatory clause's history comported with the Court's interpretation, because the prefatory clause stemmed from the Anti-Federalists' concern that the federal government would disarm the people in order to disable the citizens' militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. Further, the Court distinguished United States v.Miller,4 in which the Court upheld a statute requiring registration under the National Firearms Act of sawed-off shotguns, on the ground that Miller limited the type of weapon to which the Second Amendment right applied to those in common use for lawful purposes. In McDonald v. Chicago,5 the Court struck down laws enacted by Chicago and the village of Oak Park effectively banning handgun possession by almost all private citizens, holding that the Fourteenth Amendment incorporated the Second Amendment right, recognized in Heller, to keep and bear arms for the purpose of self-defense. The Court reasoned that this right is fundamental to the nation's scheme of ordered liberty, given that self-defense was a basic right recognized by many legal systems from ancient times to the present, and Heller held that individual self-defense was "the central component" of the Second Amendment right. Moreover, a survey of the contemporaneous history also demonstrated clearly that the Fourteenth Amendment's Framers and ratifiers counted the right to keep and bear arms among those fundamental rights necessary to the Nation's system of ordered liberty. - See more at: Second Amendment - U.S. Constitution - FindLaw

Agree that thr right to life and to defend the same is an individual UNALIENABLE RIGHT. But Heller allowed 7 or 8 federal regulations to remain in the books even though the 2A confers no regulatory authority.


.

 

[Bassman007]

Second Amendment - U.S. Constitution - FindLaw 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.

2nd Amendment Annotations Prior to the Supreme Court's 2008 decision in District of Columbia v. Heller,1 the courts had yet to definitively state what right the Second Amendment protected. The opposing theories, perhaps oversimplified, were (1) an "individual rights" approach, whereby the Amendment protected individuals' rights to firearm ownership, possession, and transportation; and (2) a "states' rights" approach, under which the Amendment only protected the right to keep and bear arms in connection with organized state militia units.2 Moreover, it was generally believed that the Amendment was only a bar to federal action, not to state or municipal restraints.3 However, the Supreme Court has now definitively held that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that weapon for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Moreover, this right applies not just to the federal government, but to states and municipalities as well. In Heller, the Court held that (1) the District of Columbia's total ban on handgun possession in the home amounted to a prohibition on an entire class of "arms" that Americans overwhelmingly chose for the lawful purpose of self-defense, and thus violated the Second Amendment; and (2) the District's requirement that any lawful firearm in the home be disassembled or bound by a trigger lock also violated the Second Amendment, because the law made it impossible for citizens to use arms for the core lawful purpose of self-defense. The Court reasoned that the Amendment's prefatory clause, i.e., "[a] well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State," announced the Amendment's purpose, but did not limit or expand the scope of the operative clause, i.e., "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." Moreover, the prefatory clause's history comported with the Court's interpretation, because the prefatory clause stemmed from the Anti-Federalists' concern that the federal government would disarm the people in order to disable the citizens' militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. Further, the Court distinguished United States v.Miller,4 in which the Court upheld a statute requiring registration under the National Firearms Act of sawed-off shotguns, on the ground that Miller limited the type of weapon to which the Second Amendment right applied to those in common use for lawful purposes. In McDonald v. Chicago,5 the Court struck down laws enacted by Chicago and the village of Oak Park effectively banning handgun possession by almost all private citizens, holding that the Fourteenth Amendment incorporated the Second Amendment right, recognized in Heller, to keep and bear arms for the purpose of self-defense. The Court reasoned that this right is fundamental to the nation's scheme of ordered liberty, given that self-defense was a basic right recognized by many legal systems from ancient times to the present, and Heller held that individual self-defense was "the central component" of the Second Amendment right. Moreover, a survey of the contemporaneous history also demonstrated clearly that the Fourteenth Amendment's Framers and ratifiers counted the right to keep and bear arms among those fundamental rights necessary to the Nation's system of ordered liberty. - See more at: Second Amendment - U.S. Constitution - FindLaw

Agree that thr right to life and to defend the same is an individual UNALIENABLE RIGHT. But Heller allowed 7 or 8 federal regulations to remain in the books even though the 2A confers no regulatory authority.


.

I will not claim to be a constitutional scholar, however the right to bear arms was written into the law for the purpose of defending the people against undue government regulations, such as tea taxes. When this was written there was no guarantee that our government would succeed, and if it was challenged the people had to be armed as the military as we know it now to protect the commonwealth did not exist, so the people had to be ready to take up arms to defend the new commonwealth. Some of us are still ready, and some just fully depend on others......................

 

[Boss]

I will not claim to be a constitutional scholar, however the right to bear arms was written into the law for the purpose of defending the people against undue government regulations, such as tea taxes. When this was written there was no guarantee that our government would succeed, and if it was challenged the people had to be armed as the military as we know it now to protect the commonwealth did not exist, so the people had to be ready to take up arms to defend the new commonwealth. Some of us are still ready, and some just fully depend on others......................

You're right... you're no constitutional scholar.

 

[Bassman007]

I will not claim to be a constitutional scholar, however the right to bear arms was written into the law for the purpose of defending the people against undue government regulations, such as tea taxes. When this was written there was no guarantee that our government would succeed, and if it was challenged the people had to be armed as the military as we know it now to protect the commonwealth did not exist, so the people had to be ready to take up arms to defend the new commonwealth. Some of us are still ready, and some just fully depend on others......................

You're right... you're no constitutional scholar.

Are you? Be honest now....................

 

[NYcarbineer]

Second Amendment - U.S. Constitution - FindLaw 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.

2nd Amendment Annotations Prior to the Supreme Court's 2008 decision in District of Columbia v. Heller,1 the courts had yet to definitively state what right the Second Amendment protected. The opposing theories, perhaps oversimplified, were (1) an "individual rights" approach, whereby the Amendment protected individuals' rights to firearm ownership, possession, and transportation; and (2) a "states' rights" approach, under which the Amendment only protected the right to keep and bear arms in connection with organized state militia units.2 Moreover, it was generally believed that the Amendment was only a bar to federal action, not to state or municipal restraints.3 However, the Supreme Court has now definitively held that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that weapon for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Moreover, this right applies not just to the federal government, but to states and municipalities as well. In Heller, the Court held that (1) the District of Columbia's total ban on handgun possession in the home amounted to a prohibition on an entire class of "arms" that Americans overwhelmingly chose for the lawful purpose of self-defense, and thus violated the Second Amendment; and (2) the District's requirement that any lawful firearm in the home be disassembled or bound by a trigger lock also violated the Second Amendment, because the law made it impossible for citizens to use arms for the core lawful purpose of self-defense. The Court reasoned that the Amendment's prefatory clause, i.e., "[a] well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State," announced the Amendment's purpose, but did not limit or expand the scope of the operative clause, i.e., "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." Moreover, the prefatory clause's history comported with the Court's interpretation, because the prefatory clause stemmed from the Anti-Federalists' concern that the federal government would disarm the people in order to disable the citizens' militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. Further, the Court distinguished United States v.Miller,4 in which the Court upheld a statute requiring registration under the National Firearms Act of sawed-off shotguns, on the ground that Miller limited the type of weapon to which the Second Amendment right applied to those in common use for lawful purposes. In McDonald v. Chicago,5 the Court struck down laws enacted by Chicago and the village of Oak Park effectively banning handgun possession by almost all private citizens, holding that the Fourteenth Amendment incorporated the Second Amendment right, recognized in Heller, to keep and bear arms for the purpose of self-defense. The Court reasoned that this right is fundamental to the nation's scheme of ordered liberty, given that self-defense was a basic right recognized by many legal systems from ancient times to the present, and Heller held that individual self-defense was "the central component" of the Second Amendment right. Moreover, a survey of the contemporaneous history also demonstrated clearly that the Fourteenth Amendment's Framers and ratifiers counted the right to keep and bear arms among those fundamental rights necessary to the Nation's system of ordered liberty. - See more at: Second Amendment - U.S. Constitution - FindLaw

Which crimes committed with a gun does the 2nd Amendment protect from prosecution?

 

[Bassman007]

Second Amendment - U.S. Constitution - FindLaw 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.

2nd Amendment Annotations Prior to the Supreme Court's 2008 decision in District of Columbia v. Heller,1 the courts had yet to definitively state what right the Second Amendment protected. The opposing theories, perhaps oversimplified, were (1) an "individual rights" approach, whereby the Amendment protected individuals' rights to firearm ownership, possession, and transportation; and (2) a "states' rights" approach, under which the Amendment only protected the right to keep and bear arms in connection with organized state militia units.2 Moreover, it was generally believed that the Amendment was only a bar to federal action, not to state or municipal restraints.3 However, the Supreme Court has now definitively held that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that weapon for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Moreover, this right applies not just to the federal government, but to states and municipalities as well. In Heller, the Court held that (1) the District of Columbia's total ban on handgun possession in the home amounted to a prohibition on an entire class of "arms" that Americans overwhelmingly chose for the lawful purpose of self-defense, and thus violated the Second Amendment; and (2) the District's requirement that any lawful firearm in the home be disassembled or bound by a trigger lock also violated the Second Amendment, because the law made it impossible for citizens to use arms for the core lawful purpose of self-defense. The Court reasoned that the Amendment's prefatory clause, i.e., "[a] well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State," announced the Amendment's purpose, but did not limit or expand the scope of the operative clause, i.e., "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." Moreover, the prefatory clause's history comported with the Court's interpretation, because the prefatory clause stemmed from the Anti-Federalists' concern that the federal government would disarm the people in order to disable the citizens' militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. Further, the Court distinguished United States v.Miller,4 in which the Court upheld a statute requiring registration under the National Firearms Act of sawed-off shotguns, on the ground that Miller limited the type of weapon to which the Second Amendment right applied to those in common use for lawful purposes. In McDonald v. Chicago,5 the Court struck down laws enacted by Chicago and the village of Oak Park effectively banning handgun possession by almost all private citizens, holding that the Fourteenth Amendment incorporated the Second Amendment right, recognized in Heller, to keep and bear arms for the purpose of self-defense. The Court reasoned that this right is fundamental to the nation's scheme of ordered liberty, given that self-defense was a basic right recognized by many legal systems from ancient times to the present, and Heller held that individual self-defense was "the central component" of the Second Amendment right. Moreover, a survey of the contemporaneous history also demonstrated clearly that the Fourteenth Amendment's Framers and ratifiers counted the right to keep and bear arms among those fundamental rights necessary to the Nation's system of ordered liberty. - See more at: Second Amendment - U.S. Constitution - FindLaw

Which crimes committed with a gun does the 2nd Amendment protect from prosecution?

The second Amendment only gives the right to own a firearm, how it is used or not used has nothing to do with the second amendment, though it does specify why the amendment is required.

 

[Boss]

Are you? Be honest now....................

Well, I at least know what "inalienable rights" mean. I do know that it's called the Bill of Rights and not the Bill of Needs. I also know the Founding Fathers, while not subject to modern weapons, were perfectly fine with private parties owning cannons and battleships capable of leveling entire coastal cities.

Our inalienable rights are not granted by a Constitution, an Amendment or Government. They are endowed by our Creator and inalienable. The Constitution is merely an instrument to protect those rights.

 

[Boss]

The second Amendment only gives the right to own a firearm..

No it doesn't. Our rights are not given to us by an Amendment or Government. Our rights are inalienable and endowed by our Creator. The 2nd Amendment is there to ensure our inalienable right will not be infringed upon by government. It does not "grant" any damn thing.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Second Amendment - U.S. Constitution - FindLaw 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.

2nd Amendment Annotations Prior to the Supreme Court's 2008 decision in District of Columbia v. Heller,1 the courts had yet to definitively state what right the Second Amendment protected. The opposing theories, perhaps oversimplified, were (1) an "individual rights" approach, whereby the Amendment protected individuals' rights to firearm ownership, possession, and transportation; and (2) a "states' rights" approach, under which the Amendment only protected the right to keep and bear arms in connection with organized state militia units.2 Moreover, it was generally believed that the Amendment was only a bar to federal action, not to state or municipal restraints.3 However, the Supreme Court has now definitively held that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that weapon for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Moreover, this right applies not just to the federal government, but to states and municipalities as well. In Heller, the Court held that (1) the District of Columbia's total ban on handgun possession in the home amounted to a prohibition on an entire class of "arms" that Americans overwhelmingly chose for the lawful purpose of self-defense, and thus violated the Second Amendment; and (2) the District's requirement that any lawful firearm in the home be disassembled or bound by a trigger lock also violated the Second Amendment, because the law made it impossible for citizens to use arms for the core lawful purpose of self-defense. The Court reasoned that the Amendment's prefatory clause, i.e., "[a] well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State," announced the Amendment's purpose, but did not limit or expand the scope of the operative clause, i.e., "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." Moreover, the prefatory clause's history comported with the Court's interpretation, because the prefatory clause stemmed from the Anti-Federalists' concern that the federal government would disarm the people in order to disable the citizens' militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. Further, the Court distinguished United States v.Miller,4 in which the Court upheld a statute requiring registration under the National Firearms Act of sawed-off shotguns, on the ground that Miller limited the type of weapon to which the Second Amendment right applied to those in common use for lawful purposes. In McDonald v. Chicago,5 the Court struck down laws enacted by Chicago and the village of Oak Park effectively banning handgun possession by almost all private citizens, holding that the Fourteenth Amendment incorporated the Second Amendment right, recognized in Heller, to keep and bear arms for the purpose of self-defense. The Court reasoned that this right is fundamental to the nation's scheme of ordered liberty, given that self-defense was a basic right recognized by many legal systems from ancient times to the present, and Heller held that individual self-defense was "the central component" of the Second Amendment right. Moreover, a survey of the contemporaneous history also demonstrated clearly that the Fourteenth Amendment's Framers and ratifiers counted the right to keep and bear arms among those fundamental rights necessary to the Nation's system of ordered liberty. - See more at: Second Amendment - U.S. Constitution - FindLaw

Which crimes committed with a gun does the 2nd Amendment protect from prosecution?

The Bill of rights does not lay out penalties for any crimes

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

"The second amendment. Love it, or leave it"

lol

No, moron, that’s not how it works.

The Second Amendment exists solely in the context of its case law, as determined by the Supreme Court, just like the rest of the Constitution.

 

[Bassman007]

The second Amendment only gives the right to own a firearm..

No it doesn't. Our rights are not given to us by an Amendment or Government. Our rights are inalienable and endowed by our Creator. The 2nd Amendment is there to ensure our inalienable right will not be infringed upon by government. It does not "grant" any damn thing.

Your rights are given by the government, so if the government says you can smoke dope you can, if they say different you go to jail. (test it if you doubt me) The second Amendment was a product of James Madison who was a member of the government at the time

 

[Boss]

Your rights are given by the government, so if the government says you can smoke dope you can, if they say different you go to jail. (test it if you doubt me) The second Amendment was a product of James Madison who was a member of the government at the time

Well no they are not. That's simply a bullheaded comment that doesn't comport with our founding principles. Our rights are inalienable...they are not granted by man! The Bill of Rights are to ensure government DOESN'T infringe on our inalienable rights granted to us by our Creator.

 

[Chuz Life]

The second Amendment only gives the right to own a firearm..

No it doesn't. Our rights are not given to us by an Amendment or Government. Our rights are inalienable and endowed by our Creator. The 2nd Amendment is there to ensure our inalienable right will not be infringed upon by government. It does not "grant" any damn thing.

Your rights are given by the government, so if the government says you can smoke dope you can, if they say different you go to jail. (test it if you doubt me) The second Amendment was a product of James Madison who was a member of the government at the time

Please quote the specific text of the Constitution where the founders (the people) gave the Federal Government the power and the authority to give us (the people) our rights.

 

[Bassman007]

Your rights are given by the government, so if the government says you can smoke dope you can, if they say different you go to jail. (test it if you doubt me) The second Amendment was a product of James Madison who was a member of the government at the time

Well no they are not. That's simply a bullheaded comment that doesn't comport with our founding principles. Our rights are inalienable...they are not granted by man! The Bill of Rights are to ensure government DOESN'T infringe on our inalienable rights granted to us by our Creator.

The second Amendment only gives the right to own a firearm..

No it doesn't. Our rights are not given to us by an Amendment or Government. Our rights are inalienable and endowed by our Creator. The 2nd Amendment is there to ensure our inalienable right will not be infringed upon by government. It does not "grant" any damn thing.

Your rights are given by the government, so if the government says you can smoke dope you can, if they say different you go to jail. (test it if you doubt me) The second Amendment was a product of James Madison who was a member of the government at the time

Please quote the specific text of the Constitution where the founders (the people) gave the Federal Government the power and the authority to give us (the people) our rights.

So if a person believes that it is their right to pack a gun in front of the White House while drinking a beer and smoking a joint they will not be arrested. Is this what you are saying? because you may feel free to test your theory, your rights are what the government says they are

 

[Moonglow]

Second Amendment - U.S. Constitution - FindLaw 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.

2nd Amendment Annotations Prior to the Supreme Court's 2008 decision in District of Columbia v. Heller,1 the courts had yet to definitively state what right the Second Amendment protected. The opposing theories, perhaps oversimplified, were (1) an "individual rights" approach, whereby the Amendment protected individuals' rights to firearm ownership, possession, and transportation; and (2) a "states' rights" approach, under which the Amendment only protected the right to keep and bear arms in connection with organized state militia units.2 Moreover, it was generally believed that the Amendment was only a bar to federal action, not to state or municipal restraints.3 However, the Supreme Court has now definitively held that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that weapon for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Moreover, this right applies not just to the federal government, but to states and municipalities as well. In Heller, the Court held that (1) the District of Columbia's total ban on handgun possession in the home amounted to a prohibition on an entire class of "arms" that Americans overwhelmingly chose for the lawful purpose of self-defense, and thus violated the Second Amendment; and (2) the District's requirement that any lawful firearm in the home be disassembled or bound by a trigger lock also violated the Second Amendment, because the law made it impossible for citizens to use arms for the core lawful purpose of self-defense. The Court reasoned that the Amendment's prefatory clause, i.e., "[a] well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State," announced the Amendment's purpose, but did not limit or expand the scope of the operative clause, i.e., "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." Moreover, the prefatory clause's history comported with the Court's interpretation, because the prefatory clause stemmed from the Anti-Federalists' concern that the federal government would disarm the people in order to disable the citizens' militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. Further, the Court distinguished United States v.Miller,4 in which the Court upheld a statute requiring registration under the National Firearms Act of sawed-off shotguns, on the ground that Miller limited the type of weapon to which the Second Amendment right applied to those in common use for lawful purposes. In McDonald v. Chicago,5 the Court struck down laws enacted by Chicago and the village of Oak Park effectively banning handgun possession by almost all private citizens, holding that the Fourteenth Amendment incorporated the Second Amendment right, recognized in Heller, to keep and bear arms for the purpose of self-defense. The Court reasoned that this right is fundamental to the nation's scheme of ordered liberty, given that self-defense was a basic right recognized by many legal systems from ancient times to the present, and Heller held that individual self-defense was "the central component" of the Second Amendment right. Moreover, a survey of the contemporaneous history also demonstrated clearly that the Fourteenth Amendment's Framers and ratifiers counted the right to keep and bear arms among those fundamental rights necessary to the Nation's system of ordered liberty. - See more at: Second Amendment - U.S. Constitution - FindLaw

Which crimes committed with a gun does the 2nd Amendment protect from prosecution?

The second Amendment only gives the right to own a firearm, how it is used or not used has nothing to do with the second amendment, though it does specify why the amendment is required.

Are you? Be honest now....................

Well, I at least know what "inalienable rights" mean. I do know that it's called the Bill of Rights and not the Bill of Needs. I also know the Founding Fathers, while not subject to modern weapons, were perfectly fine with private parties owning cannons and battleships capable of leveling entire coastal cities.

Our inalienable rights are not granted by a Constitution, an Amendment or Government. They are endowed by our Creator and inalienable. The Constitution is merely an instrument to protect those rights.

Where in the Bible does it says to bear firearms?

 

[Skull Pilot]

Second Amendment - U.S. Constitution - FindLaw 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.

2nd Amendment Annotations Prior to the Supreme Court's 2008 decision in District of Columbia v. Heller,1 the courts had yet to definitively state what right the Second Amendment protected. The opposing theories, perhaps oversimplified, were (1) an "individual rights" approach, whereby the Amendment protected individuals' rights to firearm ownership, possession, and transportation; and (2) a "states' rights" approach, under which the Amendment only protected the right to keep and bear arms in connection with organized state militia units.2 Moreover, it was generally believed that the Amendment was only a bar to federal action, not to state or municipal restraints.3 However, the Supreme Court has now definitively held that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that weapon for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Moreover, this right applies not just to the federal government, but to states and municipalities as well. In Heller, the Court held that (1) the District of Columbia's total ban on handgun possession in the home amounted to a prohibition on an entire class of "arms" that Americans overwhelmingly chose for the lawful purpose of self-defense, and thus violated the Second Amendment; and (2) the District's requirement that any lawful firearm in the home be disassembled or bound by a trigger lock also violated the Second Amendment, because the law made it impossible for citizens to use arms for the core lawful purpose of self-defense. The Court reasoned that the Amendment's prefatory clause, i.e., "[a] well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State," announced the Amendment's purpose, but did not limit or expand the scope of the operative clause, i.e., "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." Moreover, the prefatory clause's history comported with the Court's interpretation, because the prefatory clause stemmed from the Anti-Federalists' concern that the federal government would disarm the people in order to disable the citizens' militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. Further, the Court distinguished United States v.Miller,4 in which the Court upheld a statute requiring registration under the National Firearms Act of sawed-off shotguns, on the ground that Miller limited the type of weapon to which the Second Amendment right applied to those in common use for lawful purposes. In McDonald v. Chicago,5 the Court struck down laws enacted by Chicago and the village of Oak Park effectively banning handgun possession by almost all private citizens, holding that the Fourteenth Amendment incorporated the Second Amendment right, recognized in Heller, to keep and bear arms for the purpose of self-defense. The Court reasoned that this right is fundamental to the nation's scheme of ordered liberty, given that self-defense was a basic right recognized by many legal systems from ancient times to the present, and Heller held that individual self-defense was "the central component" of the Second Amendment right. Moreover, a survey of the contemporaneous history also demonstrated clearly that the Fourteenth Amendment's Framers and ratifiers counted the right to keep and bear arms among those fundamental rights necessary to the Nation's system of ordered liberty. - See more at: Second Amendment - U.S. Constitution - FindLaw

Which crimes committed with a gun does the 2nd Amendment protect from prosecution?

The second Amendment only gives the right to own a firearm, how it is used or not used has nothing to do with the second amendment, though it does specify why the amendment is required.

Are you? Be honest now....................

Well, I at least know what "inalienable rights" mean. I do know that it's called the Bill of Rights and not the Bill of Needs. I also know the Founding Fathers, while not subject to modern weapons, were perfectly fine with private parties owning cannons and battleships capable of leveling entire coastal cities.

Our inalienable rights are not granted by a Constitution, an Amendment or Government. They are endowed by our Creator and inalienable. The Constitution is merely an instrument to protect those rights.

Where in the Bible does it says to bear firearms?

Jesus said to carry a sword

A gun is just the modern version

 

[Chuz Life]

Your rights are given by the government, so if the government says you can smoke dope you can, if they say different you go to jail. (test it if you doubt me) The second Amendment was a product of James Madison who was a member of the government at the time

Well no they are not. That's simply a bullheaded comment that doesn't comport with our founding principles. Our rights are inalienable...they are not granted by man! The Bill of Rights are to ensure government DOESN'T infringe on our inalienable rights granted to us by our Creator.

The second Amendment only gives the right to own a firearm..

No it doesn't. Our rights are not given to us by an Amendment or Government. Our rights are inalienable and endowed by our Creator. The 2nd Amendment is there to ensure our inalienable right will not be infringed upon by government. It does not "grant" any damn thing.

Your rights are given by the government, so if the government says you can smoke dope you can, if they say different you go to jail. (test it if you doubt me) The second Amendment was a product of James Madison who was a member of the government at the time

Please quote the specific text of the Constitution where the founders (the people) gave the Federal Government the power and the authority to give us (the people) our rights.

So if a person believes that it is their right to pack a gun in front of the White House while drinking a beer and smoking a joint they will not be arrested. Is this what you are saying? because you may feel free to test your theory, your rights are what the government says they are

You claimed that our rights are given to us by the government. Can you provide a source to verify your claim or not?

 

[Bassman007]

Your rights are given by the government, so if the government says you can smoke dope you can, if they say different you go to jail. (test it if you doubt me) The second Amendment was a product of James Madison who was a member of the government at the time

Well no they are not. That's simply a bullheaded comment that doesn't comport with our founding principles. Our rights are inalienable...they are not granted by man! The Bill of Rights are to ensure government DOESN'T infringe on our inalienable rights granted to us by our Creator.

The second Amendment only gives the right to own a firearm..

No it doesn't. Our rights are not given to us by an Amendment or Government. Our rights are inalienable and endowed by our Creator. The 2nd Amendment is there to ensure our inalienable right will not be infringed upon by government. It does not "grant" any damn thing.

Your rights are given by the government, so if the government says you can smoke dope you can, if they say different you go to jail. (test it if you doubt me) The second Amendment was a product of James Madison who was a member of the government at the time

Please quote the specific text of the Constitution where the founders (the people) gave the Federal Government the power and the authority to give us (the people) our rights.

So if a person believes that it is their right to pack a gun in front of the White House while drinking a beer and smoking a joint they will not be arrested. Is this what you are saying? because you may feel free to test your theory, your rights are what the government says they are

You claimed that our rights are given to us by the government. Can you provide a source to verify your claim or not?

Sure, if you are an adult you may buy and consume Jack Daniels, but not if you drive. You may not own and operate a still for making alcohol nor may you sell this.

You are free to believe different, but the rights that you have are all granted by the government.

 

[Chuz Life]

Your rights are given by the government, so if the government says you can smoke dope you can, if they say different you go to jail. (test it if you doubt me) The second Amendment was a product of James Madison who was a member of the government at the time

Well no they are not. That's simply a bullheaded comment that doesn't comport with our founding principles. Our rights are inalienable...they are not granted by man! The Bill of Rights are to ensure government DOESN'T infringe on our inalienable rights granted to us by our Creator.

No it doesn't. Our rights are not given to us by an Amendment or Government. Our rights are inalienable and endowed by our Creator. The 2nd Amendment is there to ensure our inalienable right will not be infringed upon by government. It does not "grant" any damn thing.

Your rights are given by the government, so if the government says you can smoke dope you can, if they say different you go to jail. (test it if you doubt me) The second Amendment was a product of James Madison who was a member of the government at the time

Please quote the specific text of the Constitution where the founders (the people) gave the Federal Government the power and the authority to give us (the people) our rights.

So if a person believes that it is their right to pack a gun in front of the White House while drinking a beer and smoking a joint they will not be arrested. Is this what you are saying? because you may feel free to test your theory, your rights are what the government says they are

You claimed that our rights are given to us by the government. Can you provide a source to verify your claim or not?

Sure, if you are an adult you may buy and consume Jack Daniels, but not if you drive. You may not own and operate a still for making alcohol nor may you sell this.

You are free to believe different, but the rights that you have are all granted by the government.

Again, You claimed that our rights are given to us by the government. Can you provide a source to verify your claim or not?