The second amendment. Love it, or leave it

[Bassman007]

You want a religious discussion, where there is none. People came to the USA because our government gave them the right to religious freedom. The freedom comes from Madisons hand, and Madison was part of the government.

Incorrect


Madison, Jefferson et al recognized that UNALIEBLE RIGHTS ARE CONFER BY OUR CREATOR : NATURE'S GOD NOT BY THE GOVERNMENT


We hold these truths to be self-evident,

that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--


.

So do people who do not believe in God have rights? What Madison believed to form his writings that became law are of no consequence, because now your rights are what the government says they are. Hopefully they are correct. Claiming that Madison and Jefferson believed so much in God then they owned slaves isn't a very good argument now, is it.

Please not that Jefferson was an agnostic'


He referred to NATURE'S GOD not to the religious God.

.

Huh, Madison did not write religious freedom into something? Hmmm what was that now?

Dude you need serious education because you are living in a dream.

WUT?

The Wall of Separation was written by Jefferson not Madison.

Religious freedom DOES NOT mean that the government officials must be religious.

.

Your right to religious freedom is granted to you by the government, as Madison saw that it should be run. First damn line too.....................

 

[Markle]

You want a religious discussion, where there is none. People came to the USA because our government gave them the right to religious freedom. The freedom comes from Madisons hand, and Madison was part of the government.

You skipped American History did you not? That being the case, why would you continue to display your ignorance?

When the first settlers came to America, there was no government. And yes, they came for religious freedom but no government "gave" that freedom to them.

Jamestown was the first successful English settlement on the mainland of North America, founded on May 14, 1607.

When did we declare our independence? When was the Constitution of the United States ratified?

I'm certain you could find several excellent online American History courses. No doubt several are free. I can also recommend a FREE course for you on our Constitution. It appears you could use some brushing up.

 

[Contumacious]

Incorrect


Madison, Jefferson et al recognized that UNALIEBLE RIGHTS ARE CONFER BY OUR CREATOR : NATURE'S GOD NOT BY THE GOVERNMENT


We hold these truths to be self-evident,

that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--


.

So do people who do not believe in God have rights? What Madison believed to form his writings that became law are of no consequence, because now your rights are what the government says they are. Hopefully they are correct. Claiming that Madison and Jefferson believed so much in God then they owned slaves isn't a very good argument now, is it.

Please not that Jefferson was an agnostic'


He referred to NATURE'S GOD not to the religious God.

.

Huh, Madison did not write religious freedom into something? Hmmm what was that now?

Dude you need serious education because you are living in a dream.

WUT?

The Wall of Separation was written by Jefferson not Madison.

Religious freedom DOES NOT mean that the government officials must be religious.

.

Your right to religious freedom is granted to you by the government, as Madison saw that it should be run. First damn line too.....................

LINK?

 

[Bassman007]

You want a religious discussion, where there is none. People came to the USA because our government gave them the right to religious freedom. The freedom comes from Madisons hand, and Madison was part of the government.

You skipped American History did you not? That being the case, why would you continue to display your ignorance?

When the first settlers came to America, there was no government. And yes, they came for religious freedom but no government "gave" that freedom to them.

Jamestown was the first successful English settlement on the mainland of North America, founded on May 14, 1607.

When did we declare our independence? When was the Constitution of the United States ratified?

I'm certain you could find several excellent online American History courses. No doubt several are free. I can also recommend a FREE course for you on our Constitution. It appears you could use some brushing up.

Then they had religious freedom until another sect that was larger would have taken their religious freedom away. Madison saw that the government protected that right from all who would take it away. And by protecting the rights continued rights to worship as seen fit is granted by the government. I have no idea what is bothering you. You seem to be defending religion and putting down the constitution for protecting it. Now if the government says that having sex with all the little girls in the town is not legal, this religious freedom is taken away, because the government denies the right for this to be practiced. So your rights come from the government, that is elected and maintained by the people.
http://www.biography.com/people/warren-jeffs-20771031

 

[Boss]

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

No shit head, that's NOT what I said.

And for the record...

"your rights are what the government says they are"

IS PRECISELY WHY WE HAVE THE 2ND AMENDMENT!

 

[Bassman007]

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

No shit head, that's NOT what I said.

And for the record...

"your rights are what the government says they are"

IS PRECISELY WHY WE HAVE THE 2ND AMENDMENT!

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

People have done this, and the second amendment did not grant them any rights. Why, because your rights come from the government as a whole, not the second or any other amendment.

 

[frigidweirdo]

"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.

No, moron, that’s not how it works.

The Second Amendment exists solely in the context what the Founding Fathers intended.

No, you're wrong, doubly wrong, firstly for insulting, secondly because you don't understand how the US political system works.

 

[jillian]

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

I think everyone knows the second amendment exists. It does not, however exist the way you loons think it does. Even Scalia in heller, the most righting nutty decision on this subject, said reasonable regulation is constitutional and only a total ban is not.

 

[martybegan]

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

I think everyone knows the second amendment exists. It does not, however exist the way you loons think it does. Even Scalia in heller, the most righting nutty decision on this subject, said reasonable regulation is constitutional and only a total ban is not.

What is reasonable about a 3-6 month wait, and $1000 to get a revolver permit for my own apartment? Why should I trust any more "reasonable" regulations, when the one in place in NYC infringes on my right, as a de facto ban instead of a de jure one?

 

[jillian]

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

I think everyone knows the second amendment exists. It does not, however exist the way you loons think it does. Even Scalia in heller, the most righting nutty decision on this subject, said reasonable regulation is constitutional and only a total ban is not.

What is reasonable about a 3-6 month wait, and $1000 to get a revolver permit for my own apartment? Why should I trust any more "reasonable" regulations, when the one in place in NYC infringes on my right, as a de facto ban instead of a de jure one?

poor baby.

let me know when you give a flying about infringing on my rights and maybe i'll actually care.

 

[martybegan]

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

I think everyone knows the second amendment exists. It does not, however exist the way you loons think it does. Even Scalia in heller, the most righting nutty decision on this subject, said reasonable regulation is constitutional and only a total ban is not.

What is reasonable about a 3-6 month wait, and $1000 to get a revolver permit for my own apartment? Why should I trust any more "reasonable" regulations, when the one in place in NYC infringes on my right, as a de facto ban instead of a de jure one?

poor baby.

let me know when you give a flying about infringing on my rights and maybe i'll actually care.

What rights of yours am I infringing on, or is anyone infringing on? And more importantly, are they explicit in the constitution, or the fevered hopes of 5 of 9 un-elected lawyers?