True Interpretation of the 2nd Amendment

[frigidweirdo]

True Interpretation of the 2nd Amendment in laments terms:

The Right To Bear Arms

Lets say YOU as a normal average person were to speak out against a Wealthy Person, I then get a Cartel or some sort of local Mafia involved to go to your house, tie you up, RAPE and Pillage your family as you watched.
The very next day, YOU WOULD LEARN TO KEEP YOUR MOUTH SHUT.

But here in the Untied States the Second Amendment has been misinterpreted so now all the Sheeple in this land have sophisticated firearms & modern weaponry equal to or greater than Cartel's & Mafia's, so now when I try to order them to go to your house to teach you a lesson, they will risk Serious Injury or even Death, this make it much more expensive to or even impossible to SHUT YOU UP.

Yes the American Sheeple have the Right To Bear Arms, so if I was to tell the Cartel or Mafia guys to cut off your hands, they would have to do so at the base of your wrist, thus preserving YOUR arm.............. Thus the Right to Bear Arms, it doesn't say anything about Sheeple being allow to own sophisticated firearms & modern weaponry at all.

This is why the confiscation of all Fire Arms from American Sheeple should be employed, and I say ALL guns including Flint Lock Muskets......... anything that can be used in self defense, because technically......... TECHNICALLY YOU DON'T HAVE THE RIGHT TO OWN GUNS.

The true interpretation is that it A) is a limitation on the US government (and now state govts), B) that there is a right to keep arms and a right to bear arms, C) the right to keep arms merely prevents the US govt from stopping individuals, before due process, from being able to own weapons, which means as long as individuals can get weapons, the US govt isn't infringing this, for example by banning certain types of weaponry. The Supreme Court has stated that it is usual militia weaponry, which in the modern era isn't much more than a hand gun, D) the right to bear arms is the right to be in the militia, E) the right to keep arms is the right to own weapons so the militia has a ready supply of weaponry that isn't connected with the federal govt, and the right to bear arms is the right to be in the militia so the militia has a ready supply of personnel to use those guns.

Excellent frigidweirdo !!

You read Heller correctly.

Most people have not.

Good man !!!

Well, actually I read the original documents and knew this BEFORE the Heller case was published.

 

[there4eyeM]

As with all human matters, humans decide what human terms mean when they wish to determine them.

 

[yiostheoy]

Well, actually I read the original documents and knew this BEFORE the Heller case was published.

I did as well but before Heller it was not clear to me what the significance of the militia clause was. And Ginsberg still has her head way up her old wrinkled bunghole about that as well.

Scalia spelled out nicely what any strict constructionist non-activist SCOTUS justice is going to rule.

Whereas the far left including the 4 dissenting justices in Heller will always misinterpret the relevance of the militia clause.

Trump and Pence have saved the 2nd Amendment and the SCOTUS for now. Which ever one of them serves out Trump's elected term will most likely nominate very strict constructionist justices.

 

[there4eyeM]

There is a difference between 1776 and 2017.
There is a difference between 2 rounds per minute and 600 rounds per minute.
There is a difference in terms whenever humans decide so.
There is an inalienable right to think.

 

[yiostheoy]

There is a difference between 1776 and 2017.
There is a difference between 2 rounds per minute and 600 rounds per minute.
There is a difference in terms whenever humans decide so.
There is an inalienable right to think.

I think Scalia would have disagreed with you on most of that little rant of yours.

As long as a firearm is appropriate for militia duty, it is covered by the 2nd Amendment according to Scalia.

And Scalia's opinion is infinitely more significant than yours.

 

[there4eyeM]

There is a difference between being alive and not.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Well, actually I read the original documents and knew this BEFORE the Heller case was published.

I did as well but before Heller it was not clear to me what the significance of the militia clause was. And Ginsberg still has her head way up her old wrinkled bunghole about that as well.

Scalia spelled out nicely what any strict constructionist non-activist SCOTUS justice is going to rule.

Whereas the far left including the 4 dissenting justices in Heller will always misinterpret the relevance of the militia clause.

Trump and Pence have saved the 2nd Amendment and the SCOTUS for now. Which ever one of them serves out Trump's elected term will most likely nominate very strict constructionist justices.

Heller was an attempt at saying what was right, but also pandering to the gun crowd, and not making things too explicit for them to have to accept it.

 

[frigidweirdo]

There is a difference between 1776 and 2017.
There is a difference between 2 rounds per minute and 600 rounds per minute.
There is a difference in terms whenever humans decide so.
There is an inalienable right to think.

I think Scalia would have disagreed with you on most of that little rant of yours.

As long as a firearm is appropriate for militia duty, it is covered by the 2nd Amendment according to Scalia.

And Scalia's opinion is infinitely more significant than yours.

The problem is, it's not the people who have the right, it's the govt that's restricted.

 

[yiostheoy]

There is a difference between 1776 and 2017.
There is a difference between 2 rounds per minute and 600 rounds per minute.
There is a difference in terms whenever humans decide so.
There is an inalienable right to think.

I think Scalia would have disagreed with you on most of that little rant of yours.

As long as a firearm is appropriate for militia duty, it is covered by the 2nd Amendment according to Scalia.

And Scalia's opinion is infinitely more significant than yours.

The problem is, it's not the people who have the right, it's the govt that's restricted.

there4eyeM is simply giving nonsense childish responses which make it clear he/she has not read Heller at all.

Typical juvenile behavior.

College undergrads tend to remain juvenile in this respect as well.

 

[there4eyeM]

So simple to 'trigger' gunners.

 

[yiostheoy]

Well, actually I read the original documents and knew this BEFORE the Heller case was published.

I did as well but before Heller it was not clear to me what the significance of the militia clause was. And Ginsberg still has her head way up her old wrinkled bunghole about that as well.

Scalia spelled out nicely what any strict constructionist non-activist SCOTUS justice is going to rule.

Whereas the far left including the 4 dissenting justices in Heller will always misinterpret the relevance of the militia clause.

Trump and Pence have saved the 2nd Amendment and the SCOTUS for now. Which ever one of them serves out Trump's elected term will most likely nominate very strict constructionist justices.

Heller was an attempt at saying what was right, but also pandering to the gun crowd, and not making things too explicit for them to have to accept it.

I don't think Scalia was pandering.

He was a hunter and he loved his guns.

He also understood that when/if you disarm a population you turn them into slaves.

So I believe Scalia was sincere.

As for the others who joined him in the opinion, while I suspect none of them has ever touched a gun of any kind in their lives, they agreed with Scalia's research on the "rights of Englishmen" (which ironically Englishmen in England have lost centuries ago) and among them that right to keep (in their homes) and bear (in a militia such as the English Civil War) arms.

Obviously Ginsberg and the other communists on the High Court disagreed. They too have never touched a gun, they hate guns, and they did not give a ratz azz what Scalia's research discovered.

 

[yiostheoy]

So simple to 'trigger' gunners.

... as well as anti gun morons.

 

[yiostheoy]

There is a difference between being alive and not.

Slaves cling to life at all costs including giving away their freedom.

 

[there4eyeM]

Owning firearms does not exclude being reasonable.
Understanding how words and rights work is essential to sane discourse.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Well, actually I read the original documents and knew this BEFORE the Heller case was published.

I did as well but before Heller it was not clear to me what the significance of the militia clause was. And Ginsberg still has her head way up her old wrinkled bunghole about that as well.

Scalia spelled out nicely what any strict constructionist non-activist SCOTUS justice is going to rule.

Whereas the far left including the 4 dissenting justices in Heller will always misinterpret the relevance of the militia clause.

Trump and Pence have saved the 2nd Amendment and the SCOTUS for now. Which ever one of them serves out Trump's elected term will most likely nominate very strict constructionist justices.

Heller was an attempt at saying what was right, but also pandering to the gun crowd, and not making things too explicit for them to have to accept it.

I don't think Scalia was pandering.

He was a hunter and he loved his guns.

He also understood that when/if you disarm a population you turn them into slaves.

So I believe Scalia was sincere.

As for the others who joined him in the opinion, while I suspect none of them has ever touched a gun of any kind in their lives, they agreed with Scalia's research on the "rights of Englishmen" (which ironically Englishmen in England have lost centuries ago) and among them that right to keep (in their homes) and bear (in a militia such as the English Civil War) arms.

Obviously Ginsberg and the other communists on the High Court disagreed. They too have never touched a gun, they hate guns, and they did not give a ratz azz what Scalia's research discovered.

Well, maybe Scalia was looking out for his own interests. Either way there is a definite "this is what the constitution says" and "this is how we're going to write it up", with them being two different things but being the same at the same time.

The right of Englishmen wasn't the right of Englishmen at all, it was the "right" (read privilege) of landowners and the rich.

The problem with the Supreme Court is the same as with the rest of America. Partisanship takes over. Judges should be appointed who are impartial, who regardless of what they love or hate, rule on the constitution. But with them being promoted by partisans themselves, it'll never happen.

 

[Deleted member 61768]

Fortunately the framers gave us a second amendment that has room for interpretation, by the courts.

Unfortunately the Supreme Court got it wrong when they interpreted the Article to refer to everyone and not strictly state militias.

LOL, State militias are not allowed to keep their firearms in their homes nor to open carry them like in the USA unlike in Switzerland. Best learn American Law!

That state militias require firearms to be kept in an armory is proof that they are well-regulated.

That does not meet "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" now does it!

 

[Deleted member 61768]

Liberal Courts, judges, and politicians need to actually lock up those who break the existing laws and stop trying to take away guns from law abiding Americans; then the carnage in Chicago would at least slow down! Stop blaming the object and start holding the person doing the crime accountable!!!

 

[Eloy]

Fortunately the framers gave us a second amendment that has room for interpretation, by the courts.

Unfortunately the Supreme Court got it wrong when they interpreted the Article to refer to everyone and not strictly state militias.

LOL, State militias are not allowed to keep their firearms in their homes nor to open carry them like in the USA unlike in Switzerland. Best learn American Law!

That state militias require firearms to be kept in an armory is proof that they are well-regulated.

That does not meet "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" now does it!

It does meet the requirement for the home guard to be well-regulated as was the intent of the framers of the 2nd Amendment.

 

[Deleted member 61768]

Fortunately the framers gave us a second amendment that has room for interpretation, by the courts.

Unfortunately the Supreme Court got it wrong when they interpreted the Article to refer to everyone and not strictly state militias.

LOL, State militias are not allowed to keep their firearms in their homes nor to open carry them like in the USA unlike in Switzerland. Best learn American Law!

That state militias require firearms to be kept in an armory is proof that they are well-regulated.

That does not meet "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" now does it!

It does meet the requirement for the home guard to be well-regulated as was the intent of the framers of the 2nd Amendment.

And as long as it only meets half of the Second Amendment that is all that matters to you right? I was in the only Airborne Infantry National Guard unit in the United States and while we may have been well regulated we were not free to keep and bear our arms so the peoples right as a whole were most definitely infringed upon. Try addressing the whole of the Second Amendment as it was written by the founders. It was written so that the common citizen could have a firearm at hand and be rallied a a "minutes notice" to defend the people. If you bothered to read how and why the "militias" were formed by the founding fathers but that is not your purpose now is it.

 

[Eloy]

Unfortunately the Supreme Court got it wrong when they interpreted the Article to refer to everyone and not strictly state militias.

LOL, State militias are not allowed to keep their firearms in their homes nor to open carry them like in the USA unlike in Switzerland. Best learn American Law!

That state militias require firearms to be kept in an armory is proof that they are well-regulated.

That does not meet "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" now does it!

It does meet the requirement for the home guard to be well-regulated as was the intent of the framers of the 2nd Amendment.

And as long as it only meets half of the Second Amendment that is all that matters to you right? I was in the only Airborne Infantry National Guard unit in the United States and while we may have been well regulated we were not free to keep and bear our arms so the peoples right as a whole were most definitely infringed upon. Try addressing the whole of the Second Amendment as it was written by the founders. It was written so that the common citizen could have a firearm at hand and be rallied a a "minutes notice" to defend the people. If you bothered to read how and why the "militias" were formed by the founding fathers but that is not your purpose now is it.

I have read the Second Amendment and I believe it was intended for states' militias, not an individual right.
Remember that the states saw the federal government as a threat on liberty similar to the English monarchy was seen then. It was meant to guarantee the safety of states to bear arms and to defend themselves should the federal government become an autocracy.