What is so hard to understand?

RetiredGySgt

Diamond Member
May 6, 2007
55,268
17,552
2,260
North Carolina
The 2nd Amendment is an INDIVIDUAL right. It is not contingent on a person being IN a militia. States have the right to form militias but that is irrelevant to the right to bear arms.

Further what part of supposed assault weapons are specifically covered by the 2nd don't people understand? The Supreme Court has on several occasions stated or affirmed that a weapon is only covered by the 2nd Amendment if it is suitable to the Militia, which means in use by the military, of use to the military or in prior use by the military. See White Vs Texas in 1939 for the actual text.
 
It is hard to understand because it does not fit into some people’s ideology. It is similar to the failure to understand what the establishment clause means. It is a 2 way street.

Simply put, most people only want to defend the constitution as long as it agrees with the world view they already have. It is not a case of what is hard to understand. It is a case of completely ignoring what things actually say/mean.
 
The constitution also kinda restricts the military to defensive actions.

It does no such thing. It provides that a military budget for ground forces can not exceed two years and it leaves to Congress the power to turn off the money if the President sends the troops where Congress does not want them.
 
You do realize that from 1776 up till 1812 we did not have a standing army per sie only state militias.
 
Considering constitutional scholars nick-pick this issue, I would say its not quite so black and white.

Considering the words used, I would say it is black and white. I don’t really care how muddled the ‘scholars’ want to make it. I have yet to hear a well-constructed case that makes the second some vaunted ‘collective’ right or connect it to the militia.
 
Many may not be aware the issue concerns self-defense:

[T]he inherent right of self-defense has been central to the
Second Amendment right. The handgun ban amounts to a
prohibition of an entire class of “arms” that is overwhelmingly
chosen by American society for that lawful purpose.

D.C. v. Heller (2008)

The firearm is thus the instrument used to facilitate that right.
 
The 2nd Amendment is an INDIVIDUAL right. It is not contingent on a person being IN a militia. States have the right to form militias but that is irrelevant to the right to bear arms.

Further what part of supposed assault weapons are specifically covered by the 2nd don't people understand? The Supreme Court has on several occasions stated or affirmed that a weapon is only covered by the 2nd Amendment if it is suitable to the Militia, which means in use by the military, of use to the military or in prior use by the military. See White Vs Texas in 1939 for the actual text.

But Milller v. US said the government CAN limit what kind of weapons you can have.

Personally, I think gun laws are impractical... but the reasons gun fetishist give for owning guns are kind of silly.

1) A gun in you home is more a danger to your family than bad guys...

2) You will never own enough guns to take on the govenrment, and if it ever comes down to that, your neighbors willl be cheering the day the government takes you out because you were frightening their children...

Just sayin'.
 
Considering constitutional scholars nick-pick this issue, I would say its not quite so black and white.

Considering the words used, I would say it is black and white. I don’t really care how muddled the ‘scholars’ want to make it. I have yet to hear a well-constructed case that makes the second some vaunted ‘collective’ right or connect it to the militia.

The Supreme Court was CLEAR. The Second Amendment is an individual right not dependent on joining partaking or being a member of a State militia.
 
The 2nd Amendment is an INDIVIDUAL right. It is not contingent on a person being IN a militia. States have the right to form militias but that is irrelevant to the right to bear arms.

Further what part of supposed assault weapons are specifically covered by the 2nd don't people understand? The Supreme Court has on several occasions stated or affirmed that a weapon is only covered by the 2nd Amendment if it is suitable to the Militia, which means in use by the military, of use to the military or in prior use by the military. See White Vs Texas in 1939 for the actual text.

But Milller v. US said the government CAN limit what kind of weapons you can have.

Personally, I think gun laws are impractical... but the reasons gun fetishist give for owning guns are kind of silly.

1) A gun in you home is more a danger to your family than bad guys...

2) You will never own enough guns to take on the govenrment, and if it ever comes down to that, your neighbors willl be cheering the day the government takes you out because you were frightening their children...

Just sayin'.

200 million to 300 million weapons in private hands and less then 1000 accidental shootings a year and only about 10000 murders with firearms. Sounds pretty convincing to me.
 
Considering constitutional scholars nick-pick this issue, I would say its not quite so black and white.

Considering the words used, I would say it is black and white. I don’t really care how muddled the ‘scholars’ want to make it. I have yet to hear a well-constructed case that makes the second some vaunted ‘collective’ right or connect it to the militia.

The Supreme Court was CLEAR. The Second Amendment is an individual right not dependent on joining partaking or being a member of a State militia.

Okay, but the Supreme court was even CLEARER that there is a right to an abortion in the 14th Amendment, but you don't seem to be so accepting of that.

One justice kicks off, and suddenly the second amendment is a "collective" right again.
 
The 2nd Amendment is an INDIVIDUAL right. It is not contingent on a person being IN a militia. States have the right to form militias but that is irrelevant to the right to bear arms.

Further what part of supposed assault weapons are specifically covered by the 2nd don't people understand? The Supreme Court has on several occasions stated or affirmed that a weapon is only covered by the 2nd Amendment if it is suitable to the Militia, which means in use by the military, of use to the military or in prior use by the military. See White Vs Texas in 1939 for the actual text.

But Milller v. US said the government CAN limit what kind of weapons you can have.

Personally, I think gun laws are impractical... but the reasons gun fetishist give for owning guns are kind of silly.

1) A gun in you home is more a danger to your family than bad guys...

2) You will never own enough guns to take on the govenrment, and if it ever comes down to that, your neighbors willl be cheering the day the government takes you out because you were frightening their children...

Just sayin'.

200 million to 300 million weapons in private hands and less then 1000 accidental shootings a year and only about 10000 murders with firearms. Sounds pretty convincing to me.

Yes, we have too many accidential shootings and murders.
 
The 2nd Amendment is an INDIVIDUAL right. It is not contingent on a person being IN a militia. States have the right to form militias but that is irrelevant to the right to bear arms.

Further what part of supposed assault weapons are specifically covered by the 2nd don't people understand? The Supreme Court has on several occasions stated or affirmed that a weapon is only covered by the 2nd Amendment if it is suitable to the Militia, which means in use by the military, of use to the military or in prior use by the military. See White Vs Texas in 1939 for the actual text.

Great news.

Now I can finally buy me one of those nifty rocket launchers I need for home protection.

I might pick me up a few mortars, too, just in case.
 
Despite the cherry picking of SCOTUS decisions, all of the first ten Amendments were restrictions on Federal powers, which were reserved for the States. The specific wording of the Second Amendment ("militia" and "bear arms") obviously had a military connotation. That being said, the inalienable individual rights to life and liberty in the Declaration of Independence obviously include the right to self defense.
 
The 2nd Amendment is an INDIVIDUAL right. It is not contingent on a person being IN a militia. States have the right to form militias but that is irrelevant to the right to bear arms.

Further what part of supposed assault weapons are specifically covered by the 2nd don't people understand? The Supreme Court has on several occasions stated or affirmed that a weapon is only covered by the 2nd Amendment if it is suitable to the Militia, which means in use by the military, of use to the military or in prior use by the military. See White Vs Texas in 1939 for the actual text.

Great news.

Now I can finally buy me one of those nifty rocket launchers I need for home protection.

I might pick me up a few mortars, too, just in case.

Rd herring but then you knew that. Once again for the slow and stupid, assault rifles are EXACTLY what the Supreme Court has ruled are protected by the 2nd Amendment. While the Government may regulate what weapons are covered the Court has already spoken more then once on what is absolutely covered.
 

Forum List

Back
Top