What is so hard to understand?

[M14 Shooter]

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.

Funny how there's no evidence that anyone involved in the writing/ratifying of the Constitution or bill of rights says anything that supports the idea that the amendment protects the right to arms only when connected to service in the militia.
That's -no- evidence. None.

 

[jillian]

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

no. it isn't.

and, in fact, the decision in Heller was pretty badly written. the questions raised in breyer's dissent are what really should have been asked and answered before any decision was rendered.

 

[Ernie S.]

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'.

If the government ever sends the military to disarm the public, it will have a mutiny on it's hands.
The US Military will never take up arms against its own citizens.

Oh and my guns won't scare your children as long as they stay on their side of my front door.

 

[jillian]

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'.

If the government ever sends the military to disarm the public, it will have a mutiny on it's hands.
The US Military will never take up arms against its own citizens.

Oh and my guns won't scare your children as long as they stay on their side of my front door.

guns were never intended to be used against our own government... or the only crime defined in the constitution wouldn't be treason.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

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'.

If the government ever sends the military to disarm the public, it will have a mutiny on it's hands.
The US Military will never take up arms against its own citizens.

Oh and my guns won't scare your children as long as they stay on their side of my front door.

guns were never intended to be used against our own government... or the only crime defined in the constitution wouldn't be treason.

And yet the very idea of Militias inspires revolution against an unjust Government, EXACTLY what the US was formed from.

And the ruling is clear, the 2nd amendment conveys an INDIVIDUAL RIGHT. factor in previous rulings on what is protected under the 2nd and the attempt to ban assault rifles fails completely.

 

[Ernie S.]

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.

But we don't have accidental shootings. We have too many negligent gun owners that don't keep their weapons maintained and out of the reach of kids. Guns do not accidentally discharge. Someone has to pull the trigger or mistreat it.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

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.

But we don't have accidental shootings. We have too many negligent gun owners that don't keep their weapons maintained and out of the reach of kids. Guns do not accidentally discharge. Someone has to pull the trigger or mistreat it.

250 million weapons in private hands and how many million in Military police and private security hands and yet less than 1000 accidental discharges that harm someone. Do the math. it is such an infinitesimally small amount to be worthless to base any argument on.

 

[M14 Shooter]

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

no. it isn't.
and, in fact, the decision in Heller was pretty badly written. the questions raised in breyer's dissent are what really should have been asked and answered before any decision was rendered.

Specifically, what part of Breyer's dissen't wasn't addressed, and why/how does it negate the soundness of the decision?

 

[Vidi]

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.

I see both sides of it.

As a gun owner, I fully support my right to keep and bear arms to protect myself from others and the government.

However, when that right is abused, as is happening so often in this day and age, I fully understand why some would look at that provision and ask the question," Does that right, endowed in the age of muskets still apply in the age of semi automatic rifles? "

Its an honest and legitimate question. One that we need to be willing to answer just as honestly. And the answer must be one your can say while looking into the eyes of the parents of Veronica Mosher, the 6 year old girl killed in the Batman Movie Massacre.

Do you really have THAT kind of an answer?

 

[Vidi]

If the government ever sends the military to disarm the public, it will have a mutiny on it's hands.
The US Military will never take up arms against its own citizens.

Oh and my guns won't scare your children as long as they stay on their side of my front door.

guns were never intended to be used against our own government... or the only crime defined in the constitution wouldn't be treason.

And yet the very idea of Militias inspires revolution against an unjust Government, EXACTLY what the US was formed from.

And the ruling is clear, the 2nd amendment conveys an INDIVIDUAL RIGHT. factor in previous rulings on what is protected under the 2nd and the attempt to ban assault rifles fails completely.

Actually it doesnt fail at all.

take either the miltia or the personal protection argument and neither apply practically to today.

The States have the guard which they arm themselves or if its a personal right maintain to protect one from tyranny of government, we do not have equivilent firepower to the government and therefore the argument is moot.

 

[ladyliberal]

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.

Putting aside certain issues of syntax and punctuation in your query, I would say that I understand fairly well whether "assault weapons" are "specifically covered by the 2nd": they aren't. The second amendment was written in the eighteenth century; assault weapons were developed in the twentieth century (Assault rifle - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia). And the text of the amendment doesn't refer to anything more specific than "Arms". History and textual analysis make it clear that the second amendment could not and did not refer specifically to those weapons referred to as "assault weapons".

And I can't refer to a Supreme Court case called White v. Texas from 1939. As far as I can tell, no such case exists. I'm also quite skeptical that the Supreme Court addressed the issue of which weapons were covered by the second amendment on "several occasions".

 

[RetiredGySgt]

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.

I see both sides of it.

As a gun owner, I fully support my right to keep and bear arms to protect myself from others and the government.

However, when that right is abused, as is happening so often in this day and age, I fully understand why some would look at that provision and ask the question," Does that right, endowed in the age of muskets still apply in the age of semi automatic rifles? "

Its an honest and legitimate question. One that we need to be willing to answer just as honestly. And the answer must be one your can say while looking into the eyes of the parents of Veronica Mosher, the 6 year old girl killed in the Batman Movie Massacre.

Do you really have THAT kind of an answer?

Sure do. Mass hootings are almost non existant when compared to the number of weapons owned legally in this Country. While it is a tragedy the shooting occurred the 99.999999 percent of lawful owners should not in fact lose the right to defend themselves.

Further if you believe they should, then advocate for an Amendment to remove the second and get it created and then get it past majorities in 37 States.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

guns were never intended to be used against our own government... or the only crime defined in the constitution wouldn't be treason.

And yet the very idea of Militias inspires revolution against an unjust Government, EXACTLY what the US was formed from.

And the ruling is clear, the 2nd amendment conveys an INDIVIDUAL RIGHT. factor in previous rulings on what is protected under the 2nd and the attempt to ban assault rifles fails completely.

Actually it doesnt fail at all.

take either the miltia or the personal protection argument and neither apply practically to today.

The States have the guard which they arm themselves or if its a personal right maintain to protect one from tyranny of government, we do not have equivilent firepower to the government and therefore the argument is moot.

The Supreme Court has ruled on what the Amendment means, or did you miss it? It does not matter what YOU think applies the Court was clear. The second is an individual right and the right protects weapons applicable to a militia, that means military, prior military or of use to the military.

But you believe otherwise , won't change the FACTS.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

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.

Putting aside certain issues of syntax and punctuation in your query, I would say that I understand fairly well whether "assault weapons" are "specifically covered by the 2nd": they aren't. The second amendment was written in the eighteenth century; assault weapons were developed in the twentieth century (Assault rifle - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia). And the text of the amendment doesn't refer to anything more specific than "Arms". History and textual analysis make it clear that the second amendment could not and did not refer specifically to those weapons referred to as "assault weapons".

And I can't refer to a Supreme Court case called White v. Texas from 1939. As far as I can tell, no such case exists. I'm also quite skeptical that the Supreme Court addressed the issue of which weapons were covered by the second amendment on "several occasions".

So when I provide the case, will you admit you are wrong?

 

[ladyliberal]

Funny how there's no evidence that anyone involved in the writing/ratifying of the Constitution or bill of rights says anything that supports the idea that the amendment protects the right to arms only when connected to service in the militia.
That's -no- evidence. None.

There is not only evidence, there is proof. Take, as a single example, the following statement made by George Mason regarding the pre-Amendment Constitution:

The militia may be here destroyed by that method
which has been practiced in other parts of the world
before; that is, by rendering them useless—by disarming
them. Under various pretences, Congress may
neglect to provide for arming and disciplining the militia;
and the state governments cannot do it, for Congress
has the exclusive right to arm them.

- Was Mason involved in the writing/ratification of the Constitution? Yes.

- Do Mason's words support (not prove) the notion that his idea, in eventually supporting the Bill of Rights, would have been to ensure that Congress could not disarm militias and thereby subordinate the rather than to ensure that Congress could not disarm individual civilians? Yes.

Thus, we may conclude that there is both proof and evidence that some of the framers said things that support (though of course not prove) the notion of the right to bear arms as being tied to militia service. Stevens discusses this and other words by the framers in his dissent (http://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/06/07-290.pdf).

Even the majority opinion admits that this type of evidence exists. It notes (in a footnote on page 6) that various state constitutions used "the People" to refer to collective rather than individual rights. This usage, if applied to the second amendment of the federal Constitution, would certainly indicate that the right to bear arms could be tied to membership in a militia. The majority opinion notes, reasonably, that this evidence should not be weighed too heavily in light of clearly different usage of "the People" other places in the Bill of Rights. But it admits that this evidence exists, and weighs it against other evidence.

So if you had said "there is no proof in the words of the framers that they intended the right to bear arms to be intrinsically tied to service in a militia, then I would certainly agree. If there were proof, the Supreme Court could not have been so divided.
But there is certainly evidence of this type, which is part of the reason why four Supreme Court justices adopted the interpretation to which you give such short shrift.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

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.

Putting aside certain issues of syntax and punctuation in your query, I would say that I understand fairly well whether "assault weapons" are "specifically covered by the 2nd": they aren't. The second amendment was written in the eighteenth century; assault weapons were developed in the twentieth century (Assault rifle - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia). And the text of the amendment doesn't refer to anything more specific than "Arms". History and textual analysis make it clear that the second amendment could not and did not refer specifically to those weapons referred to as "assault weapons".

And I can't refer to a Supreme Court case called White v. Texas from 1939. As far as I can tell, no such case exists. I'm also quite skeptical that the Supreme Court addressed the issue of which weapons were covered by the second amendment on "several occasions".

Here it is, I always say the wrong thing, it is United States vs Miller.

United States v. Miller - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

There was no television or radio during the 18th Century, yet the First Amendment protects one’s right to free expression via such media nonetheless.

‘Originalism’ simply doesn’t work for conservatives concerning Heller. It undermines their arguments against the principles of judicial review and the Court’s interpretive authority in determining what the Constitution means.

And yet the very idea of Militias inspires revolution against an unjust Government, EXACTLY what the US was formed from.

And the ruling is clear, the 2nd amendment conveys an INDIVIDUAL RIGHT. factor in previous rulings on what is protected under the 2nd and the attempt to ban assault rifles fails completely.

Actually it doesnt fail at all.

take either the miltia or the personal protection argument and neither apply practically to today.

The States have the guard which they arm themselves or if its a personal right maintain to protect one from tyranny of government, we do not have equivilent firepower to the government and therefore the argument is moot.

The Supreme Court has ruled on what the Amendment means, or did you miss it? It does not matter what YOU think applies the Court was clear. The second is an individual right and the right protects weapons applicable to a militia, that means military, prior military or of use to the military.

But you believe otherwise , won't change the FACTS.

Please recall the above the next time someone from the right claims the 4th Amendment doesn’t protect our right to privacy, that the right to privacy is ‘made up.’

 

[ladyliberal]

Here it is, I always say the wrong thing, it is United States vs Miller.

United States v. Miller - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

My understanding is that the relevant portion of Miller is

In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a "shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length" at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument.

That is, the Court held that weapons that weren't in common use in the military weren't protected. It does not follow from that that the Court asserts that weapons that were in common use are protected. At best, it suggests that. Gun rights activists argue otherwise, of course.

 

[FA_Q2]

Here it is, I always say the wrong thing, it is United States vs Miller.

United States v. Miller - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

My understanding is that the relevant portion of Miller is

In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a "shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length" at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument.

That is, the Court held that weapons that weren't in common use in the military weren't protected. It does not follow from that that the Court asserts that weapons that were in common use are protected. At best, it suggests that. Gun rights activists argue otherwise, of course.

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.
Then what the hell is protected?

It seems that you believe that no weapons whatsoever are protected? Please tell me I am incorrect because under that reasoning, the second is utterly meaningless.

 

[JoeB131]

If the government ever sends the military to disarm the public, it will have a mutiny on it's hands.
The US Military will never take up arms against its own citizens.

Oh and my guns won't scare your children as long as they stay on their side of my front door.

Dude, the fact some people are allowed to own a gun should frighten the adults.

And as I've said, I thikn a gun ban would be impractical...

I just think the reasons the fetishist give for wanting a gun are a bit silly.

if the GOvernment comes for your guns, they'll have a good reason... and your neighbors will be cheering them on.