Where is it written that 2nd Amend is to keep Govt. in Check?

[Ravi]

To keep government in check:

Declaration of Independence:

That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

Noah Webster:

Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretence, raised in the United States.

James Madison's original wording of the Second Amendment:

The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country; but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person.

There are several Supreme Court decisions which explain that the amendment is not saying you must belong to a standing or existing militia to own a gun, but that every able bodied man must be able to possess a gun in the event they are needed to be called upon to defend their country.

Wouldn't that mean than anyone that possessed a gun would have had to go to Iraq to fight if called upon to do so?

 

[eflatminor]

Please people - TRY to use some brain cells.

Right...'cuz we all know what a smashing success past attempts to ban firearms have been. It's not like they had the actual result of criminals being better armed than law abiding citizens...

What was that about using brain cells?

 

[nodoginnafight]

Now you're catching on.

And, the SCOTUS has ruled in DC v Heller that the Constitution says just what it says: an individual has a right to have arms.

it ALSO held that there is a right of reasonable regulation.

the question then becomes, like every other such question... what is REASONABLE regulation.

Reasonable puts the burden on the state to prove why it should deny you common weapons in civilian and police service, comparable to the modern infantryman. (police are civilans, not military).

Reducing a clip size to 7 rounds as a run around to ban certian types of guns is not reasonable.

No, actually the burden falls on the person who must file suit claiming the regulation is unconstitutional and prevail in court.

 

[nodoginnafight]

Pretending any gun law is unconstitutional is insane.

Pretending any gun law is constitutional is more so.

NO ONE has TRIED to claim ALL gun laws are Constitutional.
Some have tried to claim ALL gun laws are unconstitutional - which is false.

 

[eflatminor]

Supreme Court Shoots Down D.C. Gun Ban - ABC News



Writing for the 5-4 majority, Justice Antonin Scalia said that the Constitution protects an individual's right to keep and carry a gun. The decision will affect gun control laws across the country.

"We hold that the District's ban on handgun possession in the home violated the Second Amendment, as does its prohibition against rendering any lawful firearm in the home operable for the purpose of immediate self-defense."

He addressed the "problem of handgun violence" by saying there are a "variety of tools" such as "measures regulating handguns" available






Its already decided

who is it you think will back your false claims?

My God you are full of shit. Scalia, when he stated this, was referring to laws that restrict firearms on government owned property and in the hands of felons and the insane. Anyone with a modicum of integrity can see this when Scalia also stated:

Nothing should “cast doubt on long-standing prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons or the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings.”

Now fuck off you lying troll. Your bowl of paint chips is getting stale.

ANOTHER TM epic meltdown in 3...2...1

 

[martybegan]

it ALSO held that there is a right of reasonable regulation.

the question then becomes, like every other such question... what is REASONABLE regulation.

Reasonable puts the burden on the state to prove why it should deny you common weapons in civilian and police service, comparable to the modern infantryman. (police are civilans, not military).

Reducing a clip size to 7 rounds as a run around to ban certian types of guns is not reasonable.

No, actually the burden falls on the person who must file suit claiming the regulation is unconstitutional and prevail in court.

Which will be happening soon in New York, once the NRA and 2nd Amendment Federation Lawyers get through reading that clusterfuck of a law the troika managed to pass without really reading.

I find it sad we have to resort to the courts at all to protect such basic rights. Our elected officials should not even be trying this crap.

 

[westwall]

Wingnuts keep saying the Second Amendment is to keep the government in check.

Where is this written in the Constitution?

You claim to be a thinker, so think about this....what do all of the other enumerated rights in the Bill of Rights do?

 

[nodoginnafight]

To keep government in check:

Declaration of Independence:

That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

Noah Webster:

Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretence, raised in the United States.

James Madison's original wording of the Second Amendment:

The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country; but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person.

There are several Supreme Court decisions which explain that the amendment is not saying you must belong to a standing or existing militia to own a gun, but that every able bodied man must be able to possess a gun in the event they are needed to be called upon to defend their country.

So the founders were well aware of this idea that guns should be allowed in order to secure people's right to wage war on the United States and THEY LEFT IT OUT.

So it appears that it was a deliberate decision NOT to include this rationale in the Constitution.

You've always seemed to be a pretty level header poster to me (up to now). I can't believe you are supporting this absurd idea that the 2nd secures your "right" to wage war on the U.S.

 

[eflatminor]

Pretending any gun law is unconstitutional is insane.

Pretending any gun law is constitutional is more so.

NO ONE has TRIED to claim ALL gun laws are Constitutional.

Bullshit. Regardless of what brain dead TM thinks, our Senator Fienstien expressed a desire to ban civilian ownership of firearms, which is in effect, expressing a belief than any and all gun control laws are Constitutional.

 

[nodoginnafight]

Reasonable puts the burden on the state to prove why it should deny you common weapons in civilian and police service, comparable to the modern infantryman. (police are civilans, not military).

Reducing a clip size to 7 rounds as a run around to ban certian types of guns is not reasonable.

No, actually the burden falls on the person who must file suit claiming the regulation is unconstitutional and prevail in court.

Which will be happening soon in New York, once the NRA and 2nd Amendment Federation Lawyers get through reading that clusterfuck of a law the troika managed to pass without really reading.

I find it sad we have to resort to the courts at all to protect such basic rights. Our elected officials should not even be trying this crap.

EXACTLY - the courts ... NOT the NRA, not the Turner Diaries, not Al Gore, Not Jim Brady, will decide what is and what is not Constitutional.

You can go to sleep every night reading Thomas Jefferson's auntie's diary - doesn't mean jack squat.

 

[nodoginnafight]

Pretending any gun law is constitutional is more so.

NO ONE has TRIED to claim ALL gun laws are Constitutional.

Bullshit. Regardless of what brain dead TM thinks, our Senator Fienstien expressed a desire to ban civilian ownership of firearms, which is in effect, expressing a belief than any and all gun control laws are Constitutional.

Can you find that quote for me. I haven't heard that.
But good luck. Paul Ryan wants to ban all abortions - that ain't gonna happen either.

 

[Truthmatters]

well?

 

[Oddball]

Wingnuts keep saying the Second Amendment is to keep the government in check.

Where is this written in the Constitution?

You claim to be a thinker, so think about this....what do all of the other enumerated rights in the Bill of Rights do?

Ummm....Uhhhhh....<Jeopardy song plays>......

 

[Truthmatters]

Supreme Court Shoots Down D.C. Gun Ban - ABC News



Writing for the 5-4 majority, Justice Antonin Scalia said that the Constitution protects an individual's right to keep and carry a gun. The decision will affect gun control laws across the country.

"We hold that the District's ban on handgun possession in the home violated the Second Amendment, as does its prohibition against rendering any lawful firearm in the home operable for the purpose of immediate self-defense."

He addressed the "problem of handgun violence" by saying there are a "variety of tools" such as "measures regulating handguns" available. But he said that the "enshrinement of constitutional rights necessarily takes certain policy choices off the table," which includes measures such as an "absolute prohibition of handguns."

Chief Justice John Roberts and Associate Justices Anthony Kennedy, Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito signed onto Scalia's opinion.

 

[eflatminor]

NO ONE has TRIED to claim ALL gun laws are Constitutional.

Bullshit. Regardless of what brain dead TM thinks, our Senator Fienstien expressed a desire to ban civilian ownership of firearms, which is in effect, expressing a belief than any and all gun control laws are Constitutional.

Can you find that quote for me. I haven't heard that.

"If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an outright ban, picking up every one of them . . . Mr. and Mrs. America, turn 'em all in, I would have done it."

 

[Truthmatters]

you people have NO legal leg to stand on to make these claims

 

[eflatminor]

you people have NO legal leg to stand on to make these claims

Says our resident expert on all things constitutional...

 

[westwall]

you people have NO legal leg to stand on to make these claims

Why don't you look up US v Miller 1934 where the Supremes held that a sawed off shotgun could be regulated "because they had no forseeable military purpose".

Put that in your pipe and smoke it little troll.

 

[nodoginnafight]

And forget going against the government, what happens if something goes down that reduces the ability of the government to give aid or control its territory?

That's a decent point - but it's not the point under discussion.
The point under discussion was whether or not the second amendment secures the right to weaponry in order to wage war on the United States

It's an absurd notion. I'm the first to say that NOTHING in this life is 100% certain, so I'm only 99.9999999% certain that any court hearing such an absurd legal argument would get the giggles.

 

[eflatminor]

And forget going against the government, what happens if something goes down that reduces the ability of the government to give aid or control its territory?

That's a decent point - but it's not the point under discussion.
The point under discussion was whether or not the second amendment secures the right to weaponry in order to wage war on the United States

It's an absurd notion. I'm the first to say that NOTHING in this life is 100% certain, so I'm only 99.9999999% certain that any court hearing such an absurd legal argument would get the giggles.

Despite that our elected officials swear an oath to defend the Constitution against enemies foreign OR DOMESTIC?

Whatever you say genius.