The real meaning of the 2nd Amendment

[Open Bolt]

One doesn’t – it’s a want, not a ‘need.’

Indeed. Only serfs babble about need.

But conservatives shouldn’t contrive ridiculous lies about why they ‘need’ and AR 15; conservatives need to stop lying in a pathetic effort to ‘justify’ possessing such weapons.

Conservatives do no such thing.

We have such guns because we choose to have them, and that we choose to have them is nobody else's business.

Citizens are not required to ‘justify’ exercising a fundamental right as a ‘prerequisite’ to do so – the want alone is more than sufficient.

Exactly!

 

[Open Bolt]

Which 1942 cases are you referring to?
Generally, it is assumed that the collective right theory comes from Miller due to the relationship that the Court found in Miller to arming the militia. It was actually raised in Cruikshank and Presser as well. Where it mostcertainly did not come from was the Founders and writers of the 2nd Amendment.

I've read ahead and seen that your question has already been answered. But I want to reiterate that the Miller ruling itself says that the Second Amendment protects an individual right.

The government had tried to get them to rule that it was a collective right. But the Supreme Court rejected that argument and said that it is an individual right.

It was only lower courts that claimed that the Second Amendment is a collective right.

Unfortunately the Supreme Court never actually forced the lower courts to adhere to the Miller ruling after they issued it.

 

[Open Bolt]

Yes, the Constitution is badly written, we got that.

Not at all. It was written just fine.

But this absurd notion that the Militia Amendment is about gun ownership is silly,

That is doubly incorrect. It's not only about the militia. It is also about the right of the people.

And yes, it is about gun ownership. Guns are arms.

You see, when the Founding Slave Rapists

said, "The people" what they really meant was "The White Landed Gentry".

Noted. And also only English Protestants.

But all of this was expanded and changed.

 

[Open Bolt]

Much to the point Blues
the 2nd was written before a standing army
Militia literally meant 'we the people' were to be armed , in order to defend ourselves.
'Militia' was in lieu of 'Government army'
Militia was meant to defend a free state, be it foreign OR domestic

OK up to this point, but....

Once the government , even our own, has more access to and/or owns more 'arms' , we forfeit that right to defend ourselves

That is incorrect. Nothing has been forfeited. The Constitution still demands that we have a well-regulated militia. And people still have the right to use their guns for private self defense.

 

[Open Bolt]

The word gun is mentioned nowhere in the amendment... but a well regulated militia is.

"Arms" are mentioned in the Second Amendment.

Guns are arms.

"People" "keep" and "bear" are also mentioned.

naw, I just want them to clean up their act, and act responsibly, like every other industry does.

The firearms industry already acts responsibly.

Take the banking industry. They did a LOT of irresponsible shit leading up to the housing crisis.

Not really. Maybe a few banks. But not most of them.

Then they cracked down on them, they lost billions, and they changed a lot of how they do business.

Not really.

Except maybe for that one bank that was liquidated.

The gun industry looks at a mass shooter, and runs off to Congress to make sure their families can't possibly collect because they sold a gun to a nutbag.

Rightly so.

You know damned well that's exactly why the gun industry rushed off and got that law... because they saw lawfare as the end of their corrupt industry.

No such corruption.

But yes. The left had the idea of bringing down gun manufacturers with an avalanche of frivolous lawsuits.

Gun Shops they know are marketing to people they shouldn't be.

Nonsense. If someone passes the government background check, a store has no way of knowing if they are a bad person.

Let's remember the Tobacco Lawsuit, when they finally got all the internal memos of the tobacco companies, and found out they were doing things like spiking the cigs with nicotine to make them more addictive and intentionally using cartoon characters to appeal to children.
Let's see what shakes out when we sue the gun industry?

No.

During that period, the militia, army and police were pretty much interchageable...

Not really. A militia is quite different from a standing army. And there was no such thing as police at the time.

The fact that we have police armed like soldiers now kind of violates the principle of the third amendment.

Not really. The police are not living in other people's homes.

And the police are not armed like soldiers now.

 

[Open Bolt]

Not so much.

Five types of gun laws the Founding Fathers loved

A leading historian of constitutional thought says the contemporary Second Amendment debate is founded on serious misunderstandings.

theconversation.com

Others have already done a good job of debunking the claims about these having been laws, but I wanted to point out that none of these five alleged laws actually prevent people from owning guns.

 

[Open Bolt]

None of the firearm regulatory measures proposed by Democrats are un-Constitutional and do not violate the Second Amendment – including UBCs, AWBs, and magazine capacity restrictions, having never been invalidated by the Supreme Court.

Wrong. Banning assault weapons is blatantly unconstitutional given the fact that existing regulations are already sufficient to prevent them from being used in crimes.

Restricting magazine capacity would be unconstitutional as well given the lack of justification for it.

Such measures are perfectly consistent with current Second Amendment jurisprudence.

That is incorrect. Violating the Second Amendment is contrary to current Second Amendment jurisprudence.

Conservatives are lying when they claim that such measures ‘violate’ the Second Amendment.

Wrong. Conservatives are telling the truth.

Government has the authority reflecting the will of the people to place limits and restriction on our rights consistent with applicable case law – including the Second Amendment right.

That doesn't mean that it is OK to violate the Second Amendment.

 

[ThunderKiss1965]

Why does one need military style weapons and large mag? To kill.

Need has nothing to do with a right. I'm sure I've explained this before so here we go again. I come from a military family and the rifles we all fired going back to the Vietnam War can not be purchased at a gun store. Those military rifles that are legal to buy(manufactured before 1986) are rarely for sale and hideously expensive. An M-16 A2 can cost around $40,000. There is also the very invasive Federal back ground check. If you pass the back ground check and have the money to burn you can't just have it sent directly to you. It has to go though someone with a Federal Firearms License

In conclusion you don't know what the fuck your talking about.

 

[JoeB131]

Wrong. The first police force in the United States wasn't formed until something like 1845. There was no interchangeable about it. The King's army was housed in the homes of the population. The Constitution expressly forbade that.

So who do you think handled law enforcement before they started organizing police forces?
Why do you think police departments have Sergeants, Lieutenants and Captains, just like the Army does?
Why do you think the National Guard is trained to supplement the police.

The fact is, yes, at a certain point, the Army and Police were interchangeable, and around the 19th century, the concept of a "militia" was largely found to be obsolete...

So we have the Second and Third Amendments as these anomalies in the constitution that are ripe for misinterpretation.

You leftists keep using what the British did as evidence of what the United States can do under the Constitution. You forget that whole revolution thing that happened in between. What the British did or did not do has no relationship to what went into the Constitution.

Actually, what happened between "the British leaving" and "the Constitution" was a six year period where they tried to be a loosely organized Confederation under the Articles of Confederation, which clearly didn't work.

 

[JoeB131]

Wrong. Banning assault weapons is blatantly unconstitutional given the fact that existing regulations are already sufficient to prevent them from being used in crimes.

No, you see, a SUFFICIENT regulation would be these crimes not happening at all.

That would be SUFFICIENT. You know, like the rest of the industrialized world where this sort of shit doesn't happen like Buffalo, Uvalde and Highland Park.

 

[JoeB131]

The firearms industry already acts responsibly.

Selling guns to Joker Holmes and Awake the Rapper isn't responsible.

 

[johngaltshrugged]

Here's the problem with your very long babbling.

The original intent of the Second Amendment (and the Third Amendment) was to define and limit militias.

The original proposed text of the Second also allowed for contentious objections on religious grounds for being conscripted into a militia. This was a big deal at the time, because you had groups like the Quakers who objected to military service. It was rejected because that would limit the power of the militia. The third was meant to limit the militia... it wasn't just about putting soldiers in people's houses, it was about having a permanent militia presence in communities in peacetime.

The problem, of course, is that these original intents have been lost, because militias have been replaced by professional Armies and Police Forces, with the police become far more militarized than in the worst nightmares of the founders.

Of course, it was never about gun ownership. Gun ownership was actually relatively rare in colonial America. There wasn't even a domestic gun industry, firing mechanisms had to be imported from Europe.

The founding fathers believed in Well-Regulated Militias, and at the time, each state had reams of laws defining the militia, with everything from uniforms to what the standard weaponry should be. (Again, you can't do logistics for a militia if everyone shows up with a different caliber gun). What they didn't believe in was angry mobs with guns, which is why "popular rebellions" like Shay's Rebellion and the Whisky Rebellion were put down.

The intent of the 2A is to verify the right of a free people to own & carry arms.
It is always about the individual gun rights despite what bed wetters afraid of a tool might twist it to say. Period.
The militia part is there to encourage the states to be able to protect themselves.

I get that you're terrified of the right to defend yourself. Not all of us are

 

[Blues Man]

Selling guns to Joker Holmes and Awake the Rapper isn't responsible.

According to the law there was no reason not to.

Adherence to the law is responsible.

 

[miketx]

Here's the problem with your very long babbling.

The original intent of the Second Amendment (and the Third Amendment) was to define and limit militias.

The original proposed text of the Second also allowed for contentious objections on religious grounds for being conscripted into a militia. This was a big deal at the time, because you had groups like the Quakers who objected to military service. It was rejected because that would limit the power of the militia. The third was meant to limit the militia... it wasn't just about putting soldiers in people's houses, it was about having a permanent militia presence in communities in peacetime.

The problem, of course, is that these original intents have been lost, because militias have been replaced by professional Armies and Police Forces, with the police become far more militarized than in the worst nightmares of the founders.

Of course, it was never about gun ownership. Gun ownership was actually relatively rare in colonial America. There wasn't even a domestic gun industry, firing mechanisms had to be imported from Europe.

The founding fathers believed in Well-Regulated Militias, and at the time, each state had reams of laws defining the militia, with everything from uniforms to what the standard weaponry should be. (Again, you can't do logistics for a militia if everyone shows up with a different caliber gun). What they didn't believe in was angry mobs with guns, which is why "popular rebellions" like Shay's Rebellion and the Whisky Rebellion were put down.

Stop lying traitor. Come get mine.

 

[2aguy]

No, you see, a SUFFICIENT regulation would be these crimes not happening at all.

That would be SUFFICIENT. You know, like the rest of the industrialized world where this sort of shit doesn't happen like Buffalo, Uvalde and Highland Park.

It doesn't happen because while their criminals have guns...they don't use them to commit murder as often.......the fully automatic military rifle is the preferred weapon of criminals on the continent....they simply don't use them to murder each other as often as American criminals do......but that is changing......

 

[Open Bolt]

No, you see, a SUFFICIENT regulation would be these crimes not happening at all.
That would be SUFFICIENT. You know, like the rest of the industrialized world where this sort of shit doesn't happen like Buffalo, Uvalde and Highland Park.

It is hardly reasonable to expect a gun regulation to prevent crimes that are unrelated to the gun that is being regulated.

Selling guns to Joker Holmes and Awake the Rapper isn't responsible.

Did they pass the background check?

Did the store owner have any reason to suspect malfeasance?

 

[JoeB131]

Ammosexuals proving the best argument for gun control is a five minute conversation with a gun nut.

The intent of the 2A is to verify the right of a free people to own & carry arms.
It is always about the individual gun rights despite what bed wetters afraid of a tool might twist it to say. Period.
The militia part is there to encourage the states to be able to protect themselves.

I get that you're terrified of the right to defend yourself. Not all of us are

No, man, I'm terrified of you gun nuts shooting stuff up.

The Founding Slave Rapists didn't want to have the great unwashed have guns... Not the slaves, not the Indians, not the urban poor.

According to the law there was no reason not to.

Adherence to the law is responsible.

no, responsible is keeping a dangerous product away from dangerous people.

Stop lying traitor. Come get mine.

Say hi to David Koresh for me.

It doesn't happen because while their criminals have guns...they don't use them to commit murder as often.......the fully automatic military rifle is the preferred weapon of criminals on the continent....they simply don't use them to murder each other as often as American criminals do......but that is changing......

Yes, you keep saying that... but still not true.

The problem isn't "criminals" having these weapons... it's mentally unwell people like Holmes, Crimo, Lanza, because no one bothered to do even minor background checks.

 

[JoeB131]

Did they pass the background check?

Did the store owner have any reason to suspect malfeasance?

Yeah, what should the Store owner think when they see THIS...

or THIS...

Now, I see a couple of deranged freaks... but apparently, the gun industry sees them as prime customers.

 

[miketx]

Ammosexuals proving the best argument for gun control is a five minute conversation with a gun nut.



No, man, I'm terrified of you gun nuts shooting stuff up.

The Founding Slave Rapists didn't want to have the great unwashed have guns... Not the slaves, not the Indians, not the urban poor.



no, responsible is keeping a dangerous product away from dangerous people.



Say hi to David Koresh for me.



Yes, you keep saying that... but still not true.

The problem isn't "criminals" having these weapons... it's mentally unwell people like Holmes, Crimo, Lanza, because no one bothered to do even minor background checks.

Blabble blubble blibble blather. That about it traitor?

 

[miketx]

Yeah, what should the Store owner think when they see THIS...

View attachment 670536
or THIS...
View attachment 670537

Now, I see a couple of deranged freaks... but apparently, the gun industry sees them as prime customers.

They would think how the law ran by scum like you failed again.