The Right To Bear Arms

Lakhota

Diamond Member
Jul 14, 2011
166,847
91,317
2,645
Native America
By Peter Weber

That's the opinion of Rupert Murdoch's conservative New York Post. And it's not as far-fetched as it may seem.

Well, let's read the text of the Second Amendment, says Jeffrey Sachs at The Huffington Post:

A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

It's astonishingly clear that "the Second Amendment is a relic of the founding era more than two centuries ago," and "its purpose is long past."

As Justice John Paul Stevens argues persuasively, the amendment should not block the ability of society to keep itself safe through gun control legislation. That was never its intent. This amendment was about militias in the 1790s, and the fear of the anti-federalists of a federal army. Since that issue is long moot, we need not be governed in our national life by doctrines on now-extinct militias from the 18th century.​

"Fair-minded readers have to acknowledge that the text is ambiguous," says Cass Sunstein at Bloomberg View. Justice Antonin Scalia, who wrote the majority opinion in Heller, was laying out his interpretation of a "genuinely difficult" legal question, and "I am not saying that the court was wrong." More to the point: Right or wrong, obsolete or relevant, the Second Amendment essentially means what five justices on the Supreme Court say it means. So "we should respect the fact that the individual right to have guns has been established," but even the pro-gun interpretation laid out by Scalia explicitly allows for banning the kinds of weapons the shooter used to murder 20 first-graders. The real problem is in the political arena, where "opponents of gun control, armed with both organization and money, have been invoking the Second Amendment far more recklessly," using "wild and unsupportable claims about the meaning of the Constitution" to shut down debate on what sort of regulations might save lives.

More: Is the Second Amendment obsolete? - The Week
 
icon.jpg


Your Second Amendment rights are not unlimited — never have been and never will be – Applesauce - Rockford, IL - Rockford Register Star
 
It's definitely not the most important amendment, like most conservatives argue, but it's not obsolete. We're the United Freakin States. We were founded on a revolutionary crazy notion that people are allowed to be as free as they want.

If you take away that crazy, then we're closer to being like the French. And no one wants that.
 
By Peter Weber

That's the opinion of Rupert Murdoch's conservative New York Post. And it's not as far-fetched as it may seem.

Well, let's read the text of the Second Amendment, says Jeffrey Sachs at The Huffington Post:

A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

It's astonishingly clear that "the Second Amendment is a relic of the founding era more than two centuries ago," and "its purpose is long past."

As Justice John Paul Stevens argues persuasively, the amendment should not block the ability of society to keep itself safe through gun control legislation. That was never its intent. This amendment was about militias in the 1790s, and the fear of the anti-federalists of a federal army. Since that issue is long moot, we need not be governed in our national life by doctrines on now-extinct militias from the 18th century.​

"Fair-minded readers have to acknowledge that the text is ambiguous," says Cass Sunstein at Bloomberg View. Justice Antonin Scalia, who wrote the majority opinion in Heller, was laying out his interpretation of a "genuinely difficult" legal question, and "I am not saying that the court was wrong." More to the point: Right or wrong, obsolete or relevant, the Second Amendment essentially means what five justices on the Supreme Court say it means. So "we should respect the fact that the individual right to have guns has been established," but even the pro-gun interpretation laid out by Scalia explicitly allows for banning the kinds of weapons the shooter used to murder 20 first-graders. The real problem is in the political arena, where "opponents of gun control, armed with both organization and money, have been invoking the Second Amendment far more recklessly," using "wild and unsupportable claims about the meaning of the Constitution" to shut down debate on what sort of regulations might save lives.

More: Is the Second Amendment obsolete? - The Week

The Constitution exist only in the context of its case law, as interpreted by the Supreme Court, as authorized by the doctrine of judicial review.

Neither the Constitution nor any of its Amendments are ‘obsolete.’

Whatever the current case law might be concerning the Second Amendment, however, further restrictions, regulations, or even bans will do little to curtail gun violence.

The genius of the Constitution is it compels us to seek actual solutions to our many problems; be it abortion, campaign finance reform, or gun violence, the Constitution prevents us from taking the ‘easy route’ often taken by dictatorships and totalitarian regimes, where the liberty of the people is destroyed.

This does not mean we are helpless to do nothing, at the mercy of strict, unyielding jurisprudence protecting the rights of gun owners; rather, it means we must find solutions based on facts and evidence, and be prepared to address and acknowledge painful, embarrassing aspects of our society and culture.
 
Trying to live modern life according to the Constitution is much like trying to live modern life according to the Bible. Both are subject to vast interpretation.
 
well congrats to all the liberals here.

The people that claim to be the authors of the Constitution

In openly admitting that freedom is so passe.


thank you for your honesty

They're masters of using things against their enemies. They want a BIG government that rules over this nation in the same way as Hugo Chavez, Castro or Kim jong UN.

FUCK YOU LEFTIST. YOU won't get my guns, assholes!
 
A well armed popalance is respected by government
A disarmed popalance is dictated to by government

Oh please. What do you think, congresspeople sit around and say, "ooo we'd better not pass that law... Matthew will get his gun and shoot us!!" Give me a frickin' break. Go ahead and try to form a militia group or whatever. See how far you get before you're all squashed like bugs.

It's populace btw, not populance.
 
A well armed popalance is respected by government
A disarmed popalance is dictated to by government

Oh please. What do you think, congresspeople sit around and say, "ooo we'd better not pass that law... Matthew will get his gun and shoot us!!" Give me a frickin' break. Go ahead and try to form a militia group or whatever. See how far you get before you're all squashed like bugs.

It's populace btw, not populance.
Are you saying you want freedom loving, Constitution following Americans to get killed?
 

Forum List

Back
Top