The Right To Bear Arms

[bigrebnc1775]

Duh, my people were here first... I think I'll stay...

You would think knowing 'your people's' history, you'd realize what happens when a group has inferior weapons and/or has those weapons confiscated.

Or is it just that you want to see EVERYBODY 'on the rez'?

Yep, I don't know many Indians, but the ones I do know in no way support gun control.

 

[Erand7899]

It is confusing to intelligent people.

How would you know? Do you even know any intelligent people?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Perhaps you'd prefer to adopt the Marxist Constitution? How about China's Constitution and Bill of Rights? Would you be able to sleep better under those conditions?

Shitting bull smiles at the thought, of adopting the Marxist Constitution. Yes I think shitting bull would love that

if it were up to me, there wouldn't be any guns allowed in the confines of the united states ... anyone caught with one will receive life in prison ... that's my feelings about guns ... that doesn't make me a commie a socialist or a Marxist ... it makes me a person who dislikes guns ... now for reality ... I feel if you want to own a gun, fine .... but not a gun the fires 100, 50, 30, 25, 11, rounds a minute .. thats unexceptable in my opinion

Go do some research on the second amendment and why it was created. media matters is not a good source

 

[whitehall]

Confusion? The union based education system made sure left wing Americans wouldbe in a constant state of confusion. I wonder when the "progressive" propaganda sources will start attacking the confusing wording of the 1st Amendment? What did they really mean when they said "congress will make no law impeding the free exercise of religion"? Did it mean Christians can no longer celebrate Christmas on public property?

 

[Erand7899]

It is confusing to intelligent people.

It is only confusing to people who want to find a way around "shall not be infringed".

You don't find "well regulated" and "shall not be infringed" contradictory?

No, because they refer to two different subjects. First, any militia has to be well regulated to make it efficient, effective, and disciplined. No one wants an a militia that is not well regulated. Part, and only part, of having a well regulated militia made up of the citizenry, is to have an armed citizenry. Consequently, the independent clause which states that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Independent clauses of a sentence, stand on their own, even though they may be explained by a dependent clause.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

It is only confusing to people who want to find a way around "shall not be infringed".

You don't find "well regulated" and "shall not be infringed" contradictory?

No, because they refer to two different subjects. First, any militia has to be well regulated to make it efficient, effective, and disciplined. No one wants an a militia that is not well regulated. Part, and only part, of having a well regulated militia made up of the citizenry, is to have an armed citizenry. Consequently, the independent clause which states that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Independent clauses of a sentence, stand on their own, even though they may be explained by a dependent clause.

Please, please, please, understand the meaning of a word before you talk about it. Well regulated as it was written in the 18th century does not have the same meaning as the 21st century meaning of well regulated.
To be as expected in working order.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Confusion? The union based education system made sure left wing Americans wouldbe in a constant state of confusion. I wonder when the "progressive" propaganda sources will start attacking the confusing wording of the 1st Amendment? What did they really mean when they said "congress will make no law impeding the free exercise of religion"? Did it mean Christians can no longer celebrate Christmas on public property?

The Supreme Court determines what the Constitution means, authorized by the doctrine of judicial review.

Consequently, there is no ‘confusion’ as to the meanings of the First and Second Amendments.

Did it mean Christians can no longer celebrate Christmas on public property?

That depends on the nature and context of the religious expression:

Every analysis in this area must begin with consideration of the cumulative criteria developed by the Court over many years. Three such tests may be gleaned from our cases. First, the statute must have a secular legislative purpose; second, its principal or primary effect must be one that neither advances nor inhibits religion, Board of Education v. Allen, 392 U.S. 236, 243 (1968); [p613] finally, the statute must not foster "an excessive government entanglement with religion." Walz, supra, at 674.

Lemon v. Kurtzman

 

[M14 Shooter]

There's "confusion" only among those that dislike the fact that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.

 

[Intense]

We've now learned that editorialists at the new yorker have no idea of what the second amendment means. No surprise there.

The 2nd Amendment means whatever SCOTUS says it means - and that will continue to change over time...

Yup.

Would that that were the ONLY issue the SCOTUS weighed in on, eh?

Corporations are persons?

Money = FREE SPEECH?!

And what is the source, as opposed to the relevant truth it shares? Who are you to restrict what information is available to me?

 

[novasteve]

To the libs who think they know what the 2nd amendment means, where in the 4th amendment does it state a right to privacy let alone abortion?

 

[Nika2013]

I do not have an opinion either way on the subject, but from my own genealogical study of my ancestors in the late 1700's in America, I would respond to your statement as the following:

“A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state" =

The people were promised in the Federalist by Alexander Hamilton that there would never be a standing army to threaten the states....Therefore each state had militias in each county...The militias existed to protect both county and state. In an article called, The Last Indian Raid on the Virginia Frontier, the county militia went after Cherokee Chief Benge when he scalped an ancestor and stole my ancestral grandmother...I would assume that each man was required to carry a gun at all times as they often had to protect their frontier forts..The authority to carry a gun may have originated with the state, but how the guns were used in defense were the choices of the men..(I assume)

The point that I am making is that the government is stating today that the national, state and local police and the national guard can protect citizens so the right to bear arms under the theory of a well-regulated militia is null and void...Under the original theories developed by the founding fathers this would not be so...Has the US Supreme Court ruled on the issue? It is the source of constitutional interpretation.
People can find more information on the Russell Co. Va website, including the story I cited and the frontier forts...Have a nice day..

 

[bigrebnc1775]

I do not have an opinion either way on the subject, but from my own genealogical study of my ancestors in the late 1700's in America, I would respond to your statement as the following:

“A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state" =

The people were promised in the Federalist by Alexander Hamilton that there would never be a standing army to threaten the states....Therefore each state had militias in each county...The militias existed to protect both county and state. In an article called, The Last Indian Raid on the Virginia Frontier, the county militia went after Cherokee Chief Benge when he scalped an ancestor and stole my ancestral grandmother...I would assume that each man was required to carry a gun at all times as they often had to protect their frontier forts..The authority to carry a gun may have originated with the state, but how the guns were used in defense were the choices of the men..(I assume)

The point that I am making is that the government is stating today that the national, state and local police and the national guard can protect citizens so the right to bear arms under the theory of a well-regulated militia is null and void...Under the original theories developed by the founding fathers this would not be so...Has the US Supreme Court ruled on the issue? It is the source of constitutional interpretation.
People can find more information on the Russell Co. Va website, including the story I cited and the frontier forts...Have a nice day..

Has the US Supreme Court ruled on the issue?

Yes Miller vs. U.S. 1938 Lewis vs U.S. 1980
Both in summary agreed that in order for a firearm t be protected by the second amendment it must have some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, and be in common use at the time and supplied by the militia member.

Now we also have a law that states what a militia is

10 USC § 311 - Militia: composition and classes | Title 10 - Armed Forces | U.S. Code | LII / Legal Information Institute
(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are—
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.

See below if you have any doubt

 

[Pogo]

Confusion? The union based education system made sure left wing Americans wouldbe in a constant state of confusion. I wonder when the "progressive" propaganda sources will start attacking the confusing wording of the 1st Amendment? What did they really mean when they said "congress will make no law impeding the free exercise of religion"? Did it mean Christians can no longer celebrate Christmas on public property?

Don't know what ass you pulled that wording from but that ain't even what the First Amendment says.
Never read it, have you?

SMH...

 

[Lakhota]

The 2nd Amendment will soon be extinct.

 

[Lakhota]

State and federal courts and legislatures continue to restrict the 2nd Amendment. Go states' rights!

 

[Wehrwolfen]

Right or wrong, obsolete or relevant, the Second Amendment essentially means what five justices on the Supreme Court say it means.

Hmm.... Each weapon the assault rifle of that era.....

 

[The2ndAmendment]

Democide - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Democide - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Democide - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Democide - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democidehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democide

Democide - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Democide - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Lakhota]

Former Chief Justice Warren Burger was correct and ahead of his time.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Confusion? The union based education system made sure left wing Americans wouldbe in a constant state of confusion. I wonder when the "progressive" propaganda sources will start attacking the confusing wording of the 1st Amendment? What did they really mean when they said "congress will make no law impeding the free exercise of religion"? Did it mean Christians can no longer celebrate Christmas on public property?

The Supreme Court determines what the Constitution means, authorized by the doctrine of judicial review.

Consequently, there is no ‘confusion’ as to the meanings of the First and Second Amendments.

Did it mean Christians can no longer celebrate Christmas on public property?

That depends on the nature and context of the religious expression:

Every analysis in this area must begin with consideration of the cumulative criteria developed by the Court over many years. Three such tests may be gleaned from our cases. First, the statute must have a secular legislative purpose; second, its principal or primary effect must be one that neither advances nor inhibits religion, Board of Education v. Allen, 392 U.S. 236, 243 (1968); [p613] finally, the statute must not foster "an excessive government entanglement with religion." Walz, supra, at 674.

Lemon v. Kurtzman

The Supreme Court determines what the Constitution means,

The hell with that, the supreme court nor the government will dictate what my rights mean. They are mine and I will keep them.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

State and federal courts and legislatures continue to restrict the 2nd Amendment. Go states' rights!

You were confused about the second amendment when you started this thread and you still are.