US Constitution : 2nd amendement

[padisha emperor]

"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."
Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution


This amendement was presented September, the 25th, 1789, and adopted by the Congress December, the 15, 1791.

But if you make an interpretation of it (and not an hard or complex interpretation, a logic one), is it still actually necessary ?

For me, it doesn't allow to the people to bear weapon as they want.

I explain myself :

The security of a free State NEEDS a well regulated militia.

>> to have a well regulated militia people had to have weapons

>> then they can keep and bear them.

BUT : you see, this right is here because it is a necessity for the security of a free State. Why ? Because a militia is a necessity for the security of a free State.

This right is linked with the existence of a necessary militia.

This disposition was good in 1791, when the USA were a youth nation confronted with several dangers, when the militia were anormal kind of social organisation to protect the people and the State.


But NOW ?

Now, the security of the USA is assumed by the USA Army Forces (Army, Navy, Marines, Air Force, National Guard), the CIA and the NSA, plus the FBI and the police forces.

>> So, a militia is totally USELESS, these governemental organs quoted upon are really enough.

>> USA don't need a "well regulated militia" to assure they security, do they ?


We've seen that this right was indissociable from the necessary militia to assure security.

Nowadays, the security of a free State is assure by Army, secret services and police. Not at all by militia.

Then, the right given by the 2nd amendement is OBSOLETE.

Why ? BECAUSE THIS RIGHT CAME FROM THE NECESSITY TO HAVE A MILITIA, THE ONLY ORGANISATION ABLE TO ASSURE THE SECURITY OF THE STATE, AND NOW MILITIA IS USELESS, THEN PEOPLE DON'T HAVE TO KEEP AND BEAR WEAPONS, THE ORIGIN OF THIS RIGHT DISAPPEARS.


I don't know the Iursidiction, the position of the US Suprem Law Court, but if the cuase of a thing disappears, this thing is useless and obsolete.

PE

 

[Mr. P]

Why do you care about our Constitution? :talk2:

 

[padisha emperor]

Why do you care about our Constitution? :talk2:

Why don't you want that people speak of you (you as American, not as Mr. P) ?

You speak of Europe and France everytime in "Europe" section.

You comment our legislations, the european constitution, our systems....When you critic the legislation about abortion or gay-marriage in Europe, you do the same as me now. And I find it good, because it creats debates, exchanges of informations..........so, discussions.

Why can't you accept I do the same ?

I only ask to US citizens what they think about it, because they're the first concerned and have not the same approach with the weapons tah the europeans.

 

[Mr. P]

.....
I only ask to US citizens what they think about it, because they're the first concerned and have not the same approach with the weapons tah the europeans.

Ahhhh no, you didn't ask, you stated:

So, a militia is totally USELESS, these governemental organs quoted upon are really enough.

Big difference.

 

[archangel]

The United States of Ameica is made up of some fifty states...each with individual state rights...Each state has what is called a National Guard with the state Governor being the Commander in Chief...each and every citizen is what could be construed as being on inactive reserves for the state militia subject to being called up.(Posse Comatatus law!)This gives the states and citizens the power to protect the individual state in the event a repressive federal government ever formed(or was overwelmed by a foreign enemy)...Our founding fathers put this in the constitution for the protection of state rights and it's citizens...Thus the right to keep and bare arms!

We also have the right to bare babies,bare butts and bare anything else that is not offensive...could not resist the temptation...sorry! :teeth:

 

[5stringJeff]

PE, the Founding Fathers of America understood that armed citizens would be able to protect themselves (in the form of a militia) from a corrupt government. After all, the Americans were rebelling against the unfair poliices of the British government. By ensuring that all Americans had the right to arm themselves, the Founders enabled the American people to protect themselves from a corrupt government, or one that tried to usurp the Constitution.

 

[Annie]

The quickest way to a government worthy of being revolted against, would be unarmed civilians.

 

[Merlin]

"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."
Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution


That says enough. Useless or not, if we can ignore the second amendment, what is to keep us from being able to ignore the rest of them? That said, I understand there are about 20,000 so called gun laws on the books. In my opinion all are illegal laws until/unless the second amendment is changed by an amendment to our constitution. That is why I personally openly ignore all states gun laws. Two reasons I refuse to fly any more. No smoking on planes and they won't let me carry my piece. Regardless of which state I'm in and where I'm at, my piece is usually in arms reach. If and when the constitution is changed to allow gun laws, then and only then, will I consider a gun law legal and try to abide by the laws. But after 50+ years of carrying a piece, that will be hard to do, but I would honestly try.

 

[Emmett]

First of all no one mentioned the real reason that I have a gun. It is to protect my family from other Americans. In my opinion if you do not have a gun in your home and are prepared to use it at a moments notice.....I say this respectfully......YOU ARE A FOOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

It is going to be too damn late when you are laying in the floor bleeding to death knowing that you are going to live only long enough to hear your 13 year old daughter scream as she is being brutally raped and killed.

Law abiding citizens are responsible and there is not one good reason why they should not have a gun. Criminals are going to have guns regardless. Why should we not have the ability to defend ourselves against these individuals. It's absolutely emballistic to adopt an attitude that brainwashes people into thinking that guns are dangerous.

What do you think would happen to the home invasion rate, burglury and other crines against the common citizen if all criminals knew there was agun in every household in America. Frankly I believe there should be. Every person who has never been convictd of a violent crime should have a gun, legally and be able to take it anywhere they want.

Example: Had I had been on one of the flights that were hijacked and used in the etrotcity of 911 the story would have been different. There would have a report the next day about a guy who shot some attemted terrorists dead. Now that is that folks, you can debate this sideways if you like but that is exactly what would have happened. Don't bring a boxcutter to a gunfight. Even a Tasor could have prevented this unfortunate occurance. At the very least, the pilot should have had a gun and those flights would not have found the targets that they did.

Our system teaches fear of firearms. It's narotic. We have become a bunch of sissies when it concerns firearms. Just as we have about our other civil liberties. We didn't have the balls to stand up to our Legislators given the subject of ED. Taking an Americans property so a company or developer can build a hotel or golf course is absolutely a crime condoned by government. It's Government theft. I said it the other day and I'll say it again, what would Ben Franklin have said about that. Our forefathers are rolling in their graves ashamed of what we have done to the liberty they worked so hard to instill in the American spirit.

It is so naive for the left to think that requiring all these limits and laws on law abiding citizens is making the world a safer place. It is making it more dangerous. WAY more dangerous. They argue that guns in the hands of people in public contribute to road rage, a higher murder count and robberies. BULLSHIT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! That is just absolute Bullshit!

In my opinion, the 2nd Amendment dose not address the issue of citizens possessing firearms for common defense. It talks about militia, I agree. Everyone from both sides continue to try and manipulate the language to suit their individual viewpoint. The fact is any law that prevents a citizen from having a gun to defend themselves is technically unlawful. How can government tell me I have to go into this world with no ability to defend myself against criminals. Look at the crime numbers. Criminals attack at random and they do profile!

My little ol' grandma used to have a two shot derringer she carried in her purse for 60 years. She never played with it, no one ever saw it, she knew just how to take it out and fire it and I as a small child traveling around the city of Atlanta felt better knowing that she had it. My grandpa had a small ankle holstered pistol he wore under his pant leg that he put on just as normally as he put on his socks. They were law abiding citizens who believed in their right to defend themselves. That is what it is about, the god given RIGHT to defend yourself. Having that restricted in any way whatsoever is wrong, PERIOD! A law abiding citizen is not going to hurt you.

Remember all the times in history when these folks have killed mass numbers in public. The Post office things, the McDonalds killings and so forth. It was the same in every instance. A crazed criminal figuring correctly that the general public would probably not have the ability to stop their devious plan from coming into reality. It is good for them that I was not at that McDonald's eating my lunch because I KNOW for absolute certain that there would have been a different outcome had I.

Folks, lose this naive fear of guns. Fear the idiots who kill, rape and rob instead. Write your legislators and influence them to change laws so that convicted violent criminals go to jail. Write them again, again and again. Make sure they know how you feel. Convince them to make prisons a horrible place to be again and that will influence criminals to stop their behavior. We need criminals to be splitting rocks, banging railroad ties and working hard. Hurt them. Hurt them regularly, all day and into the night. Make it absolute hell to be in prison and the crime rates will go down. Our damn system is more worried about the rights of criminals than the rights of citizens to live in harmony with ine another. How in the heck did this get like this. I assure you if a borderline horse theif in 1853 knew he would simply get probation instead of a rope around his neck, no one would have had any horses to work the fields with. They would have all been stolen.

Education is better than Legislation. Go to websites like the NRA and others so you can become educated. A Law abiding citizen has never murdered anyone!

I'm done! Y'all have nice day!

 

[Just a guy]

I only ask to US citizens what they think about it, because they're the first concerned and have not the same approach with the weapons tah the europeans.

I have also thougt about some things where Europeans and Americans have problems to dicuss things with any ease. Guns are one of those matters.
From a european perspective I think it's hard to comprehend. But think of it this way: We (Europeans) see guns as being dangerous by the mere existance. They (Americans) see them more like tools. In Europe if you arm yourself you are adding a new risc into the equation - in U.S. your'e merley keeping the balance or even lowering the risc. This is a subject i have totally changed my viewpoint in. The right to have a firearm is a good thing, in the U.S.A.

 

[MissileMan]

Now, the security of the USA is assumed by the USA Army Forces (Army, Navy, Marines, Air Force, National Guard), the CIA and the NSA, plus the FBI and the police forces.

And if those forces should fail, anyone looking for trouble will have your average American gunowner to contend with, myself included.

 

[5stringJeff]

And if those forces should fail, anyone looking for trouble will have your average American gunowner to contend with, myself included.

 

[LOki]

"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."
Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution


This amendement was presented September, the 25th, 1789, and adopted by the Congress December, the 15, 1791.

But if you make an interpretation of it (and not an hard or complex interpretation, a logic one), is it still actually necessary?

Yes, it is necessary.

But first I'd like to address your interpretation, which IMO fails your own requirements of simplictiy and logic.

For me, it doesn't allow to the people to bear weapon as they want.

I explain myself :

The security of a free State NEEDS a well regulated militia.

>> to have a well regulated militia people had to have weapons

>> then they can keep and bear them.

BUT : you see, this right is here because it is a necessity for the security of a free State. Why ? Because a militia is a necessity for the security of a free State.

This right is linked with the existence of a necessary militia.

No. There is no link between the necessity of the militia and the protection of the right. The right exists on its own, and the federal governemt has (or at least claimed at the authoring of the constitution) no jurisdiction over other applications of "the right" other than those specified under the government's responsibility to national defense. Thus, whereas the federal government could not make constutional notation regarding hunting, or target shooting, or various other excersises of "the right"--it could make notation regarding national defense via the milita, over which it was empowered to assume jurisdiction, and did so to establish the federal interest in recognizing and protecting the right of the people to keep and bear arms.

This disposition was good in 1791, when the USA were a youth nation confronted with several dangers, when the militia were anormal kind of social organisation to protect the people and the State.


But NOW ?

Now, the security of the USA is assumed by the USA Army Forces (Army, Navy, Marines, Air Force, National Guard), the CIA and the NSA, plus the FBI and the police forces.

>> So, a militia is totally USELESS, these governemental organs quoted upon are really enough.

>> USA don't need a "well regulated militia" to assure they security, do they ?

The "people," who are in possession of the right, and only with whom the right resides, ARE the milita, and still have potential reason to excersize it if history is any indication.

• In 1929, the Soviet Union established gun control. From 1929 to 1953, approximately 20 million dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
• In 1911, Turkey established gun control. From 1915 to 1917, 1.5 million Armenians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
• In 1928, Germany established gun control. From 1939 to 1945, 13 million Jews, gypsies and others, who were unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
• In 1935, China established gun control. From 1948 to 1952, 20 million political dissidents were unable to defend themselves and were rounded up and exterminated.
• In 1964, Guatemala established gun control. From 1964 to 1981, 100,000 Mayan Indians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
• In 1970, Uganda established gun control. From 1971 to 1979, 300,000 Christians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
• In 1956, Cambodia established gun control. From 1975 to 1977, one million "educated" people, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

One might say there are nearly 56 million simple arguments why the right to keep and bear arms is necessary to protect the "people" from their own government.

We've seen that this right was indissociable from the necessary militia to assure security.

Nowadays, the security of a free State is assure by Army, secret services and police. Not at all by militia.

Then, the right given by the 2nd amendement is OBSOLETE.

Why ? BECAUSE THIS RIGHT CAME FROM THE NECESSITY TO HAVE A MILITIA, THE ONLY ORGANISATION ABLE TO ASSURE THE SECURITY OF THE STATE, AND NOW MILITIA IS USELESS, THEN PEOPLE DON'T HAVE TO KEEP AND BEAR WEAPONS, THE ORIGIN OF THIS RIGHT DISAPPEARS.

Correction. You did not demonstrate that the security of a free State is assured by the military, secret services, and police; and you most certainly did not, in any manner what-so-ever, demonstrate that the right to keep and bear arms is indissociable from the militia, or the necessity of the militia. Thus your assertion that the 2nd Amendment is OBSOLETE has not been validated. Nice try though.

The simple interpretation of the 2nd Amendment is: "The people have the right to keep and bear arms--it shall not be infringed."

Simple, yes?

The logical interpretaion of the 2nd Amendment is: "...the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed."

The preamble to the right does not modify the right. "A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state,..." is not a clause limiting the main clause (the subject of which is "the right", and the verb is "shall"), rather it's a participle indicating the necessity of "the right" for maintaining a militia--NOT that a militia is neccessary for the the existence of the right.

Rights (any rights) are conditional upon the existence of people, not the militia. Rights are not conferred to "the people," they are presumed, and protected by the government. Thus, though the milita is indissocialble from the existence of the right of the people to keep and bear arms, the right stands on its own, upon the existence of "the people," without association with, or contingent upon, the milita. You logic is faulty. Your conclusion is not valid.

 

[Gunny]

Yes, it is necessary.

But first I'd like to address your interpretation, which IMO fails your own requirements of simplictiy and logic.

No. There is no link between the necessity of the militia and the protection of the right. The right exists on its own, and the federal governemt has (or at least claimed at the authoring of the constitution) no jurisdiction over other applications of "the right" other than those specified under the government's responsibility to national defense. Thus, whereas the federal government could not make constutional notation regarding hunting, or target shooting, or various other excersises of "the right"--it could make notation regarding national defense via the milita, over which it was empowered to assume jurisdiction, and did so to establish the federal interest in recognizing and protecting the right of the people to keep and bear arms.

The "people," who are in possession of the right, and only with whom the right resides, ARE the milita, and still have potential reason to excersize it if history is any indication.

• In 1929, the Soviet Union established gun control. From 1929 to 1953, approximately 20 million dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
• In 1911, Turkey established gun control. From 1915 to 1917, 1.5 million Armenians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
• In 1928, Germany established gun control. From 1939 to 1945, 13 million Jews, gypsies and others, who were unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
• In 1935, China established gun control. From 1948 to 1952, 20 million political dissidents were unable to defend themselves and were rounded up and exterminated.
• In 1964, Guatemala established gun control. From 1964 to 1981, 100,000 Mayan Indians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
• In 1970, Uganda established gun control. From 1971 to 1979, 300,000 Christians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
• In 1956, Cambodia established gun control. From 1975 to 1977, one million "educated" people, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

One might say there are nearly 56 million simple arguments why the right to keep and bear arms is necessary to protect the "people" from their own government.

Correction. You did not demonstrate that the security of a free State is assured by the military, secret services, and police; and you most certainly did not, in any manner what-so-ever, demonstrate that the right to keep and bear arms is indissociable from the militia, or the necessity of the militia. Thus your assertion that the 2nd Amendment is OBSOLETE has not been validated. Nice try though.

The simple interpretation of the 2nd Amendment is: "The people have the right to keep and bear arms--it shall not be infringed."

Simple, yes?

The logical interpretaion of the 2nd Amendment is: "...the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed."

The preamble to the right does not modify the right. "A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state,..." is not a clause limiting the main clause (the subject of which is "the right", and the verb is "shall"), rather it's a participle indicating the necessity of "the right" for maintaining a militia--NOT that a militia is neccessary for the the existence of the right.

Rights (any rights) are conditional upon the existence of people, not the militia. Rights are not conferred to "the people," they are presumed, and protected by the government. Thus, though the milita is indissocialble from the existence of the right of the people to keep and bear arms, the right stands on its own, upon the existence of "the people," without association with, or contingent upon, the milita. You logic is faulty. Your conclusion is not valid.

You didn't leave a DAMNED thing for me. But that's about as sound a thrashing as I've seen.