The 2nd amendment does not give people the right to bear arms.

rkunsaw

rkunsaw

Well-known Member
Location
Clarksville, Arkansas,USA
The 2nd amendment does not give people the right to bear arms. It reaffirms and protects a right that already existed.


The right to keep and bear arms (often referred to as the right to bear arms or to have arms) is the people's right to have their own arms for their defense as described in the philosophical and political writings of Aristotle, Cicero, John Locke, Machiavelli, the English Whigs and others.[1] In countries with an English common law tradition, a long standin...g common law right to keep and bear arms has long been recognized, as pre-existing in common law, prior even to the existence of written national constitutions.[2] In the United States, the right to keep and bear arms is also an enumerated right specifically protected by the U.S. Constitution and many state constitutions[3] such that people have a personal right to own arms for individual use, and a right to bear these same arms both for personal protection and for use in a militia
 

good thing they have an edit, I read your post and started some stuff,

In addition ammendments were/are considered God given unalienable Rights put down on paper to protect them
 
Well, there is that bit about the militia the pro-gun people either purposely ignore or blow off with claims that the language has changed. Your point is probably why they felt the need to include it at all and qualify in order to form a militia. That aside, it matters not -- as it certainly doesn't prohibit the people from owning guns. However, I think it's great that it neither expressly gives every citizen the right nor prohibits them so we can have a sane middle road in which we require permits and can bar convicted criminals or those not mentally competent (i.e., the insane) and also limit fire power. I think it safe to say that if it did give everyone an unfettered right to bear arms, we'd need a Constitutional amendment given the firepower we now have that our founding fathers couldn't have possibly imagined. No innocent, law-abiding citizen needs an Uzi or a shoulder missile.
 
Actually there were several working machine gun models prior to the 1600s, and rockets existed in early Greek times. Currently the ownership of both is not only legal but very popular. I invite you to the MAcine gun shoot at Tenessee the rockets are a bit different requiring a class 10 lic. (I think it is) in any event a guy here in town has one, which he lets people shoot although it is expensive. Nobody needs 3 airplanes, or 4 homes either. Sane and innocent are legal terms which require definitions very few are going to agree and when used by the lay public is nothing but an opinion.
 
Blaze Duskdreamer said:
No innocent, law-abiding citizen needs an Uzi or a shoulder missile.
Click to expand...

It doesn't matter if they need them IMO, if they want an Uzi, they should be able to purchase and own one. They may be a collector, they may just want it for fun, or they just may want it because they want it. They shouldn't need to give any excuses, reasons or explanations.
 
That's where we differ. Over here if you want a gun you need a very good reason why you should be trusted with one or you can't have what you want. And you need a licence.
 
Dame Warrigal said:
That's where we differ. Over here if you want a gun you need a very good reason why you should be trusted with one or you can't have what you want. And you need a licence.
Click to expand...

The right to bear arms existed over here and over there every since there were people. Over here we have recognized and protected those rights with our constitution. Over there those rights have been taken away. There is nothing to prevent the government from taking away more rights( or giving more rights) at the whim of the current ones in power. ( don't hold your breath on the giving more rights part)

That is where our countries differ.
 
The right to bear arms over here originally meant that an initiated warrior could own spears, boomerangs and a nulla nulla, as well as a woman to carry them for him. Sensibly, we did not enshrine these rights in our constitution.
 
All animals (including humans) Have an inherent right to protect them selves by whatever means available to them. Some protect themselves by hiding or running away. Others protect themselves by fighting back.
 
Why does the "well regulated" part always go unmentioned. The 2nd ammendment provides for a "well regulated Militia"... so while giving everyone the right to bear arms... it also gives the right of the government to regulate them.. Right?

Here's the original text as passed by Congress

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.
Click to expand...
 
QuickSilver said:
Why does the "well regulated" part always go unmentioned. The 2nd ammendment provides for a "well regulated Militia"... so while giving everyone the right to bear arms... it also gives the right of the government to regulate them.. Right?

Here's the original text as passed by Congress
Click to expand...

Don't forget the "shall not be infringed" part.
 
Actually the laws for owning a firearm in the U.S. are far more strict than owning a car. I wish it was as easy
auto doesn't require a form 4733 FBI background check and in some states along waiting period
can always buy more than 1 car a month, some states have 30 day waiting periods
can't sell it to someone you know is a criminal , car Doesn't matter if a criminal
Age difference you drive in most states is 4-5 years younger than allowed for gun ownership
you can have a car with unlimited horsepower, but as you read with some of these posts, they want magazine restriction

the big difference is the medical aspect. If you have had a major medical episode, it usually requires a docs ok to get lic.
renewal for auto. Usually not the case with guns. This will be a major issue as the spin people continue to make the term gun violence a medical issue.
 
Soo..... since we adhere so tightly to the Constitution...

mi·li·tia

noun \mə-ˈli-shə\: a group of people who are not part of the armed forces of a country but are trained like soldiers

Full Definition of MILITIA

1
a : a part of the organized armed forces of a country liable to call only in emergency
b : a body of citizens organized for military service

2
: the whole body of able-bodied male citizens declared by law as being subject to call to military service.

I would expect that ALL gun owners have been subjected to intense Military training.. and are all able bodied and Male AND will be called into military serviced BY LAW should the need arise? Right? Everyone ready to pack up and GO? lol!!

 
I think the primary objective behind the 2nd Amendment was to allow the average citizen the ability to protect themselves from a Corrupted Government. Given the trend in recent decades for our government to be increasingly taken over by the wealthy 1%er's, and the major corporate/banking interests, and their Lobbies, Joe and Jane Average are becoming less relevant with every passing election. With the continued erosion of our Middle Class, the day may come when we are a nation of the Elite minority, and the Peasant Majority. This situation already exists in many nations where the people have no means of exerting influence, other than marching in the streets.

The wisdom of the 2nd Amendment could be all that stands between the bulk of our people...and a life of subservience....in the future.

The time to begin to be Really Concerned will be if the government ever tries to initiate a massive registration of all legal gun owners. Confiscation would be the next step.
 
God I love liberal humor QS. You can expect anything you want, whether it happens that way, who knows. Since you don't get out much this is the way it works. Across the U.S. there are 1000 of shooting ranges. Gun clubs like the International Pistol Shooters Confederation, 3 gun international, machine gun clubs etc. a loose affiliation putting on shooting competitions. A small match would be at least 50 and a large several thousands. They may bring motor homes or stay in near by hotels, bringing in lots of tourist dollars so the local communities welcome with open arms., usually the latest antigun freak stuff is rehashed, everybody makes a joke or more. Generally everyone brings there kids, who are taught fundamental firearms safety, about the 2nd and why gun laws don't work. About 35 % of the competitors are women who shot in their own class, which real bs because they shoot better than a lot of the men, and move faster. Usually the total number present are more female. Booze is not allowed or any other type of non medical drugs.
Some of participants are ex or current police or military but those people have their own matches, and they aren't very good and rarely win. Usually the prize tables are large and some shooters make a living this way. Noting like football etc.
what your describing above is called the draft and was done away with. And you thought gun shows were a problem.
 
Don M. said:
I think the primary objective behind the 2nd Amendment was to allow the average citizen the ability to protect themselves from a Corrupted Government..
Click to expand...

Ahh... YOU THINK..... that means that is YOUR interpretation.. But the Constitution does NOT say everyone can own guns to protect themselves... It calls for a "Well Regulated Militia"... SO by the definition of Militia.. you should be going to training camps and be ready to pick up your gun and join a Military like squadron.. Right? I mean that's what the constitution says.. Unless of course you want to admit that you are picking and choosing the words you want to follow and interpret.
 
That would depend on the agenda who the leaders etc. and yes I will pick them, and well I guess that would certainly depend on their stance (history) on constitutional issues (not a guess how resolved people who won't defend themselves are, they won't be there). What so strange about that it has always been that way.
back to some fun stuff. Usually by the end of the matches everybody has sour grapes about their guns and the trading and selling starts - 4733 forms here. Usually a basic game gun runs about 2-3k some as high as 10 k. Bet those get locked up.
all states in the us have gun colleges, some states have world wide ties, and some states have quite a few. I guess this is a type of boot camp, all one does is concentrate on firearms procedures. Women make up about 40% of the enrollment. Gun site in Arizonia (gotta love the name) is probably the best known. The latest are country club shooting ranges, leather seats, fireplaces, dinner, one right in DC I think. It seems that the ladies felt the others were just too dirty. Lol
 
SCOTUS in Heller does say everyone can
reaffirmed in recent Appeals decision that denial of gun to mental institution graduate violated his 2nd
DC anti-carry laws held unconstitutional by Fed. Judge directed Dc's to redraft

Chicagos anti carry laws held unconstitutional by different district Fed. Judge chicago ordered to redraft

whats in your wallet?
 
QuickSilver said:
Ahh... YOU THINK..... that means that is YOUR interpretation.. But the Constitution does NOT say everyone can own guns to protect themselves... It calls for a "Well Regulated Militia"... SO by the definition of Militia.. you should be going to training camps and be ready to pick up your gun and join a Military like squadron.. Right? I mean that's what the constitution says.. Unless of course you want to admit that you are picking and choosing the words you want to follow and interpret.
Click to expand...

Yes, that is what I think...and I feel entitled to my opinion, as do you. However, if you are all hung up on your interpretation of One Word, "militia", I would suggest you are not looking at the broader picture. Militia can be interpreted in many ways. Millions of people have had extensive firearms training via the military, and they would form a good cadre of "troops", were it ever necessary. We live way out in the country, and a couple of times a year, several of the neighbors come over for an afternoon. I have a big meadow below the house, with a heavily wooded ridge about 150' high to act as a backstop, where we set up targets at various ranges, and have a friendly little contest with our rifles. Afterwards we have a big outdoor meal, and enjoy the evening. Technically, we could become a "militia".

Our local weekly police reports usually consist of a few traffic stops, a couple of barking dogs irritating some neighbor at night, and occasionally a petty theft. Contrast that with most cities, where it hardly makes the news unless there is a shooting with multiple victims. The thugs know that were they to try to ply their trade out here, they would probably be greeted with the business end of a deer rifle. I hope I am never put in a situation where I need to defend myself, but were it ever to occur, I would rather it be the thug going down, than me.
 
Don M. said:
Yes, that is what I think...and I feel entitled to my opinion, as do you. However, if you are all hung up on your interpretation of One Word, "militia", I would suggest you are not looking at the broader picture. Militia can be interpreted in many ways. Millions of people have had extensive firearms training via the military, and they would form a good cadre of "troops", were it ever necessary. We live way out in the country, and a couple of times a year, several of the neighbors come over for an afternoon. I have a big meadow below the house, with a heavily wooded ridge about 150' high to act as a backstop, where we set up targets at various ranges, and have a friendly little contest with our rifles. Afterwards we have a big outdoor meal, and enjoy the evening. Technically, we could become a "militia".

Our local weekly police reports usually consist of a few traffic stops, a couple of barking dogs irritating some neighbor at night, and occasionally a petty theft. Contrast that with most cities, where it hardly makes the news unless there is a shooting with multiple victims. The thugs know that were they to try to ply their trade out here, they would probably be greeted with the business end of a deer rifle. I hope I am never put in a situation where I need to defend myself, but were it ever to occur, I would rather it be the thug going down, than me.
Click to expand...

So what you are saying is that you are in favor of regulating gun ownership to only those that have had or are willing to go through extensive firearms training likely through the Military? AND that it would be a good idea for these people to go a few times a year to practice their firearms skills... Remember... the word REGULATED appears in the Constitution. So who BUT the government or the Military to REGULATE this training.. Or oversee it..to make sure it is done correctly and that the proper skills are used.. Are you in favor of this? Because how in the world would anyone KNOW if you have the proper skills to form a "well regulated Militia" unless it is observed.... How does anyone know you and your friends don't just get together to goof around, have a few beers and shoot at things? OR if you can even hit what you are shooting at?
 
That all you got QS. Have you read these court decisions? Civilian use of firearms is completly different than military or police and mostly for self defense. If you would like I can have one of these colleges get in touch so you can more informed about the topic.
 
You Obviously have No experience with firearms. I can guarantee you that No One who engages in our activities has any Beers until well after the days contests have ended, and all the weapons are unloaded and safely put away. Our "group" routinely hits the targets, and usually very close to the center. My personal best shot was a few years ago when I brought down a bull Elk on my cousins ranch in Wyoming at a distance of over 700 yards....with one shot. Any sensible gun owner learns how to use his/her weapon, and practices regularly at a local range, etc. The one's who get in trouble are those who buy a pistol, and stick it in the bedroom nightstand and never make the effort to learn how to use it and safeguard it.

Insofar as "regulating" by the government is concerned....if the government "regulates" firearms as well as they "regulate" everything else, we are in Deep Doo Doo.
 
Street / home defense use of a firearm is a very different thing than target or big-game hunting, however. Totally different scenario and associated emotional / physiological problems are involved when your opponent is firing back at you, or is within the magical "21 feet" rule.

One of the better teachers of defensive gunning is Massad Ayoob - I'm sure Don M. and rt3 have heard of him, if not read his stuff or seen his videos.
 

You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top