The 2nd Amendment was created with flintlock muzzleloaders in mind.

a reply to: AdKiller

I'm not American but I know this.

I believe that it may or not be created for the militia, farmers etc whose were given the 'right to bear arms' to protect themselves against the English, and I don't remember any clause that restricted use of any other weapons as others have pointed out.

It's a tricky subject that can be interpreted in many ways.

"That is how the SCOTUS interpreted and not necessarily what the forefather's meant."

How can you presume to know what the founding fathers "necessarily" meant? As soon as we start applying laws based on what a person thinks they "necessarily" know about the intent of the law, we may as well throw out the Constitution because it won't be worth the paper it's written on.

The SCOTUS is empowered by law to interpret current laws and issue a decision, ruling, or an opinion on the legal sufficiency of law in the case at hand. They are the authority for challenges to current law and appeals of decisions by U.S. courts.

In the 2008 case of District of Columbia v. Heller, the Court held that the founding fathers' intent of the second amendment included giving the right to citizens to own firearms for personal protection. The majority opinion stated, "Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited...”. It is "...not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.” It also specifically excluded the carrying of "dangerous and unusual weapons." Some people consider all firearms dangerous, but the Court qualified 'dangerous and unusual' by including firearms "in common use" (pistols and rifles).

originally posted by: TheTruthRocks
How can you presume to know what the founding fathers "necessarily" meant? As soon as we start applying laws based on what a person thinks they "necessarily" know about the intent of the law, we may as well throw out the Constitution because it won't be worth the paper it's written on.

You don't know what "necessarily" means or how it is used?

originally posted by: AMPTAH

originally posted by: Annee
No one knows for sure exactly what the original 2nd Amendment means. Not even those who've studied it.

I think the idea was that each state had the right to be armed, to protect itself against the federal government, should the federal government attempt to overstep its bounds and grab more power than that granted to it in the U.S. Constitution. So, it was really a state right to have a militia and bear arms for the states protection.

You see the Constitution limited the powers of the Federal Government, but what guarantees the enforcement of that limitation? Only a well armed state militia can do that. Which is the whole point.

There's a point in law which declares any written law that cannot be enforced is automatically null and void.

So, whenever there is a written law, you need to ask who enforces it, and how do they enforce that law.

That's the right to bear arms.

It's not the right of the individual citizen to bear arms. Though, that's the interpretation that is currently in practice. This latter is an incorrect interpretation.

YES

I agree with this.

I'm a little dyslexical.
I've been training a squad of armed bears.
The enemy better duck when they hear the unicycles coming.
I know my rights!

originally posted by: daskakik

originally posted by: TheTruthRocks
How can you presume to know what the founding fathers "necessarily" meant? As soon as we start applying laws based on what a person thinks they "necessarily" know about the intent of the law, we may as well throw out the Constitution because it won't be worth the paper it's written on.

You don't know what "necessarily" means or how it is used?

Sure I do. I put it in quotes because that is the word you used. The point is that when there's a question of law, the SCOTUS is the final arbiter until the law is changed by congress. SCOTUS is the ultimate authority on what is constitutionally legal and what is not--which includes the intent of the framers of the document.

Individual interpretations of intent are a dime a dozen, but when it comes to a rule of law--which is the cornerstone of the constitutional republic construct, anything short of a ruling by the legal authority (SCOTUS for the U.S.) is the beginning of a dictatorship, anarchy, etc.

Cheers!

originally posted by: TheTruthRocks
Sure I do. I put it in quotes because that is the word you used. The point is that when there's a question of law, the SCOTUS is the final arbiter until the law is changed by congress. SCOTUS is the ultimate authority on what is constitutionally legal and what is not--which includes the intent of the framers of the document.

Great, we both know that.

Individual interpretations of intent are a dime a dozen, but when it comes to a rule of law--which is the cornerstone of the constitutional republic construct, anything short of a ruling by the legal authority (SCOTUS for the U.S.) is the beginning of a dictatorship, anarchy, etc.

Cheers!

I never gave an interpretation. I said that the interpretation of the SCOTUS could or could not be (it might "not necessarily be") what the forefathers meant.