It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Why the infringement on the 2nd Amendment?

page: 2
0
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 4 2005 @ 01:49 PM
link   
AMM, remember that when you go to the dictionary with old words, the meanings of the words have changed. That is exactly why we must do as you have said, and see what the Founding Fathers said in reference to the different topics. AS I've said countless times before, people need to get the Federalisdt Papers and read them to get a better understanding of the FF mindset.




posted on Sep, 4 2005 @ 02:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by Amethyst
I can't believe the anti-gun people screaming that guns kill a lot of kids. Didn't they know that swimming pools are more dangerous?


Come on. That's a lousy analogy and you know it


That aside though, any thoughts from anyone regarding this?


In United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939), the Supreme Court discusses the purpose and the limit of the Second Amendment and tells us that the "obvious purpose" of the Amendment was "to assure the continuation and render possible the effectiveness" of our state militia forces (our present day National Guard). The right to bear arms was not extended to each and every individual, but rather was expressly limited to maintaining effective state militia.


Surely this clarifies with some certainty that the "right to bear arms" does not include the absolute right by the individual to bear arms outside of the context quoted above?

Even the federal appellate courts have created a well-settled principle of law—that the Second Amendment does not guarantee any individual the unconditional right to own a handgun or to bear arms.

Source

Personally? Banning guns at this juncture would be foolish - if only because there are so many on the streets, it'd simply result in criminals being the only ones with access to firearms; not a desirable situation. Restricting them though, is a more sensible route. I don't think every Tom, Dick and Harriet should have a legal right to own a gun, and for good reason.

What's more dangerous to me, is the deliberate misinterpretation of the 2nd Amendment by various political parties to fit their own agendas; they're serving nobody but themselves, and we the people are the ones who suffer.

(apologies in advance if I've taken this off topic - I just think it's better to settle the actual application of the 2nd Amendment before we start deciding who's infringing on it and who isn't)



posted on Sep, 4 2005 @ 02:26 PM
link   
Your right these politicians need to protect and obey our constitution period! “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

I want to bear Nuclear weapons, and it’s my right to do so! But I don’t think I could afford it. But if I could I should be able to have one! If I could get an old church to put it in underground like planet of the apes that would even be better.



posted on Sep, 4 2005 @ 06:21 PM
link   
The Second Amendment secures my right to bear arms.

A well regulated militia being neccessary to the security of a free State is just like saying A democratic government being necessary for the good of the people, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

It is just stating a reason why we have the 2nd in the first place.

In the Constitution it says that the government will train, arm, and regualte the militia. But the 2nd Amendment means that they have to do so in a way that does not infringe on our rights to keep and bear arms.

It is clear. Anyone who argues it is a traitor.

Sure I would not like to be walking down the street with every moron walking around with a M16. I would not feel safe. But I appreciate more what the 2nd Amendment will bring to me in benefits versus the security I would have with my 2nd amendment right infringed by not having an armed population.

Here is a popular quote "Those willing to give up temporary freedom for a little temporary security deserve neither freedom or security" - Benjamin Franklin.

Sure if there was no arms control it would start low intensity wars within the United STates. People wouldnt want to see certain people arming themselves with armaments. But that is the nature of the world we live in. And if anything it will prepare and train us for war even more, increasing our security as we learn how to overcome the boundaries of not having arms control and having the right to keep and bear arms.

We will probably become the most highly effective citizen fighting force in the world. Each town will probably be run by militia groups, each State having an inflated Army. And security would never be stronger.

Sure there will be problems, but nothing worse then we will have when the government in the next 5 years restricts guns to just pistols and we get smacked with Patriot Act 2. THen we will be in trouble because the majority of the people either wouldnt care, or not be in a position to resist. Then we are enslaved and it will get worse and worse until we end up like Britain where not even our cops own firearms and we have cirtually no individual rights.

And we all know how much Britain and countries that dont give freedoms are a disgrace to humanity.

[edit on 4-9-2005 by YaYo]

[edit on 4-9-2005 by YaYo]



posted on Sep, 4 2005 @ 06:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by YaYo
The Second Amendment secures my right to bear arms.


Well, apparently your opinion is somewhat different to that of many, many respected lawyers, legal experts, justices and various others.



It is clear. Anyone who argues it is a traitor.


That's utter horsepiddle. Have you read some of the decisions handed down which relate to this issue?

Have you researched your topic here at all? Have you discussed the reasoning behind such decisions?


But I appreciate more what the 2nd Amendment will bring to me in benefits versus the security I would have with my 2nd amendment right infringed by not having an armed population.


Now here I do actually see your point. I don't agree, but I do understand your point of view.

The only reason I disagree is I truly do think you're just misreading the intent and interpretation of that all-important 2nd Amendment.



We will probably become the most highly effective citizen fighting force in the world. Each town will probably be run by militia groups, each State having an inflated Army. And security would never be stronger.


That's a huge leap, surely?! It's one thing to have your citizens all armed...it's another thing entirely to actually get those citizens to agree when, where and for whom they'll actually bear those arms...


Then we are enslaved and it will get worse and worse until we end up like Britain where not even our cops own firearms and we have cirtually no individual rights.
And we all know how much Britain and countries that dont give freedoms are a disgrace to humanity.


Oddly, I didn't really find my rights taken away at all in the entire 23 or so years I lived there. And don't forget, that particular "disgrace to humanity" is fighting side by side in Iraq with your countrymen, and offering support both financial and logistical in relation to Katrina.

Suddenly, Britain isn't too much of a disgrace, is it?



posted on Sep, 4 2005 @ 07:20 PM
link   
All the lawyers and judges you mention are traitors. Just because there is more then one doesnt make them any less of one.

THere is no reasons for infringing on the 2nd Amendment. Whatever reason they gave was wrong, unconstitiutonal and traitorous. They deserve treason for aiding and abetting the enemy by disarming the militia and reducing our ability to protect our freedom and security.

There is no other way you can look at it, unless you want to be faced against the patriots when it comes time to secure our freedoms. Good luck.



posted on Sep, 4 2005 @ 07:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by YaYo

THere is no reasons for infringing on the 2nd Amendment. Whatever reason they gave was wrong, unconstitiutonal and traitorous. They deserve treason for aiding and abetting the enemy by disarming the militia and reducing our ability to protect our freedom and security.



Hmmm.

Could it be you who's misinterpreting the Constitution?

Can you point out exactly where the amendment gives carte blanche rights to the individual, as you're saying?



posted on Sep, 4 2005 @ 07:27 PM
link   
What are the first three words of the Constition.

"We the people."

What does the 2nd amendment say?

"The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

Enough said.



posted on Sep, 4 2005 @ 07:33 PM
link   
Apparently not enough said



..the Supreme Court discusses the purpose and the limit of the Second Amendment and tells us that the "obvious purpose" of the Amendment was "to assure the continuation and render possible the effectiveness" of our state militia forces (our present day National Guard). The right to bear arms was not extended to each and every individual, but rather was expressly limited to maintaining effective state militia.


So. Why then, the above statement? (emphasis mine)

Perhaps more importantly though, as this thread is based upon your interpretation - why do you think their interpretation is less valid than yours?



posted on Sep, 4 2005 @ 08:05 PM
link   
The militia is defined as any male 18-49. The National Guard is called the organized militia, everyone else is called the unorganized militia.

But as an American you didnt know that?

[edit on 4-9-2005 by YaYo]



posted on Sep, 4 2005 @ 08:10 PM
link   
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.

***

The Supreme Court has consistently ruled against the right of the people to own a firearm. Many lower courts have held that opinion. Miller being the precedent.

But the court did not make that ruling. The wording implies the opposite.

It appears if the firearm in question had some reasonable utility, such as a militia weapon, Mr. Miller would have been within his rights in possessing it.

Apparently Mr. Miller had no one representing him, and evidence was not presented that the firearm was a commonly used military weapon.

Had that been the case, this might have been the defining case on the 2nd amendment with the decision in favor of the gun owner.

---paraphrased from:

www.freerepublic.com...

which deals with the difference in comma placement and the History of the Second Amendment.

BTW, who said, "If you are going to take away my right to bear arms, you might as well give me a gun?"




[edit on 4-9-2005 by garyo1954]



posted on Sep, 4 2005 @ 08:14 PM
link   
They are bound to the Constitution, they dont need to have Miller say "I wanted to use this as my Militia weapon". The 2nd amendment already said he had the right.

It is not the position of the Supreme Court to make a ruling like that. The Constitution is written in a language they have to know. And they work "under" the constitution, not above it.

Any competant person can interpret the Constitution, the problem is we have alot of idiots. That doesnt mean they can dilute the Constitution.

But whatever, in the end freedom will win. Hopefully by the force of arms. We need another civil war to bring back the spirit in which the country was founded on. Or the equivalant.

[edit on 4-9-2005 by YaYo]



posted on Sep, 4 2005 @ 10:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by Rikimaru
you all better think about this, all the ones crying about how bad bush is are the same ones who want to get rid of guns, what the hell are you going to do if bush just decided to send the national guard to your town and put you under martial law? How are you going to stop them? are you going to be like the chinese and throw rocks at tanks?
usually a region is put under martial law for a good reason such as in LA and the looters and such



posted on Sep, 5 2005 @ 12:12 AM
link   
Tinkle, many people are lawyers, and many people are respected by a "side", but that does not mean they are historically correct.

Through my reading, I have picked up on some interesting information, info that would definitely indicate exactly what the 2nd amendment is supposed to do, so let's take a quick and very short look at some points of interest. I say short, as this particular topic has been beaten to the point where there is only a chalk outline of where the horse used to lay before it decayed into dust. Even the worms have been squashed.

Let us cover first what is the "militia", shall we? According to the Militia Act of 1792 decree, "every free able bodied white male citizen" was part of the militia. The word "white" was removed in 1867.
Obviously, this is not the National Guard. There was no such thing in 1792, and as the National Guard is controlled by the state, unless federalized whereupon it is controlled by the Feds, it could not perform its co-role with common defense, which is to insure that the government does not become tyrannical. As Noah Webster said, "The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword because the whole body of the peopleare armed"
As Scottish Whig Andrew Fletcher stated in 1698, "The possession of arms is the distinction between a freeman and a slave."

One more thing to keep in mind, and this little constitutional reminder is done. When the evil old white men got together to document the Bill of Rights, there was a pretty stiff debate as to what wouldbe the first amendment. Some thought that the freedom of speech, religion and press should be the first as that is what defines our nation and separates us from the tyranny from whence we came. Others asserted that the first should be the right of the people to keep and bear arms, as that right will insure the government does not lapse into tyranny and arbitrary rule, thereby destroying the rest of the outlined rights. It was finally decided as how we know it, with the understanding that the whole of the population will have weapons and the outlining of it is not as important.

Oh, and one more thing, look at how the Bill of Rights is set up. The rights of the individual are outlined in the first eight amendments, with the ninth making it clear that just because these were outlined doesn't mean that the individual doesn't have more rights not listed, the last of the Bill of Rights is instruction to the government stating the the Feds have only the powers outlined in the consitution and those not outlined are reserved to the state and the people.

Let me close this by quoting Tench Coxe. While the House was debating the Bill of Rights, he wrote this for the Philadelphia Federal Gazette:
As civil rulers, not having their duty to the people duly before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as the military forces which must be opccasionally raised to defend out country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the next article in their right to keep and bear private arms."

I don't think it can get any clearer than that. If you wish to believe those who are "respected", feel free. As for me, I'll continue to study the words of the Founding Fathers as I expect they have a better idea of what they intended, rather than those who have other agendas; agendas of the stench our Founding Fathers were concerned.



posted on Sep, 5 2005 @ 12:35 AM
link   
Thomas Crowne I think your argument stands firmly in the writings of John Jay and James Madison......

And I have been looking for a link to download those federalist papers. I had the years ago on a floppy but well, i don't have a floppy drive now.

I agree with your response 100%. Lawyers choose to make arguments about those rights and the courts allow those arguments to be made meandering around until the original ideas before the court are sometimes lost.

But when we apply the writings of Jay, Madison, and Hamilton(?) we have a much clearer vision of what the intent was.

Great thought!



posted on Sep, 5 2005 @ 12:43 AM
link   
Google them, and it will come!
That Google is a great thing, but, to be honest, I prefer my book. Here's the ISBN; order it! It's much easier to highlight a book than it is the compute!
0-553-21340-7



posted on Sep, 5 2005 @ 12:51 AM
link   
How come the more I read the Constitution and the Federal legislation I want to revolt? They spit on the Constittution all the time I dont understand how they could ever get away with it. I cant be the only person who this drives insane.

The government has totally screwed up a good thing (The US Constitution).

Hopefully there will be a "smackdown" soon and we get some actual Americans into the executive branch.



posted on Sep, 5 2005 @ 12:59 AM
link   
I find it humorous that you ask a question and then answer it yourself.

Of course you are disturbed; we all should be, and if we aren't, WHY NOT?



posted on Sep, 5 2005 @ 01:16 AM
link   
while the "government" or "they" may limit our constitutional rights from time to time, it is possible for "them" to get away with it because people are uneducated. You could walk up to any sorry sap on the streets and ask him to name 2 ammendments to the constitution, and only 1 out of 15 could give you an answer. Most don't even know their own senators and congressmen, let-alone the issues they vote on and the matters they decide (outside of the large-scale public disputes seen on CNN ofcorse) Back on topic, while I support the ownership of guns and the 2nd amendment as a whole, seeing a lack of support for the limiting of fire arms on this forum, I feel the need to play Devil's Advocate for a second. Look at America today. Hell, look at the world. There are a lot of psychos out there... Take for example the North Hollywood Shoot Out, and the high profile american sniper shootings that took place several years ago. While these were horrible events, think of how many more, similar cases would arise if you could by an AK47 or PSG1 at your local gun store. The Colombine shooters where armed with 9mm pistols and sawn' off shotguns, and killed 14 people (not counting themselves). How many more lives would have been lost had they been using MP5s or M16s? While I think most of us here accept certian regulations (i.e. no firearms on airplanes, no guns in government buildings like schools or courts houses, background check and permit for all fire arm purchases, etc.) But I would have to say, despite my love for the 2nd amendment and being a firearm owner myself, I think that the government has limited our freedoms and in doing so has protected us (which I know I'm going to be crucified on this site for saying... ). While it may annoy some of us law abbiding gun owners like myself, everytime I feel a little pissed off about not being able to add an MP5 to my collection, I feel relieved that the last school shooter didn't have access to one either. However, I must agree that while this "limit" on our freedoms does protect some of us in some way, that was/ is not most politician's intentions. they mearly use "the numbers" to up their chances of re-election... which does make me mad. Because if 20 years from now, coc aine becomes widely popular amongst the middle class, I would like to think that there were some politicians out there who would stand up for what they believe is right, rather than crank the numbers to get re-elected by a bunch of stoned degenerates.

[edit on 5-9-2005 by kholdstare]

[edit on 5-9-2005 by kholdstare]



posted on Sep, 5 2005 @ 01:51 AM
link   
Very tedious post to read; why not try paragraphs? They make the read much easier as the eye can track the number of lines per and stay on track.

Your argument has nothing to do with the second amendment, but everything to do with societal decay. That has been brought about by the main proponents of the cause/action that has brought about the decay.

You realize that automatic weapons are not illegal now, and that at one time (Up to the mid 80's), you could purchase them at yor local gun shop - brand new! And, you realize that murders and robberies have not declined due to the removal of new machine gun sells? Do you know how many crimes were commited with legally-owned automatic weapons?

How many crimes have been commited with MAC-90's, AR-15's, and the other "assualt" rifles? You realize, of course, that the term "assault rifle" was coined to cause the average uneducated citizen to immediately harbor ill feelijngs toward those weapons, even though they have little to do with crime, right? Why would anyone want you to not have a weapon that would be of use if the reason for the second amendment dictated the need for one? It doesn't take a slide rule to figure that one out.

The weapons aren't the problem, is that the "well-regulated" (Able-bodied male population with proper training with their weapons) militia has been turned into self-centeed, undisciplined humans.

You are off target and need to zero your mental weapon.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join