Second Amendment

page: 1
1
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join

posted on May, 31 2013 @ 06:12 AM
link   
The second amendment give the "right to bear arms" to US citizens. It does not say anything about "guns". Spears are arms. Swords are arms. Clubs are arms. As long as citizens have the right to bear those items then they have the right to "bear arms", right? After all, the Amendment does NOT say that they can bear "any and all" arms. If that was the case, people would be allowed to carry flame throwers, RPGs and tactical nukes, right?

Sensible responses only please.




posted on May, 31 2013 @ 06:19 AM
link   
That is true.
Also, even if no weapons were allowed, you'd still bear your arms. So as long as your arms aren't chopped off, they stay true to what has been said.

However, you wrote "right to bear arms", and I'm thinking that the government should put more effort into chopping off arms of bears and handing them out the citizens, as you have indeed the right to bear arms.

Are there enough bears? Should bears be bred only for this purpose?



posted on May, 31 2013 @ 06:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by Nevertheless
That is true.
Also, even if no weapons were allowed, you'd still bear your arms. So as long as your arms aren't chopped off, they stay true to what has been said.

However, you wrote "right to bear arms", and I'm thinking that the government should put more effort into chopping off arms of bears and handing them out the citizens, as you have indeed the right to bear arms.

Are there enough bears? Should bears be bred only for this purpose?


I really don't think that any court would agree with you on that one and interpret that amendment in that way.



posted on May, 31 2013 @ 06:31 AM
link   
reply to post by TheFlash
 


Ummm.. Yeah... If we are going to read the Constitution with all the consideration of a Dick & Jane book in grade school, perhaps. It's exceptionally clear what it's talking about because the Constitution is not a document to be taken in isolation. It was never meant to be and it has never been, historically. Not only is it merely a starting point to the interpretation of the Supreme Court in the decades since (where Firearms as the topic have been covered...ad naseum) but a wealth of papers and documents that accompany the Constitution for context from the Founders themselves and what lead to the creation of the document also need considered.

For all those still confused on the topic. DC Vs. Heller (2009) settled the 2nd Amendment matter perm. as an individual right to own a firearm, unconnected to any membership or place within a formal militia.

I'm baffled at how the issue of it primarily refering to firearms could be missed....but then, again, if someone is taking an Internet summary of the 10 Amendments and not reading a page past that? I guess that would cover it.



posted on May, 31 2013 @ 06:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by Wrabbit2000
reply to post by TheFlash
 


Ummm.. Yeah... If we are going to read the Constitution with all the consideration of a Dick & Jane book in grade school, perhaps. It's exceptionally clear what it's talking about because the Constitution is not a document to be taken in isolation. It was never meant to be and it has never been, historically. Not only is it merely a starting point to the interpretation of the Supreme Court in the decades since (where Firearms as the topic have been covered...ad naseum) but a wealth of papers and documents that accompany the Constitution for context from the Founders themselves and what lead to the creation of the document also need considered.

For all those still confused on the topic. DC Vs. Heller (2009) settled the 2nd Amendment matter perm. as an individual right to own a firearm, unconnected to any membership or place within a formal militia.

I'm baffled at how the issue of it primarily refering to firearms could be missed....but then, again, if someone is taking an Internet summary of the 10 Amendments and not reading a page past that? I guess that would cover it.


The case you cite address [DC Vs. Heller (2009)] only federal enclaves and does not extend to US states.



posted on May, 31 2013 @ 06:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by Nevertheless
That is true.
Also, even if no weapons were allowed, you'd still bear your arms. So as long as your arms aren't chopped off, they stay true to what has been said.

However, you wrote "right to bear arms", and I'm thinking that the government should put more effort into chopping off arms of bears and handing them out the citizens, as you have indeed the right to bear arms.

Are there enough bears? Should bears be bred only for this purpose?





Sorry.... I just had to do it!



posted on May, 31 2013 @ 06:58 AM
link   
reply to post by TheFlash
 


Yeah...Okay... did you start the thread just to pick a debate on 2nd amendment supporters or...? I'm entirely lost here. You're basically reading the very technical language of the amendment, to the letter of the amendment, then applying your own interpretation to what you figure that means. I'm pointing out...over 200 years of legal precedent have, beyond all possible question, clarified what that means. Things like the Federalist Papers also MUST be considered...or the whole Constitution is a document without context or applied meaning.

DC. Vs. Heller was a landmark case over firearms, 100% to do with firearms and established the second amendment as an incorporated right to own and bear firearms. It wasn't about Katana blades or throwing stars. It was about a man's right to have his handgun in his private D.C. Residence. That set the tone, topic and context of the case....as well as the ruling it produced.

DC Vs. Heller

I have a dozen or so more case citations and case law examples I can go over...but that ought to settle it pretty nicely as the latest one to tie the 2nd to real world meaning and context in terms of law and it's scope of coverage.



posted on May, 31 2013 @ 07:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by Wrabbit2000
reply to post by TheFlash
 


Yeah...Okay... did you start the thread just to pick a debate on 2nd amendment supporters or...? I'm entirely lost here. You're basically reading the very technical language of the amendment, to the letter of the amendment, then applying your own interpretation to what you figure that means. I'm pointing out...over 200 years of legal precedent have, beyond all possible question, clarified what that means. Things like the Federalist Papers also MUST be considered...or the whole Constitution is a document without context or applied meaning.

DC. Vs. Heller was a landmark case over firearms, 100% to do with firearms and established the second amendment as an incorporated right to own and bear firearms. It wasn't about Katana blades or throwing stars. It was about a man's right to have his handgun in his private D.C. Residence. That set the tone, topic and context of the case....as well as the ruling it produced.

DC Vs. Heller

I have a dozen or so more case citations and case law examples I can go over...but that ought to settle it pretty nicely as the latest one to tie the 2nd to real world meaning and context in terms of law and it's scope of coverage.


It appears as though you did not read what I said. That case applied only to federal enclaves and did not address the question of whether the Second Amendment extends beyond federal enclaves to the states. [Reference] If you have other references which actually apply to states then please share them.
edit on 31-5-2013 by TheFlash because: Add reference



posted on May, 31 2013 @ 07:14 AM
link   
Actually the Right to Bare Arms in the fullest meaning is that the people are to have the freedom to possess the armaments and materials necessary for a foot soldier in order to repel an invading force or insurrection. The ability to combat all enemies foreign or domestic that wish to take over is the idea here. The amendment has nothing to do with hunting, collecting, repairing or even manufacturing firearms.

Ideally, the American people would own military grade weapons akin to how the Swiss possess them today. The exception being that in America it would be optional as opposed to mandated like some older English laws in which everyone was to own and be proficient with a longbow or sword.

The purpose of a local militia was to be the standing army to secure freedom for the people and not fall under the command and orders of the Federal government, unless appropriated. In reading the main body of the Constitution, you will notice that we were never supposed to keep a US Army in times of peace.



posted on May, 31 2013 @ 07:14 AM
link   
reply to post by TheFlash
 


Excuse my noting this...but Incorporation of the 2nd Amendment was a key part of the DC. Vs Heller Case. Incorporation means it now DOES apply to the state and local level. It was what made DC. Vs. Heller a landmark case, atop it's obvious clarification of the individual right. It DID apply, nationally and at both Federal and local levels. Hence.....again....the term incorporation.

So I'm missing your point here again? I take it you hadn't read the Heller decision to see that incorporation aspect having been key and core to the case ruling?

* The 14th Amendment is debated as being all that was required to bring incorporation of the above numbered amendments..but court action since has held that the rights incorporate on a 1 by 1 basis...meaning the 2nd wasn't, prior to Heller, an incorporated right. It was in fact, subject to change and interpretation at the state and local levels. That is no longer the case.



posted on May, 31 2013 @ 07:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by Wrabbit2000
reply to post by TheFlash
 


Excuse my noting this...but Incorporation of the 2nd Amendment was a key part of the DC. Vs Heller Case. Incorporation means it now DOES apply to the state and local level. It was what made DC. Vs. Heller a landmark case, atop it's obvious clarification of the individual right. It DID apply, nationally and at both Federal and local levels. Hence.....again....the term incorporation.

So I'm missing your point here again? I take it you hadn't read the Heller decision to see that incorporation aspect having been key and core to the case ruling?

* The 14th Amendment is debated as being all that was required to bring incorporation of the above numbered amendments..but court action since has held that the rights incorporate on a 1 by 1 basis...meaning the 2nd wasn't, prior to Heller, an incorporated right. It was in fact, subject to change and interpretation at the state and local levels. That is no longer the case.


In the syllabus of the Supreme Court findings it also states "Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whateverpurpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to castdoubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or lawsforbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive placessuch as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. Pp. 54–56."

Unless I am mistaken, assault-type, semi-automatic weapons were 'not in common use at the time' that the Amendment was written.

Please cite the specific text in the court's findings where "it now DOES apply to the state and local level".
edit on 31-5-2013 by TheFlash because: Add reference



posted on May, 31 2013 @ 07:37 AM
link   
reply to post by TheFlash
 


I would have thought it obvious, the constitution is the supreme law of the land in all federal state and local laws, the ruling was only a clarification of the intent and meaning of the 2nd, hence showing that the meaning was :"arms" or guns in the common tongue, there was never a question about its being applicable in state or local jurisdictions, it was a debate about the intent of the 2nd.

Your trying to grasp at straws, about nothing.

There is no doubt anywhere, about the constitution applying to states and or local levels except in your mind.



posted on May, 31 2013 @ 07:40 AM
link   
reply to post by TheFlash
 


I have two arms. If I want to wear a short sleeve shirt I can.

That is about the mentality that the government wants us to have about the subject.



posted on May, 31 2013 @ 07:41 AM
link   
reply to post by TheFlash
 


I'm not sure what your quote there has to do with the principle of incorporation for the 2nd applying to state and local levels, following the Heller decision. I never argued the fact that the decision left open 'fair regulation' which created as many new legal problems as it solved for old ones. The decision does apply downward to the state and into local level though.

I think a far more informative and interesting way of presenting this (As opposed to dry legalese quoting) would be a video. This is a Professor from the University of Oklahoma, specifically explaining how the McDonald case brought home the incorporation concept to a local city level, following the '09 Heller decision. This really was groundbreaking stuff and I can't help but think the most important aspects of the court cases here were the least reported or talked about.



If you don't care to listen to it all (it's worth the time, IMO..) then the key points for this debate are pretty well covered in the first 1:30 of the video....

*I'd also note your document cited ....was written 2 years prior to the Heller decision and things changing in this specific area, for what that matters.



posted on May, 31 2013 @ 07:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by inverslyproportional
reply to post by TheFlash
 


I would have thought it obvious, the constitution is the supreme law of the land in all federal state and local laws, the ruling was only a clarification of the intent and meaning of the 2nd, hence showing that the meaning was :"arms" or guns in the common tongue, there was never a question about its being applicable in state or local jurisdictions, it was a debate about the intent of the 2nd.

Your trying to grasp at straws, about nothing.

There is no doubt anywhere, about the constitution applying to states and or local levels except in your mind.


No - the error is in your mind my friend. Here is my proof in black and white: "[the Supreme Court finding] leaves unresolved the incorporation issue-whether the Second Amendment applies to the states or only to the federal government. That basic question was not presented or resolved in Heller because at issue in Heller was a D.C. law, and the District of Columbia is a federal enclave." [Reference]



posted on May, 31 2013 @ 08:34 AM
link   
The term arms is considered to be directly related to firearms by the Supreme Court based on many of the writings from the people that put the second amendment together as well as the language of the time. As you stated however, it is not an unlimited right and can be regulated by Congress.

The Heller case did apply to States because it overturned the long standing ban on handguns in the District of Columbia and even though its a federal enclave the precedent applies to all States. This is why no state will try to outright ban guns again because they know the first court it goes to will strike it down based on the Heller case.

Prior to the Heller case it was assumed, and rightly so, that the second only applied to the federal government but the Courts decision expanded the right to states no matter how you decide to interpret it.



posted on May, 31 2013 @ 01:19 PM
link   
reply to post by TheFlash
 


Actually...the entire nation is under federal laws correct? So technically the entire nation is a federal enclave. It could be construed to cover the whole country if need be i think.



posted on May, 31 2013 @ 02:33 PM
link   
reply to post by TheFlash
 


Technically, I suppose one could take that interpretation, but in reality, the 2nd Amendment makes no direct reference to the type of weapon allowed. One could just as easily argue that all weapons should be allowed.

That said, I think this is where the 'militia' clause does have some relevance. If the militia (and by militia, I mean the portion of the citizenry physically capable of acting in defense of the country) is indeed necessary to the security of a free state as the amendment states, then that militia also needs to have some form of access to weaponry contemporary with the modern period. The founders, having just fought a war for independence, certainly understood this to be true. If you limit the militia to obsolete weapons, you defeat the entire purpose of the 2nd amendment.

So basically, my belief is that the founders intended to allow the citizens access and ownership of all weapon classes available to the public in 1776, plus any technological improvements to those classes of weapons over time, and that one man can reasonably 'bear' or carry and still be expected to use for its intended purpose. So basically, I think the founders would have intended for us to have the right to own rifles, handguns and shotguns, along with all available technological improvements to those classes that you might see on a modern military grade firearm that would be used to protect the security of the free state. That basic principle, as applied to those classes of weapons (rifles, handguns, shotguns) will be just as valid 100 years from now as well. If they're using phased plasma rifles in the 40 watt range, then the public should have access as well.

To make a long story short, the current federal law, at least in terms of what the public has access to, is just about right as it is. One could argue that fully automatic weapons should probably also be available without license, but as long as the license is on a 'shall issue' basis rather than a 'may issue' basis with respect to a reasonable background check that a typical law abiding citizen could easily pass, its something I could theoretically live with, as, IMO, it doesn't necessarily violate the founders intent. Practical reality and modern politics are another matter, though, and I think there are plenty of politicians that would (ab)use licensing as a defacto ban if they had the chance.
edit on 31-5-2013 by vor78 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 31 2013 @ 02:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by yuppa
reply to post by TheFlash
 


Actually...the entire nation is under federal laws correct? So technically the entire nation is a federal enclave. It could be construed to cover the whole country if need be i think.


DC vs Heller didn't address that issue, but I think its a fairly safe assumption that yes, the courts would find that the state and municipal governments are also bound by the federal Constitution and its amendments. Otherwise, people need to remember that its not just the 2nd Amendment that could potentially be nullified by state/local law, but all of the rest of your Constitutional rights as well.



posted on May, 31 2013 @ 02:56 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 





top topics
 
1
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join


Haters, Bigots, Partisan Trolls, Propaganda Hacks, Racists, and LOL-tards: Time To Move On.
read more: Community Announcement re: Decorum