Comprehending the 2nd Amendment

a reply to: AMPTAH

With each Right is a responsibility to exercise said right without encroaching upon other's equal rights.

I.E. I can keep and bear arms as I see fit, so long as I don't infringe upon your rights to life, liberty, or the pursuit of happiness/property.

Felons and the mentally illl lack the responsibility to exercise their right to bear arms on the basis that they either disregard or can't comprehend the consequences of their actions with a firearm.

In a perfect world, a judge would adjudicate their inability to be responsible prior to any action which resulted in injury or death, but this world is imperfect.

originally posted by: AMPTAH

originally posted by: Gothmog

Meaning any US citizen in the US and this can't be taken away
NO EXCEPTIONS
Seems as if instead of a fantasy filled daydream , you needed a literal translation

What do you mean NO EXCEPTIONS.

We do have exceptions. Like I said, felons and mentally ill people are two examples of exceptions.

So, either the government is "ILLEGALLY" denying felons the right to keep and bear arms,

"or"

the government is "LEGALLY" denying the felons the right to keep and bear arms, because the constitution does not give everyone the right to bear arms.

See?

How hard is that to understand?

Anyone that is convicted of a felony does not have rights. Although , I have heard that some states allow a felon to vote or run for office.

originally posted by: AMPTAH

originally posted by: cynicalheathen
a reply to: AMPTAH

Well then, *poof* I decide you no longer have any rights.

No more posting on ATS, privacy, we can punish you as cruellly and unusually as we like, and you now are going to be compelled to testify against yourself.

Sucks...moderators do that here all the time. Ever seen one of your posts go "poof" and wondered what it was that you said, that offended the sensitivities of the mods?

ATS is a privately owned website, and as far as I know, they are not agents of the U.S. Government. Therefore they are not bound by the United States Constitution, and as such, you have no Freedom of Speech.

AboveTopSecret.com is well within their rights to censor your speech as they see fit, per whatever reasons they choose to include in their user agreement.

Don't like it? Pay for hosting your own website.

originally posted by: cynicalheathen

ATS is a privately owned website, and as far as I know, they are not agents of the U.S. Government. Therefore they are not bound by the United States Constitution, and as such, you have no Freedom of Speech.
.

Really? I thought this whole above-top-secret site was run by the NSA.



Who knew they were just a private co.?

Well, it did identify one thing that exists. The "well regulated" part is up for conjecture.

a reply to: charlyv

No silly, that's why you're supposed to buy ammo and practice.

Didn't you get the memo?

originally posted by: charlyv
Well, it did identify one thing that exists. The "well regulated" part is up for conjecture.

No it isn't. Don't give an inch. Well regulated only means,

verb (used with object), regulated, regulating.
1.
to control or direct by a rule, principle, method, etc.:
to regulate household expenses.
2.
to adjust to some standard or requirement, as amount, degree, etc.:
to regulate the temperature.
3.
to adjust so as to ensure accuracy of operation:
to regulate a watch.
4.
to put in good order:
to regulate the digestion.

Well regulated only means well disciplined.

originally posted by: cynicalheathen
a reply to: AMPTAH

With each Right is a responsibility to exercise said right without encroaching upon other's equal rights.

I.E. I can keep and bear arms as I see fit, so long as I don't infringe upon your rights to life, liberty, or the pursuit of happiness/property.

But, I'm a Physicist. I know how to build a Nuclear Bomb. I can use your argument to justify my right to bear this armament as I see fit. Why not? It doesn't infringe on your rights to life, liberty, or pursuit of happiness. Except, you might be a bit nervous being my neighbor, if you knew what armaments I have in my basement here.



See...armaments have only one purpose, to deny others the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

It's not like buying a "stake knife", which you'd normally use to cut stake, but with which you could also use to stab a person to death. There's really no "dual use" of arms. It's made and designed for killing. That's it.

So, if we equip every one with killing tools. And we have 300 million citizens with such rights. Statistically, we're going to have lots of "deaths", as one by one these citizens find it necessary to take other's rights of life, liberty, or pursuit of happiness, for all sorts of various "reasons" that pop up in their "imaginations". And after the fact, there's no remedy by calling them "mentally ill", because by then the deed is done, and the victims are dead.

As I,m not to say anything about the laws in the US that has been applied since the united states were formed, or later that I don't particularly know. I was raised in a country without gun laws but I would also protest against an abrupt ending to bear arms if it was suddenly applied after all the things that are happening right now.

We here only can have guns on a shooting range with a permit to have one. As when we transport our guns it's in a closed casing and the keys are at home and at the shooting range.

Not that you can't obtain a gun or rifle if one needs too, but we simply are not used to carrying guns with us but that's because it has been for as long as I live so we don't know better.

But I think that if I notice that our community isn't saving any more than I would consider buying one to protect the ones who were dear to me.

So actually it's more like for people who do not understand the rules applied in other countries if you weren't born in it.
It's a difficult situation for the US have to coop with I think.

a reply to: EternalSolace
And it's not well disciplined either. The point was the gun part we have (OPs 2nd ammendment quote), but the well regulated we have yet to achieve.

originally posted by: AMPTAH

originally posted by: Wardaddy454

That's not an argument.

We have a document laying it out as a right for ourselves.

Sure. What we're debating here is the "interpretation" of that document.

There isn't much to debate.

Citizen militias are granted rights by the 2nd. What is a citizen militia comprised of? Citizens. And how does this militia have weapons? Citizens.

originally posted by: charlyv
a reply to: EternalSolace
And it's not well disciplined either. The point was the gun part we have (OPs 2nd ammendment quote), but the well regulated we have yet to achieve.

Well regulated in this sense also means equipment that is similar to standard-issue in law enforcement or military.

Some very interesting comments appearing, much of them misrepresentations, and also much misunderstandings. It is important to realise that the following statement...

”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.”

...can be amended at any time, because it itself is an amendment.

The bit about '...shall not be infringed.' can most certainly be changed if society deems it necessary for its stability. All it will take is for clever scholars to be instructed to re-word it to take into account modern life and society, and they can come up with whatever clause they believe fits the mandate they have to follow, then they present it for discussion to the justice and law makers, and voila! amendment amended. Anything given as a 'right' can be taken away for agreed-upon reasons.

There really isn't anything in the statement that discusses or pertains explicitly to the individual. It is a statement of plurality, its context is not singular.

a reply to: kurthall

Times have changed.

but of course only the evil 2nd amendment is the one that needs changin' ...how convenient.

a reply to: elysiumfire

As soon as you mentioned police being created to defend the people, you lost pretty much all credibility in your statement(s)

originally posted by: smurfy

originally posted by: cynicalheathen
a reply to: elysiumfire

”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.”

Right there, bolded. The right of the people, not the right of the militia.

The unorganized militia is made up of every able-bodied male. Nowadays we'd also include females.

It actually say a 'well regulated militia' and the militia of the day did get the best of arms. The Supreme court before 2008 had decided that it should only be the 'militia' and not the individual that should keep the arms.

The NRA fought a political fight in the courts for people to keep arms, and Scalia agreed, but he couldn't turn round and say that they should have all the military might of the 20th century used by a regular army so he said;
“handguns are the most popular weapon chosen by Americans for self-defense in the home, and a complete prohibition of their use is invalid.”
So at the very least, it is more than arguable people could keep handguns, but not all the other stuff..which to most people is sane and sensible.
However, in effect, the 2nd amendment has changed, whichever way you cut it, it's no longer the constitution as it once was...and so ends it's dogma.

In many states handgun are commonly used for self defense. but in other states rifles are the main self defence weapon.
self defense does not only apply to shooting people

For that you need to speak to people from states with large bear problems like Alaska. in many parts of Alaska its advised to carry a rifle with at least a 8 round mag.
www.chuckhawks.com...

Note the comma. Two separate and distinct concepts in that critical sentence. One concept a well-regulated militia, the other the right of every citizen to keep and bear arms.

It’s right there in black and white for those not too blind to see.

I always hear the liberal snowflakes saying, "The founders never envisioned a rifle/musket that could fire more than three rounds a minute". Which is a ludicrous comment/statement. Of course they did! People were designing weapons with more than one barrel to overcome the "one shot" limitations of the time, back then. They factored in the limited "fire power" on the battlefield. The whole reason wars were fought in formation were to make the best use of the limited fire power. One shot bad, twenty shots at once good! Theres a reason why the modern Private Soldier has a little more personal battle space than his historical counterpart. Back to the point. The founders would have loved a lever action, let alone an ar.
And they would not have feard their people owning them. They weren't cowards living in fear, like we have today. They bit back at evil not run/ran from it.
No matter how you want to slice the 2nd. It was merely puting in stone "law" that it "shall not be infringed".
Doesn't matter what you "think" about it. It's the "law". It's been nibbled at enough already. Even if it was "repealed", that would be an "infringement". And no American would be obliged to obey it. And the politicians would be in violation of their oath to defend it. That's why it was written that way. By the way, We're a Republic, not a Democracy. So the majority "voting" another citizens birthright away doesn't fly either.

Not just that. But the "founders" aren't just those that signed the DOI or The COTUS. They are also the men and women who fought, bled, and died for our country. The "founders" would've been hung by a rope if not for their fellow Americans agreeing to the cause.

Lab4Us:

Note the comma. Two separate and distinct concepts in that critical sentence. One concept a well-regulated militia, the other the right of every citizen to keep and bear arms.

The comma simply allows for qualification of the first clause by the second clause. The statement is purely all about the security of the state, defended by the people of the state as a 'well-regulated' militia. The 'well-regulated' part does not simply mean maintenance of the militia, but also a militia regulated by rule and law of the state. The statement sets out boundaries of the right to 'keep and bear arms' only as a 'well-regulated militia'. It says nothing about personal defence. It is a statement of plurality, not individuality.

dothedew:

As soon as you mentioned police being created to defend the people, you lost pretty much all credibility in your statement(s)

So, in your mind the police don't defend people? Even though (for instance), the LAPD's motto is 'To Protect and Serve'. Obviously, your bias is showing. It is my credibility that remains intact, your's however, is in tatters.