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.
TextThe Second Amendment (Amendment II) to the United States Constitution is the part of the United States Bill of Rights that protects the right of the people to keep and bear arms. It was adopted on December 15, 1791, along with the rest of the Bill of Rights. The Supreme Court of the United States first ruled in 2008 that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess and carry firearms.[1] In 2008 and 2010, the Supreme Court issued two landmark decisions officially establishing this interpretation. In District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), the Court ruled that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to possess a firearm, unconnected to service in a militia[1][2] and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home within many longstanding prohibitions and restrictions on firearms possession listed by the Court as being consistent with the Second Amendment.[3] In McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U.S. 3025 (2010), the Court ruled that the Second Amendment limits state and local governments to the same extent that it limits the federal government.[4]
Originally posted by ownbestenemy
Originally posted by Mythfury
Aha! My logic is stated right there. They are limiting our guns, not taking away our right to bear arms...
We should clarify here. The Second Amendment explicitly states that the "right... to keep and bear arms...shall not be infringed". This means, in the strictest sense, any laws or regulations made by the Federal Government pertaining to the limitation of the arms (read: guns) is in direct violation of the Second Amendment.
The heller amendment makes militia outdated.
What amendment would that be?! Heller was an opinion; not an amendment.
Leave america. Which is pretty much impossible. xD
Are you drunk? Because this sounds like my Friday night banter here on ATS that I am prone to do.
ETA-- refers to the mention it is impossible to leave: You can leave. Go. No one is going to stop you unless you owe some massive child support. I have never had a problem obtaining a passport nor a visa. So.....it isn't impossible.
ETA == To continue your recent reply:
And how the 2nd amendment has been amended, and how gun control isnt unconstitutional if they are regulating the guns of an ever ready to fight society.
I wasn't aware that the Second Amendment was amended. Care to point to the Amendment that amends it?! Seriously...is this how other posters see me when I am on a binge? Obtuse?edit on 27-1-2013 by ownbestenemy because: (no reason given)edit on 27-1-2013 by ownbestenemy because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by Mythfury
Thus the Heller case Amendment to constitution, says that we are no longer using militia. I mean, for real. Do i need to wipe your nose too? Lawl. Thirdly, learn your stuff. Its not uncostitutional. Maybe 200 years ago, but not today.
Originally posted by Mythfury
Okay, an amendment has to go through the supreme court. I.e. a case. The Supreme court case of DOC vs Heller. Thus, the heller amendment. For the constitution to be amended, it has to be a viable case.
My own opinion has always been in favor of a bill of rights; provided that it be so framed as not to imply powers not meant to be included in the enumeration.
... if submitted to public definition would be narrowed much more than they are ever likely to be by an assumed power. ...
In our Governments the real power lies in the majority of the Community, and the invasion of private rights is chiefly to be apprehended, not from acts of Government contrary to the sense of its constituents, but from acts in which the Government is the mere instrument of the major number of the Constituents.
Originally posted by Mythfury
reply to post by TurtleSmacker
Now that, yes. State should override federal. Never said they were right to do what they are doing. Just by definitions of their country, its not unconstitutional. So people should really stop their rantings about unconstitutionality when its perfectly legal. Just restricting to our freedoms.edit on 27-1-2013 by Mythfury because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by Mythfury
1. They changed militia to people and officially revised the amendment to say that they can limit our guns with the Second AMENDING case. Are you reading this thread?
2. They arent taking our guns away. And righht to bear arms isnt limited to guns.
3. Thirdly, learn your stuff.
I mean, by calling me a whelp, i can see you have no idea whatsoever of perception, and you made me perceive that youre ignorant. I am now denying you. Dont get mad when i dont reply TO YOU again. Not my fault english baffles you.
Originally posted by Mythfury
reply to post by ownbestenemy
Other amendments have been amended too. Are you reading the current version of those? or going back 200 years to letters of our forefathers. Heres a reality check, man. Its not their country, anymore. In fact, its the peoples country now. So do what you gotta to fight back with letters of our forefathers. But in reality, you have the country you want, your just letting other people have their way with it.
Originally posted by Mythfury
reply to post by LetsGoViking
A well regulated militia. You think people having whatever gun suits them is well regulated? I'm sorry, but i disagree. We have three main military branches, with national guard and the reserves not included. Want a big gun, run with the big boys. Its not being infringed, but its being regulated due to technological and societal advances.