Abridge 1st Amendment and infringe, 2nd Amendment, what does it mean?

[OscarLevant]

An atomic weapon could never be construed to be a "militia weapon." Do you know how to "fire" one? I'm pretty sure I don't, and I'm schooled in Physics.

I was exaggerating, tone it down to say, 50 caliber machine gun, something a civilian can shoot. that better?

An AR-15 on the other hand, is today's "militia musket." Totally protected by the 2nd Amendment. If you pass a law preventing me from owning one, then I'm pretty sure you just "infringed my right."

No. 2a only says the right itself, shall not be infringed. It doesn't say your right to shoot any gun of your choosing and in any quantity, that's a right 2A doesn't impart. That's what it says, read it. Diagram the sentence ( you'll have to bone up on your 5th grade English learning if you don't remember how to diagram a sentence ). This is precisely why Scotus ruled that the "right" is not absolute.

Obviously we disagree, but you are in good company--the Supreme Court also has infringed the right in past decisions. I don't agree with them either.

The Second Amendment is the rock that the NRA stands upon. It needs to be yanked out from under them. Repeal the 2nd, or arm to the teeth. Those are the two choices.

No, your choices a limited by regulations, whatever they may be, with more dems coming down the pike, it just might happen.

I'm for repealing 2A, and letting states regulate guns as they see fit. Not possible today, maybe by the time I die it might, or my next life ( I believe in reincarnation : ) )


Times change, conditions change, no rule created 200 years ago need be inflexible. This is why we have a supreme court.

 

[OscarLevant]

No, it doesn't. It proclaims what is Necessary to the security of a free State, not natural rights.

Originally, but SCOTUS has updated 2A, and besides,

That's the reason for 2A, a point which doesn't negate the point I made that 2a guarantees only the right, nothing more.

 

[SirGareth]

The 1st Amendment says that free speech shall not be abridged and yet the SCOTUS says that there are certain things you can not say, like yelling fire in a crowded theater due to a safety issue. The 2nd Amendment as now interpreted by SCOTUS says that owning arms is an individual right and it shall not be infringed. Yet, even Scalia said that reasonable guns laws would pass constitutional muster. The law outlawing automatic weapons seems to be one of those lwas that have passed. So what does abridged and infringed actually mean in these two amendments to the constitution? Does the public safety override the words abridged and infringed?

Yes I agree that shooting guns in crowded theaters should be unlawful.

On the other hand we don't require that people wear these as a condition of entering a theater....



....so just maybe your analogy is hopelessly inept at best

 

[danielpalos]

Originally, but SCOTUS has updated 2A, and besides,

That's the reason for 2A, a point which doesn't negate the point I made that 2a guarantees only the right, nothing more.

ok. Well regulated militia are necessary to the security of a free State, to secure this States' sovereign right:

The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia.