- Joined
- May 1, 2013
- Messages
- 119,717
- Reaction score
- 75,684
- Location
- Outside Seattle
- Gender
- Female
- Political Leaning
- Independent
You have no right to a job. You don't have to work where a background check is required.
Never said any of that. What I said was that our society is divided into two camps of responsibility and that the right-wing camp is what will eventually cause the 2nd Amendment to be tampered with. I believe that very strongly. For instance, the right-wing is fixated on the notion that only a real American believes in no gun control. That's witch hunt mentality and the public at large has never done well with that.
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.
Yes, take out the underlined part, it will make it more clear.
I don't see how the underlined clause makes less clear the stated right, unless of course someone is intentionally trying to force an unreasonable meaning upon that clear statement. I would go as far as to say that the underlined clause clarifies the intent and strengthens the 2nd amendment's claim.
Not really. Because for one, we haven't the mandate in place of the underlined clause, and for two, it appears that the only right of citizens to have and bear arms is as militia members. If you removed that clause as Bigfoot suggests, then it would simply be a guarantee.
Not really. Because for one, we haven't the mandate in place of the underlined clause, and for two, it appears that the only right of citizens to have and bear arms is as militia members. If you removed that clause as Bigfoot suggests, then it would simply be a guarantee.
What part of the 10th Amendment do you not understand?
That's not how that should be....and is...interpreted. All citizens were supposed to be capable of being the militia...'irregulars.' The 'regulars' are the army, etc. And related to that, 'well-regulated' meant 'trained.' That was the language of the time. So all citizens have the right to own and have the opportunity to train with arms.
What part of states regulate guns within borders so this is a state issue do you not understand?
States have ultimate authority, if not theoretically, then literally.
Citizens of the state should vote on what gun laws they find appropriate for their state. Power to the people to determine what they believe is natural to them.
The Constitution disagrees with you, and you with it. Which is what I said in the first place. Geez Louise.
State issue, supreme court hasn't said anything at all for the past years.
Maybe the constitution doesn't disagree with me.
Hey look, be happy, the conservative states are looking out for you against the big bad wolf obama. However, in the process of looking out for you, they seem to be breaking something in the constitution that you hold dearly.
Wrong, all citizens are not supposed to be in the militia, only males of a certain age group.
Btw, I wasn't saying that that is a correct interpretation, or should be, but many argue it that way, so, with the clause edited as Bigfoot suggests, the individual mandate would be undeniable.
True, but our civil rights laws have changed that in practice.
But there is no such practice. The second amendment is as much a mandate to maintain a trained militia as it is a right for its members to bear arms without infringement.
Expanding this discussion beyond the 2nd amendment, we need to do more to protect all of our rights, not just the right to bear arms. Though, to answer the question, there is no amending needed of the second amendment.
It's not about 'maintaining,' it's about 'enabling,' meaning they have the right to do so. No one is forced to do so, nor was that the intent. But the need was recognized and addressed by creating the 2A. As with other rights, no one is forced to exercise them.
I'm happy to adopt a system more like the UK. Less guns means less gun deaths.
What a carefully worded piece of tripe. Fewer cars means fewer car deaths. Fewer swimming pools means fewer swimming pool deaths.
Tell me, why is dying by gun worse than dying by, say a hammer? Is there a super secret level of death that is reached only by gun violence?
Your avoiding two fundamental points that has our discussion failing. Based on the literal wording of the second amendment, there are folk that make a good argument that it applies to the male members of the militia, and secondly, that it's not my argument.
The second amendment is as much a mandate to maintain a trained militia as it is a right for its members to bear arms without infringement.
It's not about 'maintaining,' it's about 'enabling,' meaning they have the right to do so. No one is forced to do so, nor was that the intent. But the need was recognized and addressed by creating the 2A.
I think that it will be amended, in time. Maybe two generations from now. I think that it will be amended because the amount of and technology of modern arms has created a situation in the US wherein mass shootings are almost too easy to pull off. Moreover, the divide that now exists between the conservative 2nd Amendment political movement and most of the US who are for a safer and more secure society is being pushed to it's brink.
I don't have concerns about pistols and rifles, but as I said, it's the high capacity magazines and the devil-may-care attitude about their use in assault weapons that will eventually tip the balance. As I say, it's the political 2nd Amendment will eventually sacrifice the amendment itself.
There's fluctuation in both, but the statistics say I'm still more likely to survive in England than in America.
There is no "militia" aspect to the 2nd Amendment. It has never been inspected to inform or held to inform on anything to do with militia organization, training or control. Members of the organized militia are not exercising the right to arms; their being armed is entirely at the whim of Congress who also possesses plenary power to organize the militia and establish the training regimen to be implemented by the states.
There is no right to form or be a member of a militia, either a government formed one or private citizen initiated (see Presser v Illinois).
The power to organize the citizens, train them and deploy them as militia is a power that has been completely conferred to the federal government. There is no residual power for citizens (or, since 1903, the states) to exercise in this regard.
The 2nd Amendment doesn't "do" anything but redundantly forbid the federal government to exercise powers it was never granted.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?