How Do YOU Interpret The 2nd Amendment? [W:199:2834]

[rocket88]

Re: How Do YOU Interpret The 2nd Amendment? [W:199]

gun haters who masquerade as amateur constitutional authorities often forget things like the tenth amendment

Armchair libertarians often inflate the Tenth to too large of a stature.

I had to explain to one in another thread that the Tenth did not render the Thirteenth unconstitutional.

 

[TurtleDude]

Re: How Do YOU Interpret The 2nd Amendment? [W:199]

No, but my understanding of the English language tells me that "well regulated" doesn't mean the same as "unregulated," and that "regulated" doesn't mean the same as "infringed."

and even a kid knows that well regulated is applied to the militia-not the people

your attempt would only have merit if it said "THE RIGHT OF THE WELL REGULATED MILITIA

 

[TurtleDude]

Re: How Do YOU Interpret The 2nd Amendment? [W:199]

Armchair libertarians often inflate the Tenth to too large of a stature.

I had to explain to one in another thread that the Tenth did not render the Thirteenth unconstitutional.

People who have law degrees and have given lectures in ABA accredited lawschools in front of law professors, lawyers and law students are a bit different than what you seem to think I am

 

[rocket88]

Re: How Do YOU Interpret The 2nd Amendment? [W:199]

where did it say that?

United States Statutes at Large/Volume 1/2nd Congress/1st Session/Chapter 33 - Wikisource, the free online library

each and every free able-bodied white male citizen of the respective states, resident therein, who is or shall be of the age of eighteen years, and under the age of forty-five years (except as is herein after excepted) shall severally and respectively be enrolled in the militia by the captain or commanding officer of the company, within whose bounds such citizen shall reside,

That every citizen so enrolled and notified, shall, within six months thereafter, provide himself with a good musket or firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints, and a knapsack, a pouch with a box therein to contain not less than twenty-four cartridges, suited to the bore of his musket or firelock, each cartridge to contain a proper quantity of powder and ball: or with a good rifle, knapsack, shot-pouch and powder-horn, twenty balls suited to the bore of his rifle, and a quarter of a pound of powder;

 

[rocket88]

Re: How Do YOU Interpret The 2nd Amendment? [W:199]

and even a kid knows that well regulated is applied to the militia-not the people

your attempt would only have merit if it said "THE RIGHT OF THE WELL REGULATED MILITIA

Pure and simple, the Second Amendment doesn't say "unregulated." Therefore all gun control is not a violation of it. Certain regulations may be, but not all of it.

 

[rocket88]

Re: How Do YOU Interpret The 2nd Amendment? [W:199]

People who have law degrees and have given lectures in ABA accredited lawschools in front of law professors, lawyers and law students are a bit different than what you seem to think I am

I didn't say you. For a lawyer, your reading comprehension has some room for improvement.

 

[GlenS]

Re: How Do YOU Interpret The 2nd Amendment? [W:199]

Actually, there's a fourth: "arms". According to the dead president channelers (originalists), we have to use terms as the founders understood them. Which means "arms" don't include revolvers or semi-automatics, which hadn't been invented them.

The argument is stupid, of course, but it's theirs and they need their noses rubbed in its implication. The 2nd Amendment doesn't protect any modern firearms. It protects only muskets and some primitive breech loading pistols.

Using that way of thinking the first amendment would not pertain to computers, internet, phones, call phones, microphones, magazines, and etc.

 

[TurtleDude]

Re: How Do YOU Interpret The 2nd Amendment? [W:199]

I didn't say you. For a lawyer, your reading comprehension has some room for improvement.

LOL, that is a lame response.

 

[TurtleDude]

Re: How Do YOU Interpret The 2nd Amendment? [W:199]

Using that way of thinking the first amendment would not pertain to computers, internet, phones, call phones, microphones, magazines, and etc.

anyone who HONESTLY understands the second amendment notes that the state of the art is not relevant. What is relevant is that the CITIZENS have access to whatever the MILITIA has available at the time

 

[rocket88]

Re: How Do YOU Interpret The 2nd Amendment? [W:199]

LOL, that is a lame response.

Can't debate on merits, so we're going to turn into a thread about me? Do you agree with this post or not:

No, everything after the Tenth Amendment violates the Bill of Rights... None of it is legal.

 

[TurtleDude]

Re: How Do YOU Interpret The 2nd Amendment? [W:199]

Can't debate on merits, so we're going to turn into a thread about me? Do you agree with this post or not:

what merits

you spew silly nonsense claiming that the well regulated term means that the government can regulate small arms which of course fails on several levels

 

[wolfman24]

Re: How Do YOU Interpret The 2nd Amendment? [W:199]

*admin if this belongs in guns sorry, feel free to move it*

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.

I'm blown away by how many different interpretations I've heard of the 2nd Amendment. There are 3 words that have multiple definitions which make it more complicated than what it seems. Regulated, Militia and State. I've also heard people debate the term Arms.

The kicker is that everyone I talk to is absolutely certain their definition is the correct one and has a very long drawn out story of why. eace

The "interpretation of the 2nd" is a funny why to say it. The 2nd is an AMENDMENT and therefore AMENDS, MODIFIES OR CLARIFIES something in COTUS. That would be Article 2, Section 8 clause 16 end of story.

 

[Kal'Stang]

Re: How Do YOU Interpret The 2nd Amendment? [W:199]

The Militia act called them into service, and then told them what kind of gun they must have.

Actually this is incorrect. During the civil war it was not uncommon for soldiers to buy guns with their own funds and use them, including officers.

 

[Kal'Stang]

Re: How Do YOU Interpret The 2nd Amendment? [W:199]

The "interpretation of the 2nd" is a funny why to say it. The 2nd is an AMENDMENT and therefore AMENDS, MODIFIES OR CLARIFIES something in COTUS. That would be Article 2, Section 8 clause 16 end of story.

Incorrect. Just because it may be called an amendment does not mean that it amends, clairfies, or modifies anything currently in the Constitution. It could simply be an addition to the Constitution. For instance the 1st Amendment, there is nothing in the rest of the Constitution which meantions anything about what is in the 1st or even slightly refers to it.

 

[TurtleDude]

Re: How Do YOU Interpret The 2nd Amendment? [W:199]

The "interpretation of the 2nd" is a funny why to say it. The 2nd is an AMENDMENT and therefore AMENDS, MODIFIES OR CLARIFIES something in COTUS. That would be Article 2, Section 8 clause 16 end of story.

that is moronic

 

[rocket88]

Re: How Do YOU Interpret The 2nd Amendment? [W:199]

Actually this is incorrect. During the civil war it was not uncommon for soldiers to buy guns with their own funds and use them, including officers.

Which actually doesn't go against anything I said. In fact, since the Militia Act which required them to buy guns was still in effect until 1862, after the Civil War started, that's not a surprise at all.

 

[AllanHampton]

Re: How Do YOU Interpret The 2nd Amendment? [W:199]

*admin if this belongs in guns sorry, feel free to move it*

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.

I'm blown away by how many different interpretations I've heard of the 2nd Amendment. There are 3 words that have multiple definitions which make it more complicated than what it seems. Regulated, Militia and State. I've also heard people debate the term Arms.

The kicker is that everyone I talk to is absolutely certain their definition is the correct one and has a very long drawn out story of why. eace

For definitions of what the Authors meant search the Federalist Papers. Arms, individual and Militia, are constitutionally strictly for defense when under physical attack and never for aggression. And mostly certainly not for correcting government Officials.

 

[Catawba]

Re: How Do YOU Interpret The 2nd Amendment? [W:199]

which has nothing to do with what individuals own.

That is for Congress and the supreme court decide, as the militia will be defined as they determine it will be defined.

 

[DA60]

Re: How Do YOU Interpret The 2nd Amendment? [W:199]

I interpret it as the right to form a militia. And since back then there was only a very small standing army, the people were the Militia and thusly were the army.

To that end, the people must be able to own the arms they bring to the battle when the Militia is called up.

I do not think it has anything to do with some ding dong, moron owning a handgun because he wants to shoot at beer cans on the weekend.

And considering America spends more then almost the entire world combined on her military - there is hardly a need for a militia.


Ideally, I think things should go back to those old days and shrink the size of the military drastically and once again have the Militia (the reserves) as the backbone of the United States armed forces.

In that instance, anyone that is actually in the reserves should be able to keep their arms at home.

But it should apply to no one else (outside of police, security and so on).

However, with all the guns in existence - I am afraid that is probably no longer practical as incidents like Newtown, Virtinia tech, etc. prove.

So my solution today is that everyone that is legally allowed to own a gun should be able to carry it concealed - without needing a seperate permit.
Though I am not sure of the need for the masses to own 'assault rifles'.
So I would probably apply the above only to handguns.



As for those people that think the masses need guns to protect themselves from the state? That is ridiculous (though I wouldn't trust the state as far as I can throw them).

You could have 1,000 guns/rifles/grenades and hole up in your bunker behind your house.

It ain't gonna mean squat to the government.

They will just fly a B-2 over your house at 30,000 feet, drop a 2,000 pound JDAM bomb that lands right on your house/bunker and bye bye you without them even breaking a sweat.

When it comes to military weaponry, you can't fight 'city hall'.

If they can find you and want you dead - you will be dead; no matter how large of an arsenal you own.

 

[AllanHampton]

Re: How Do YOU Interpret The 2nd Amendment? [W:199]

That is for Congress and the supreme court decide, as the militia will be defined as they determine it will be defined.

Congress and or the SC cannot amend the Constitution; reference Article V.

 

[Master PO]

Re: How Do YOU Interpret The 2nd Amendment? [W:199]

actually this is incorrect. During the civil war it was not uncommon for soldiers to buy guns with their own funds and use them, including officers.

also..... Some generals, actually bought field pieces, out of their own pockets during the civil war.

 

[Catawba]

Re: How Do YOU Interpret The 2nd Amendment? [W:199]

Congress and or the SC cannot amend the Constitution; reference Article V.

No amendment of the Constitution was necessary for the 1994 gun control laws.

 

[Master PO]

Re: How Do YOU Interpret The 2nd Amendment? [W:199]

No amendment of the Constitution was necessary for the 1994 gun control laws.

can you tell me in the federal constitution, were it states the federal government can pass a law concerning guns?

guns are only mentioned in the BOR, and it limites government.......... to take no action in those areas 1 to 10.

 

[Catawba]

Re: How Do YOU Interpret The 2nd Amendment? [W:199]

can you tell me in the federal constitution, were it states the federal government can pass a law concerning guns?

guns are only mentioned in the BOR, and it limites government.......... to take no action in those areas 1 to 10.

Congress is the only body under the constitution authorized to pass federal laws. And SCOTUS is the only body under the Constitution given judicial power to determine if laws passed by Congress are Constitutional. None of the 1994 gun control laws were ruled to be unconstitutional.

 

[Master PO]

Re: How Do YOU Interpret The 2nd Amendment? [W:199]

Congress is the only body under the constitution authorized to pass federal laws. And SCOTUS is the only body under the Constitution given judicial power to determine if laws passed by Congress are Constitutional. None of the 1994 gun control laws were ruled to be unconstitutional.

where in the Constitution does it mention guns?

what does the BOR say too the governments?

that is what i am going to ask you..........can you supply an easy answer to ,---->these and only these questions.