Thank you Bush, now I can get an AK-47! - Page 2

2nd Amendment to the US Constitution:


The position of the commas in this sentence makes all the difference as regards the interpretation. Is the 'right of the people' to bear arms equated to a 'well-regulated militia', or is it in addition? Do the people, in order to bear arms, have to be in a 'well regulated militia', or does the 2nd amendment imply that citizens can possess 'arms privately?

The horse bolted two centuries+ back: the guns are now out there by the million, we are armed to the teeth and there will always be guns and demand for guns, no matter what laws are passed.

(As a gun owner) I tend to favor the 2nd amendment interpretation of the right for private citizens to bear arms, (probably some personal bias there, but we all have those), but with some provisos in keeping with a modern society that is vastly different than what existed in the late 1700s:

There should be an amnesty on "Saturday night specials": owners should return them, get a refund, and these weapons should all be destroyed. The import, manufacture and distribution of these weapons should be banned immediately with harsh penalties directed towards those in breach....and keep the amnesty in place for any idiot who is stupid enough to purchase one. "Saturday night specials" are dangerous, inaccurate and unreliable beyond the point of uselessness, and are more likely to kill or severely injure the user or a bystander than protect anyone.

Gun ownership should be allowed, but lets keep them in the hands of responsible citizens. To possess a weapon, we should all go through background checks and be issued a license after passing a mandatory test on the handling, storage, maintenance, and firing of the weapon in question. Anyone with a history of violence or drug abuse for example should never be granted a firearms license.

Gun shows should be policed/ regulated etc etc more stringently. I don't like the idea of terrorists, violent criminals and gangbangers getting more access, and easier access to firearms, especially military style automatics like the Uzi, Kalashnikov etc.

If you want to use an automatic weapon, sign up, join the army and learn how to handle one of these things properly. Aren't we getting short of troops right now?

I interpret this the following way: The right of the people to keep and bare Arms shall not be infringed, since a well regulated Militia is necessary to the security of a free State.

Question: The Constitution says nothing of a national army, correct? Perhaps they intended each state to have its own militia, and then each state would defend itself.

[edit - grammatical error, boo hoo]

That's not even an intelligent twist of words. It's too far off the mark to be considered anything but a blatant distortion or lie. It really is a pathetic attempt.

If you can't spell "bare" right I don't want you having assault rifles.

I like this one from Conan: "They lifted the assault weapon ban. Which is great! Now you can shoot up to 200 burglars at once when they come in to your house!"

1) It is notable that you flipped the clauses in the 2nd amendment. The founders placed the militia FIRST, not the guns. The guns are secondary and dependent upon the militia.

2) My understanding is that yes, that is true.

But sadly for many conservative readers of the constitution, time passes.

Has anyone considered that a "regulated" Militia could mean that regulations are required for gun ownership?

Sure, you have a right to bear arms, as long as you follow through on the regulations that are imposed. Gun ownership should not be a carte blanche right.

Fortunately, there's nothing in the Constitution about regulating the baring of arms, or any other body part. Jogging along the beach would be a lot less fun.

There's a whole bunch of stuff about how the federal government has power to raise, pay for, and command the Army, as well as draw state militias into its service. The idea of separate United States Army and state militias is clear. So is the idea of well-regulated state militias. And the 2nd Amendment specifically says "militia". I don't think, though, that we have a body today that represents the founders' idea of a state militia.

I doubt that seriously. Folks in the c18 probably could've cared less about whether or not you were trained to use a hunting rifle, since you'd have learned that from your parents as a child, if you lived in the boonies or were a hunter.

By "well-regulated," they most likely meant that the militia had a clear structure and organization, met on a regular basis to drill and work together, and did so in a meaningful way.

Well, what did they mean by "the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed"?

They meant "because we need these farmers to serve as an army, we're going to allow them to keep guns (to use in the army)."

In trying to interpret the second amendment there are a few things that you should remember.

1) Writings of the founding fathers clearly show that they thought that the citizens of the our country should be well armed.

2) When the bill of rights was written all able-bodied male citizens from 17 to 44 were automatically in the militia, and those of other ages could join. There was also the Reserve Militia, which included "All other citizens, including children, the elderly, the less-able, and women, and perhaps foreign visitors as well, who might be called up after the ready militia, if needed."

It is obvious that the writers of the bill of rights wanted to prevent the government from interfering with a citizen's right to own and carry weapons. It was not until decades after the signing of the constitution and bill of rights (long after the founders were dead), that the supreme court ever upheld restrictions on guns with a ruling that basically said the 2nd amendment only protected citizens from federal laws. The Fourteenth amendment says otherwise and the supreme court now agrees that it protects citizens from federal and local laws.

Anyone intrested in the secund amendment should really read The Embarrassing Second Amendment Originally published in the Yale Law Journal.

Truthfully, I think that it is not guns, but the debate over gun control that has hurt this country. If all of the energy and lobbing against guns ownership was instead spent on solving the problems that cause violence in our society, we would be living in a much safer and happier country.

.

Yes, but the Constitution's provision for that is very carefully phrased to link the two (guns a militia service) together, and even more, the 2nd amendment makes participation in the militia the sole defining reason for the right to own guns.


Yup. I agree. If we'd spend all this energy lobbying against property itself we'd all be safer and happier.

No, you can tell by their other writings that was not what they meant, and if they know that sometime in the future people would try to interpret the second amendment that way they would have rephrased it.

There is no questioning that the founding fathers wanted every citizen of this country to have an unobstructed right to own and carry arms. The only problem is they did not use clear enough language when writing the second amendmet.

Pffft. There is always questioning. Critical thought and open mind require it.

Historians and scholars have put out books on Hamilton and other Founding Fathers that continue to disagree on their interpretation of the intent and phrasing of these documents. But people agree the language was seriously considered, reviewed, and rewritten in places. Not a lazy or casual job.

And of course we all know why Hamilton wanted guns...

How do we define "arms"? The "arms", or tools of warfare availableavailable to militaries at the time of the founders were muskets and cannons.

Todays "arms" or tools of warfare range from automatic weapons like the Uzi, AK47 or4 gatling-style guns, through RPGs, anti-aircraft missiles, armored vehicles, tanks, helicopter gunships etc., or even (absurdly?) weapons of mass destruction such as cruise missiles with nuclear warheads (!), or chemical and biological agents. These are the tools of a modern military, and where do we draw the line as regards who can possess what? How can we interpret what 2nd Amendment allows for, and what does it does not?

I recall seeing an aircraft carrier up for sale on E-Bay last year, for a few $million (!). Sure, it was decommissioned, but who's to stop you from buying the equipment and weapons to make it operational?