Please explain to me Second Amendment on Wikipedia

[Benny503]

Second Amendment to the United States Constitution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

From my reading it sound like Supreme Court "ruled that the right to bear arms is not granted by the Constitution." we can't have tactical rifles or using as self-defend. A family member trying to tell me I should not own any tacticool rifle.

In United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1875), the Supreme Court ruled that "[t]he right to bear arms is not granted by the Constitution; neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The Second Amendment means no more than that it shall not be infringed by Congress, and has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the National Government."

Read More

 

[Jamie6.5]

The Constitution and the BoR don't "grant" the right to self defense, or the carrying and use of arms for same.
But it does recognize that right.

The right is inherently derived from and endowed by, "their creator," (IOW, being human gives you that right, under the heading: Life, Liberty and the pursuit of happiness) not laws, or congresses, or any other function of government.

The Second Amendment means no more than that it shall not be infringed by Congress, and has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the National Government."

This is the part the control freaks abhor, and the part we should applaud the SCOTUS for explaining, at every opportunity.

 

[Modeler]

It's Wikipedia. Anyone can edit the article to make it say whatever they want.

 

[rdt]

Wikipedia: Anybody can write (or edit) an article to say whatever they want, but thousands of other people immediately begin to edit out the nonsense, loudly point out the flaws. I find it to be a good quick overview of a new topic, especially with technical info. But its usually just my starting point, exposes me to vocabulary so i can do more effective searches. Nothing is ever a stand alone source of info, people who rely on one source get what they deserve . . .

I think Jamie is right. The constitution and the BOR are tools created to help bring a political ideal into practical reality. The Documents are NOT the ideals themselves. People in our society have become complacent about taking responsibility for creating

I think the idea was not to create a government that ran forever on autopilot, but to create a balanced bureaucracy that would slow itself down enough to give our new society time to get its footing and take the reigns of the nation. The responsibility is with the people. Checks and balances between the 3 branches of the government are good, they make a despotic takeover harder to do, but takeover or corruption can still happen. The root of our nation's (any nation's) strength and vitality is the society itself, and repelling threats foreign or domestic is up to us.

So some of the Framers thought this way and knew that there had to be checks on the government that were not a part of the government. (Duh) Since organized military violence is the be-all end-all of practical reality and political power, the 4th check-and-balance has to be military and non-government controlled. Militias then. Militias are a good fit too since we owe our existence as a people to the deeds and sacrifices of our militias. To keep militias non-government, the Framers couldn't write a law making them. What they did instead is try and restrict the government from meddling. For the same reason, they couldn't make a law requiring all able bodied adults be members of a militia. Besides what kind of force would that be?! Not one that enthusiastically takes the responsibility for the life of the nation, but one that shows up like a teenager grumpily taking out the trash. Encouraging membership in the militias is the responsibility of the society, not the government.

Horrifyingly, our society has got it all twisted around and most people (on all parts of the political spectrum) think the society serves the government. No wonder everything is going to S---.

blah blah blah