National The 2nd Amendment Is Clear.

[VinnieBoomBah]

So, what's your point?
You do have a creator, your mother and father created you, thus giving you life and passing on your birth right, your absolute rights as enumerated by the B.o.R!


And, Lying in the back of a Helicopter on your back with large chunks of your youth shot, burned, crushed, or blowed off, and your life at risk of ending before you were ready, EVERYONE Believes in God!

I mean . . . just, no, to like every bit of that.

 

[American123]

I'll lignore your insult, but my point is we really can't know what they'd have said if they had more information. Would they extend the principle beyond swords, bayonets and muskets to machine guns? Maybe, but we're all still guessing at that. I do know that if we want the relative security of government and a stable society at large, few rights granted by the constitution can be absolute. By benefitting from the security of a community governed by the rule of law we surrender rights. Frankly this "The 2nd Amendment is clear...." debate is disingenuous and gets us nowhere in figuring out what government regulation is reasonable that we can live with and what's impermissible and should be opposed.

I'll take my flaming off the air.

Rather than continue to confuse yourself, consider what they already said, linked below.

Then consider that during the time they were alive they saw many technological improvements and at no time did they go back and update their language to say "but it doesn't include (this) technology.

Then consider the intent of the 2nd Amendment.

This specific quote is very relevant to your confusion:

"On every occasion [of Constitutional interpretation] let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying [to force] what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, [instead let us] conform to the probable one in which it was passed."
- Thomas Jefferson, letter to William Johnson, 12 June 1823

Gun Quotations of the Founding Fathers | Buckeye Firearms Association

Who knows better what the Second Amendment means than the Founding Fathers? Here are some powerful gun quotations from the Founding Fathers themselves. If you know of a gun quotation from a Founding Father not listed here, send it to us. (But make SURE it's not already listed. Okay?) Back to the...

www.buckeyefirearms.org

 

[American123]

cool and all, but absolutely Begs The Question and not everyone believes in a creator of any type

Regardless of the belief in God, the founding fathers were not referring to the government when they referenced to "The Creator." The rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness come from existing, if you prefer to ignore the creator.

 

[VinnieBoomBah]

Regardless of the belief in God, the founding fathers were not referring to the government when they referenced to "The Creator." The rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness come from existing, if you prefer to ignore the creator.

It's too late and there isn't enough tequila

 

[Xaevian]

It's too late and there isn't enough tequila

I don't believe in Tequila!

 

[American123]

It's too late and there isn't enough tequila

Regardless of the lack of tequila. The rights of Americans are not granted, supplied, or derived from the government.

 

[sobo]

Regardless of the lack of tequila. The rights of Americans are not granted, supplied, or derived from the government.

But they most certainly are deprived by the government...

 

[Koda]

perspectives. It all comes down to philosophy.

Weither you believe our rights are divinely inspired or just a product of humanity's evolution for survival, as long as they have to be written in ink they will always be under the threat of being taken away.
Myself I always thought of the Bill of Rights being a separate part of the constitution in that it was never intended to be treated as a living document, human rights should be constant. But the fact remains, it can be edited. And should never.

 

[Xaevian]

Weither you believe our rights are divinely inspired or just a product of humanity's evolution for survival, as long as they have to be written in ink they will always be under the threat of being taken away.

Rights aren't granted, they are asserted by the individual. No one can take them away, only break the will of the individual to assert them.

The more we move away from honoring the individual and towards collectivism, the less freedom we will be willing to assert as we seek instead to please the masses and be part of the collective.

To some of us that don't proscribe to organized religion, we see those organizations as their own collective, depriving freedoms in exchange for "being part of something bigger".

 

[OldBroad44]

I take the context of the 2nd as a 4 phrase sentence explaining its purpose and meaning hence the comma's:
"A well armed militia", "being necessary to the security of a free state", "the right to keep and bare arms", "shall not be infringed"

1)you cant have a well armed militia without citizens having and keeping these arms!!
2)being necessary to the security of a free state. (either USA as a whole or the state itself(my case Oregon)
3)the "right" key word to keep and bare arms. meaning in home or outside in public visibly
4) Absolute part... "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED"

These founders were all about the right words, context and punctuation. These guys are known the world over for some of the great pieces of literature of all time. Wordsmiths if you will. It was worded purposely not to be interrupted or to the meaning. It was a Fact statement with no doubt about it. Thats it!

I agree in part. But militia members usually did not keep the militia weapons at home. They were cached, not taken home. The arms in Concord were in caches, not home with the militiamen. They were moved a few weeks before to different caches, not given out to the militiamen to take home. You CAN have a well armed militia without the men taking the guns home. They would presumably meet occasionally and practice with the guns. Its common in many cultures for the warriors' weapons to be cached and distributed only before battle. And for no one to be allowed to carry arms at dinner. Probably especially important where men were seriously drunk frequently, especially at dinner. And where water was bad and soldiers usually diluted it with wine or something else alcoholic .

In New England, hard cider was preferred to water during the era of the revolution. Drinking water in or near cities was dangerous because of all the bacterial contamination . Cider was commonly part of the pay for working men, just like rum was for sailors. I know about this in part through reading a book on cider in America and because of a bit of Harvard lore. Harvard was founded a bit before the Revolution. The Commencement festivities today still follow much of the ancient ritual, using the original language. The first words of the celebration, spoken by a provost or other H official, are: "Mr Sheriff, pray give us order." Whereupon the Sheriff, outfitted in ceremonial formal black garb with tails and a tophat and carrying a staff with a silver head, stalks to the mike, bows to H President, bows to H Corporation and Board of Overseers, then strikes staff upon the ground three times, raises hands and staff high, and says, "As the High Sheriff of Middlesex County I declare that the meeting will be in orrrrrrrder!" Why would H need LE present? Because people were drinking wine or other alcoholic beverage all the time diluted with water. And undiluted during celebrations. And it was found very early on that the help of LE was very much needed at Harvard Commencements to "give us order."

Being impressive wordsmiths is not the same as being perfect wordsmiths. And any document that old, even if clear at the time, can become unclear because their frames of reference are different from ours. In fact, the founders argued furiously about lots and the final document was a compromise in many ways. They themselves viewed it as an imperfect document written imperfect men. Many dislikdd it enough so that it took brilliant politicking to get it signed. And most were likely somewhat inebriated while writing and arguing over it. I honor the Constitution and Bill of Rights. But I don't think it's infallible or perfect.

I do think it's brilliant in many ways. Especially in making provisions for amending. And making amending very hard to do, but not impossible.

 

[ma96782]

The Supreme Court can pass out rulings.
BUT, But, but.......
Who says that the lower courts will listen and follow them?

Or even the Police for that matter?

IMHO.....for some stuff to be CLEAR......the Supreme Court needs to S-P-E-L-L it out.

But, unfortunately.......because it's NOT being spelled out. I see America continuing with magazine bans, lists of acceptable firearms, BGCs, purchase limits, requirements for safe storage, permits to purchase ammo, etc.....etc...... for the near term/foreseeable future.

Aloha, Mark

PS.....why are these sorts of challenges to the law, still even necessary?

IMHO......in light of the recent Supreme Court ruling. All of the various states should be going over their own laws. To ensure that their state's laws are NOT violating the RIGHTS of Americans. And, any new proposed legislation should also be examined.

 

[Ura-Ki]

Your first part about militia is only part correct, there was in fact, a second verse that covered irregular militia, the You and Me clause as it were, regular Jack and Jill who swore an oath to serve if called upon, there in required to report with suitable arms and shot and provisions for several days!

 

[OldBroad44]

Rights aren't granted, they are asserted by the individual. No one can take them away, only break the will of the individual to assert them.

The more we move away from honoring the individual and towards collectivism, the less freedom we will be willing to assert as we seek instead to please the masses and be part of the collective.

To some of us that don't proscribe to organized religion, we see those organizations as their own collective, depriving freedoms in exchange for "being part of something bigger".

I agree. There's nothing in the bible that says anything about God granting people any rights at all, even the right to not be slaves. If God granted such "God-given" rights to men, he doesn't seem to have mentioned it to anyone. As best I can tell whatever rights people have are from them or their ancestors seizing them. Such as by killing the king and replacing him with someone nicer, or even a different form of government. Or when, after the Black Death, British serfs took advantage of the labor shortage to flee bad masters to better ones or to jobs in town. And the upper classes were so desperate for labor they hired the runaways, and many serfs became free men. Wages rose dramatically, etc. Slavery seems to have existed and been accepted in all cultures up until the British turned against it, outlawed it, and started using its navy to halt the trade in African slaves to the middle east and to the Americas. There was often a power struggle between kings and noble men , or later, between king and middle class that allowed some people to gain rights. The American Revolution was partly about the upset of American noblemen equivalents such as Ben Franklin being treated with contempt by British king and Parliament. and partly about New England merchants who did not follow Britains rules for colonies that they could trade only with Britain, and were all big time smugglers. profiting themselves instead of just being exploited by Imperialist Britain.The organizers of the Boston Tea Party were all major tea smugglers. Migratory hunter gatherers normally had relatively egalitarian societies with chiefs who could lead but not command. Dissatisfied tribe members tended to murder the chief or just move away. The loss of freedom of ordinary people seems to come with cities, which tend to happen only when there is nowhere left to flee to.

 

[DunRanull]

A thought provoking take, to be sure. I just place more importance on the will of a society as a whole over the will of the individual. Without the agreement on and adherence to the social contract it's just anarchy all the way down.

Tyranny by the majority won't cut it. Removal of ANY of the ten articles of the Bill Of Rights will be the call for Lexington and Concord redux.. The Constitution is the instrument of protecting and expanding human rights, not destroying them. YMMV....

 

[DunRanull]

I'll lignore your insult, but my point is we really can't know what they'd have said if they had more information. Would they extend the principle beyond swords, bayonets and muskets to machine guns? Maybe, but we're all still guessing at that. I do know that if we want the relative security of government and a stable society at large, few rights granted by the constitution can be absolute. By benefitting from the security of a community governed by the rule of law we surrender rights. Frankly this "The 2nd Amendment is clear...." debate is disingenuous and gets us nowhere in figuring out what government regulation is reasonable that we can live with and what's impermissible and should be opposed.

I'll take my flaming off the air.

I say that we apply the same restrictions upon the First Amendment "rights" as we do on the Second Amendment. What say you all?

 

[wired]

I say that we apply the same restrictions upon the First Amendment "rights" as we do on the Second Amendment. What say you all?

Are you one of those people who think we have unlimited freedom of speech?

 

[revjen45]

""I support the second amendment, you can support the second amendment and still support common sense gun reform,"

Sure, just like you can support "separate but equal" and "equal under the law" at the same time.

 

[CamoDeafie]

Are you one of those people who think we have unlimited freedom of speech?

Sure seems to have less restrictions than 2a

 

[Andy54Hawken]

Regarding restrictions on the 1st and 2nd Amendments....

The 1st Amendment says in part :
"Congress shall make no law ...or abridging the freedom of speech or of the press..."
Which is good , but pretty general and open to interpretation.

However....
There is this in the 2nd Amendment :
"...,the right of the people to keep and bear Arms , shall not be infringed."
Which pretty damn specific.

With that said...
The old well known :
"You have freedom of speech...but you can't yell fire in a theater" is not an abridgment of the freedom of speech.
You can indeed yell fire in a theater....but you can also be made to suffer the consequences for doing so.

A law , ban , restriction or the like on firearms...is an infringement , which in the case of the 2nd Amendment ...
It is stated that shall not happen....yet it does...frequently .
Andy

 

[wired]

Regarding restrictions on the 1st and 2nd Amendments....

The 1st Amendment says in part :
"Congress shall make no law ...or abridging the freedom of speech or of the press..."
Which is good , but pretty general and open to interpretation.

However....
There is this in the 2nd Amendment :
"...,the right of the people to keep and bear Arms , shall not be infringed."
Which pretty damn specific.

With that said...
The old well known :
"You have freedom of speech...but you can't yell fire in a theater" is not an abridgment of the freedom of speech.
You can indeed yell fire in a theater....but you can also be made to suffer the consequences for doing so.

A law , ban , restriction or the like on firearms...is an infringement , which in the case of the 2nd Amendment ...
It is stated that shall not happen....yet it does...frequently .
Andy

If you only quote the second part of the 2nd amendment yes, it seems pretty clear.