NationStates Jolt Archive

An absence of gun control is stupid. Really, really, really stupid. So stupid it's unbelievable. It's just...stupid.

What's amusing about the American obsession with it, however, is that the Constitutional right they claim to have to carry guns doesn't actually exist. Here is the Second Amendment:

"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."

Notice that the entire statement is one sentence. There is no break, no pause, no moving onto a new topic. It starts by talking about a Militia and finishes talking about a Militia. In other words, the right of the people in the Militia to bear arms is protected.

If you believe that they are two seperate statements then the Amendment makes no sense; "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State" - end sentence. eh?

So, I'm afraid you have no Constitutional right to bear arms. Sorry about that.

Gun smilies are banned from this thread.

I did this thread a while back. I believe the title was "2nd Amendment" ... can't remember.

Anyway, Syniks proved me wrong. I'm sure he'll do the same for you.

I did this thread a while back. I believe the title was "2nd Amendment" ... can't remember.

Anyway, Syniks proved me wrong. I'm sure he'll do the same for you.
I haven't been here long enough to remember that I'm afraid.

In my experience, being 'pro-gun' is one of those things where you decide what the 'truth' is, and then fit the facts around it to suit your opinion.

I don't really see how they are neccassary for an individual, i think at atmosphere has been bred where you may feel you need to carry one because the 'baddies' do.

I haven't been here long enough to remember that I'm afraid.

In my experience, being 'pro-gun' is one of those things where you decide what the 'truth' is, and then fit the facts around it to suit your opinion.

Well, I'm not pro-gun. But ever since that wonderful debate, I am no longer anti-gun. I've learned to shrug and say, "whatever". :)

I've looked at that amendment for years, and it never ceases to amaze me just how badly written it is, in terms of clarity at least. There's no real way to parse it out so that you can be absolutely sure what's not to be infringed.

The more I think about it, the more that bugs me, because I'd be wiling to bet that it's shit like this that gives the Constitutional "originalists" any firepower whatsoever. If we can't parse this sufficiently that we can get a reasonable modern reading, then it makes sense to go back to what the Framers meant by "militia," etc., instead of working with the Constitution as a flexible, evolving document.

Gun smilies are banned from this thread.
:mp5: it's my constitutional right, bitch. i mean, if it's in the contitution, it must be right!!

don't question the contitution! what are you, a commie pinko bastard liberal child molester or what??!11!!!!ONE!1+1



(yeah i agree, guns are pretty stupid - anything designed to kill or injure stuff (and people) shouldn't be allowed in the interests of safety and common sense. just because it says something in a 200 year old document doesn't make it right. however the americans are in a real predicament in that taking guns away from ordinary people would only leave them in the hands of the criminal element... which is equally as stupid. it's a catch 22)

I think it was Family Guy that clarified it: People have the right to keep a pair of stuffed bear arms in their house.

Other than that, it must have been very late at night and they just didn't want to bother anymore.

I think it was Family Guy that clarified it: People have the right to keep a pair of stuffed bear arms in their house.

Other than that, it must have been very late at night and they just didn't want to bother anymore.

damn you, you beat me to it:(

An absence of gun control is stupid. Really, really, really stupid. So stupid it's unbelievable. It's just...stupid.

What's amusing about the American obsession with it, however, is that the Constitutional right they claim to have to carry guns doesn't actually exist. Here is the Second Amendment:

"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."

Notice that the entire statement is one sentence. There is no break, no pause, no moving onto a new topic. It starts by talking about a Militia and finishes talking about a Militia. In other words, the right of the people in the Militia to bear arms is protected.

If you believe that they are two seperate statements then the Amendment makes no sense; "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State" - end sentence. eh?

So, I'm afraid you have no Constitutional right to bear arms. Sorry about that.

Gun smilies are banned from this thread.
In the early days of the US who were the militia? Every able-bodied man in the community. Plus they carried the same rifle as the military did. Clearly the founding fathers intended the people to be equiped with military-grade weapons to defend the community, the home, and to hunt with.

(yeah i agree, guns are pretty stupid - anything designed to kill or injure stuff (and people) shouldn't be allowed in the interests of safety and common sense.

How do you injure stuff?

I don't really see how they are neccassary for an individual, i think at atmosphere has been bred where you may feel you need to carry one because the 'baddies' do.


Guns aren't just to protect yourself from the 'baddies', I use them for target practice and to go hunting.

An absence of gun control is stupid. Really, really, really stupid. So stupid it's unbelievable. It's just...stupid.

What's amusing about the American obsession with it, however, is that the Constitutional right they claim to have to carry guns doesn't actually exist. Here is the Second Amendment:

"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."

Notice that the entire statement is one sentence. There is no break, no pause, no moving onto a new topic. It starts by talking about a Militia and finishes talking about a Militia. In other words, the right of the people in the Militia to bear arms is protected.

If you believe that they are two seperate statements then the Amendment makes no sense; "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State" - end sentence. eh?

So, I'm afraid you have no Constitutional right to bear arms. Sorry about that.

Gun smilies are banned from this thread.
1. The rest of the bill of rights applies on an individual level. Why would this one be suddenly different.
2. A militia is any able bodied man of appropriate age (though in the interest of equality, I'm for any sex in it)
3. My roommate and I can form a well organized militia. Thus we, under your definition, are right to own and bear arms.

How do you injure stuff?
shoot it non-lethally?

by stuff i meant animals and things you hunt or non-human things you might want to shoot.

shoot it non-lethally?

by stuff i meant animals and things you hunt or non-human things you might want to shoot.

Oh. Juuust wonderin'.

This right enables a citizen to have a more equal footing against the current civil authority if they felt the need to revolt against the government. Lack of Arms was an issue during the revolutionary war and thus this amendment was added to prevent such a situation form occurring.

it seems to me that no matter what the beginning clause says, the ammendment was written to guarantee the right to keep guns.

im sure there is some very interesting historical context that can be dug up to explain just why the people felt the need to put such a thing into the constitution. im too lazy to find out.

they had just fought a war against a vastly superior military. people on the frontier faced hostile indian tribes. people in rural areas can hunt for food. farmers need to be able to rid themselves of "varmints". i dont know if there was some history of trying to deny the people guns, but the people of the US needed to have the possibility of keeping guns in their homes.

the original constitution was written without the bill of rights. the states refused to ratify it without it spelling out specific rights. the most important rights as seen at that time were put into writing. the other rights that either didnt occur to anyone, were too obvious, or were just too numerous to mention are covered by the 9th and 10th ammendments (which boil down to "ETC")

we put into the bill of rights the stuff that was the very most important and foremost on our minds at the time. free speech, search warrants, not having to testify against yourself, no cruel and unusual punishments. (and the right to not have soldiers quartered in your home, something that hasnt been an issue in a long long time)

so when they put the second ammendment in, it meant that it was very important to them. otherwise they would have saved space and considered it covered by 9&10.

if all they wanted was a militia or national guard there were better ways to get it than by guaranteeing the right to bear arms. after all, having the right in no way guarantees that there will be enough people will guns to form a militia. if militia was the important part, they would have required everyone to have guns at home.

no matter what the rationale offered in the beginning clause, what they wanted was that the right of the people to keep and bear arms not be infringed upon. that doesnt mean its absolute any more than the freedom of speech is absolute. it can be regulated in many ways. but if it wasnt what they wanted, they wouldnt have included it.

it seems to me that no matter what the beginning clause says, the ammendment was written to guarantee the right to keep guns.

im sure there is some very interesting historical context that can be dug up to explain just why the people felt the need to put such a thing into the constitution. im too lazy to find out.

they had just fought a war against a vastly superior military. people on the frontier faced hostile indian tribes. people in rural areas can hunt for food. farmers need to be able to rid themselves of "varmints". i dont know if there was some history of trying to deny the people guns, but the people of the US needed to have the possibility of keeping guns in their homes.

the original constitution was written without the bill of rights. the states refused to ratify it without it spelling out specific rights. the most important rights as seen at that time were put into writing. the other rights that either didnt occur to anyone, were too obvious, or were just too numerous to mention are covered by the 9th and 10th ammendments (which boil down to "ETC")

we put into the bill of rights the stuff that was the very most important and foremost on our minds at the time. free speech, search warrants, not having to testify against yourself, no cruel and unusual punishments. (and the right to not have soldiers quartered in your home, something that hasnt been an issue in a long long time)

so when they put the second ammendment in, it meant that it was very important to them. otherwise they would have saved space and considered it covered by 9&10.

if all they wanted was a militia or national guard there were better ways to get it than by guaranteeing the right to bear arms. after all, having the right in no way guarantees that there will be enough people will guns to form a militia. if militia was the important part, they would have required everyone to have guns at home.

no matter what the rationale offered in the beginning clause, what they wanted was that the right of the people to keep and bear arms not be infringed upon. that doesnt mean its absolute any more than the freedom of speech is absolute. it can be regulated in many ways. but if it wasnt what they wanted, they wouldnt have included it.

-ditto-

An absence of gun control is stupid. Really, really, really stupid. So stupid it's unbelievable. It's just...stupid.

What's amusing about the American obsession with it, however, is that the Constitutional right they claim to have to carry guns doesn't actually exist. Here is the Second Amendment:

"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."

Notice that the entire statement is one sentence. There is no break, no pause, no moving onto a new topic. It starts by talking about a Militia and finishes talking about a Militia. In other words, the right of the people in the Militia to bear arms is protected.

If you believe that they are two seperate statements then the Amendment makes no sense; "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State" - end sentence. eh?

So, I'm afraid you have no Constitutional right to bear arms. Sorry about that.

Gun smilies are banned from this thread.

Well holy shit!

So *thats* what the amendment means. I'm afraid that until you came along in the world, there was a bit of confusion and argument about it! Apparently there were people who held a different interpretation of that phrase, which was thought to be ambiguous but, now, is so clearly not. Thank God for you.