NationStates Jolt Archive

The Second Amendment of the U.S> Constitution:

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 was talking about this at dinner and my friends and I could only agree on one thing about the second amendment. Its kind of vague.

So how do you interpret this big run-on sentence?

I think it means tow things:


The people should form a militia for defense of the country
People have the right to own weapons, any and all weapons.

the guy on the radio the other day said it comes from the argument over whether or not to have a standing army

one side thought that a standing army was evil. the other side thought that there were bad forces in the world that could do us in if we weren't prepared.

so the second ammendment is designed to make sure that an army can be raised quickly by making sure that every person willing to bear arms already has arms to bear.

has anyone else heard this theory and can shed some light on it?

They aren't mutualy exclusive. The people own guns to form the Millita which the founders difined as the people. So the Milita=The People have constituional right to own firearms.

the guy on the radio the other day said it comes from the argument over whether or not to have a standing army

one side thought that a standing army was evil. the other side thought that there were bad forces in the world that could do us in if we weren't prepared.

so the second ammendment is designed to make sure that an army can be raised quickly by making sure that every person willing to bear arms already has arms to bear.

has anyone else heard this theory and can shed some light on it?

YES! Thats what I was talking about tonight! The standing army issue was big among the founding fathers. Jefferson thought that the country should be defended by its "citizen farmers" because America was basically one big farm back then.

Another issue was insuring that the people have the ability to violently overthrow the government if they think they need too. After all thats basically what happened during the revolutionary war.

The people should form a militia for defense of the country
People have the right to own weapons, any and all weapons.


Yep!

Does anyone think that conceal-carry laws violate this amendment? What about background checks to keep guns away from convicted felons? Assault weapons ban? Deadly weapons ban. Are these not all huge violations of our bill of rights?

It's an argument with two parts, a claim and a justification.

Justification: A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State,

Claim: the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

It's in the inverse of the usual method, in which the claim precedes the justification, but it makes sense to be read as such.

Does anyone think that conceal-carry laws violate this amendment? What about background checks to keep guns away from convicted felons? Assault weapons ban? Deadly weapons ban. Are these not all huge violations of our bill of rights?

How are conceal carry laws violating the 2nd amendment?

Theory

Key: Primary Verbage, Implied Connecting Verbage

The Second Amendment of the U.S> Constitution:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, this important right shall not be infringed.

I was talking about this at dinner and my friends and I could only agree on one thing about the second amendment. Its kind of vague.

So how do you interpret this big run-on sentence?

I think it means tow things:


The people should form a militia for defense of the country
People have the right to own weapons, any and all weapons.


The Constitution of Virginia, originally enacted in 1776, outlines the root concept behind the intent of the 2nd Amendment; it's found in the Virginia Declaration of Rights, Section 13:

"That a well-regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defence of a free State; that standing armies, in time of peace, should be avoided, as dangerous to liberty; and that in all cases the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power."

How are conceal carry laws violating the 2nd amendment?

Because you don't need a permit to carry a weapon either concealed or open according to the Second Amendment. :rolleyes: In fact, at one time in Massachusetts the men were required to carry a musket to church on Sunday to protect the congregation. :eek:

Theory

Key: Primary Verbage, Implied Connecting Verbage

That works depending on which version of the Second Amendment you use.

The version passed in the House and the Senate comes with the third comma, the version ratified lacks that comma.

Does anyone think that conceal-carry laws violate this amendment? What about background checks to keep guns away from convicted felons? Assault weapons ban? Deadly weapons ban. Are these not all huge violations of our bill of rights?

I'd say there is some valid questions behind the actual constitutionality of the assault weapons and deadly weapons band... Concealed carry laws are generally a non-issue regarding constitutionality... There is no component to the Constitution which denies the states right to license people for concealed carry.... There is also no invalidation, constitutionally, to licensing gun owners in general, either, nor is there any invalidation to background checks or disallowing convicted fellons from obtaining firearms (it is also possible for those who were convicted of a felony from reaquiring these rights through their state govenor in most states).

Because you don't need a permit to carry a weapon either concealed or open according to the Second Amendment. :rolleyes: In fact, at one time in Massachusetts the men were required to carry a musket to church on Sunday to protect the congregation. :eek:

There's a difference between open carry and concealed carry. In many jurisdictions, open carry is completely legal and subject to no restrictions (asides from the standard).

How are conceal carry laws violating the 2nd amendment?

They restrict the ownership of guns. Think about it, you can't carry a gun with you outside your house unless you register it with the government and carry a license that they give you.

That works depending on which version of the Second Amendment you use.

The version passed in the House and the Senate comes with the third comma, the version ratified lacks that comma.

Huh. Interesting. That very much changes the meaning of the amendment. And it was probably on purpose.

It says two things:

(1) A militia is allowed.
(2) It's illegal to chop off people's arms against their will.

There's a difference between open carry and concealed carry. In many jurisdictions, open carry is completely legal and subject to no restrictions (asides from the standard).

True, but the question was "How do concealed carry laws violate the second amendment?" I also wanted to point out that there are places where open carry is illegal but unconstitutional (IMHO).

I'd say there is some valid questions behind the actual constitutionality of the assault weapons and deadly weapons band... Concealed carry laws are generally a non-issue regarding constitutionality... There is no component to the Constitution which denies the states right to license people for concealed carry.... There is also no invalidation, constitutionally, to licensing gun owners in general, either, nor is there any invalidation to background checks or disallowing convicted fellons from obtaining firearms (it is also possible for those who were convicted of a felony from reaquiring these rights through their state govenor in most states).

But that means that the state has a big database of everyone who carries guns around. That information is not abused as far as I know, but it easily could be. I consider that infringement.

And the federal government decide who is and who isn't a felon. Restricting felons from owning guns is carte blanch for the federal government to basically deny gun ownership to anybody it wants. But believe me there are some criminals who shouldn't have guns, and the clinically insane should definately not be allowed to own guns.

They restrict the ownership of guns. Think about it, you can't carry a gun with you outside your house unless you register it with the government and carry a license that they give you.

Not quite true. You can carry a gun, but not loaded and concealed. In most states it is perfectly legal to carry an weapon that is not loaded. However, if you are in your car and are stopped by the police, it would be a good idea to let them know you have a weapon in the car. :p

But that means that the state has a big database of everyone who carries guns around. That information is not abused as far as I know, but it easily could be. I consider that infringement.

How can it be infringement? What's being infringed? Those with the license are not being denied their right to own the weapon they do... And licenses are granted to pretty much anyone who passes the background check, which is pretty much anyone except convicted felons...

Those with felony convictions, assuming they were non-violent crimes, can get their various rights restored after a certain time period (usually 7 years), by making a request to the govenor of their state.

People have the right to own weapons, any and all weapons.


No. Hell no. Grenade launchers, nukes, and M1919 Browning light machine guns are just a few examples of what should be banned.

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State"
This is meant to justify the right protected by this amendment. The colonists had just come out of a bloody war with the world's reigning superpower, a nation which attempted to stifle rebellion through confiscation of everything more threatening and effective in combat than a brickbat.

"the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
Pretty straightforward. It says what it means and it means what it says, the right of the people not the right of the militia.

How can it be infringement? What's being infringed? Those with the license are not being denied their right to own the weapon they do... And licenses are granted to pretty much anyone who passes the background check, which is pretty much anyone except convicted felons...


It is a violation of privacy. The government should not be allowed to know who has a gun because they have the ability to abuse that information.

No. Hell no. Grenade launchers, nukes, and M1919 Browning light machine guns are just a few examples of what should be banned.

why should they be banned? If you trust the government to posses these things and use them wisely, why don't you trust your fellow countrymen to do the same?

Although nuclear bombs are a little out there. There should be laws banning the production of nukes. People should be allowed to posses them, but regulation and safety systems are a big deal.

How can it be infringement? What's being infringed? Those with the license are not being denied their right to own the weapon they do... And licenses are granted to pretty much anyone who passes the background check, which is pretty much anyone except convicted felons...

Those with felony convictions, assuming they were non-violent crimes, can get their various rights restored after a certain time period (usually 7 years), by making a request to the govenor of their state.

That depends on which state you live in and the locality. "May Issue" states vary in their issuing from fairly liberal to you have to prove you've been murdered before you can justify it to the authorities.

It is a violation of privacy. The government should not be allowed to know who has a gun because they have the ability to abuse that information.

If they're not allowed to infringe on the people's right to bear arms, how do they have the ability to abuse the information? As to privacy, how is it a violation of privacy when the reason for a right to bear arms is for the purpose of having a militia to call... Wouldn't the state need to know WHO the potential components of the militia are, for when they are needed to be called?

That depends on which state you live in and the locality. "May Issue" states vary in their issuing from fairly liberal to you have to prove you've been murdered before you can justify it to the authorities.

Well, I was dealing more with the regular license, not the concealed carry permits... There may be heavier restrictions on concealed carry laws than there are on the regular license.

If they're not allowed to infringe on the people's right to bear arms, how do they have the ability to abuse the information? As to privacy, how is it a violation of privacy when the reason for a right to bear arms is for the purpose of having a militia to call... Wouldn't the state need to know WHO the potential components of the militia are, for when they are needed to be called?

Well, I suppose that if the state drafted a militia they would need to know, but not if it were a volunteer militia. aNd having a militia is not the only reason to allow people to have guns. Personal defense and Property protection

As for the conceal-carry thing, I can think of no reason why the state should need to know who carries guns around. Plus requiring a permit to do anything is a form of restriction and control.

Well, I was dealing more with the regular license, not the concealed carry permits... There may be heavier restrictions on concealed carry laws than there are on the regular license.

Even those have the same effect. In Chicago and DC for example, simple registration was required. Sounds "reasonable" right? Then they closed the registration offices. States like MD have numerous hoops required that can last up to a year and they can still turn you down for numerous buerocratic issues.

Illinois requires a FOID card. Fairly simple to get. However legislation was penned (by the current Gov.) to increase fees to $500 for it. While it didn't go anywhere, the intention was there.

If they're not allowed to infringe on the people's right to bear arms, how do they have the ability to abuse the information? As to privacy, how is it a violation of privacy when the reason for a right to bear arms is for the purpose of having a militia to call... Wouldn't the state need to know WHO the potential components of the militia are, for when they are needed to be called?

Many states have Militia legislation in their constitutions determining who is considered a member. The Federal one is Code 10.

why should they be banned? If you trust the government to posses these things and use them wisely, why don't you trust your fellow countrymen to do the same?

Although nuclear bombs are a little out there. There should be laws banning the production of nukes. People should be allowed to posses them, but regulation and safety systems are a big deal.

I trust my government not to use them irresponsibly, partly because i have no choice, and partly because i would hope a democratically elected government would use them wisely. We do use them irresponsibly with some frequency, but in America at least we don't often use them on our own people without a good cause. Something I can't say about certain other countries. I certainly can't trust society as a whole to not use them on itself. If you've heard about the people who shot over play station 3's, you'll understand why society can barley (some would argue not at all) be trusted with basic firearms.

I wanted to buy an AK-47 and modify it to be full auto, but it turns out that the laws against machine guns are harsher than the laws against people who rape children. Even if you get a machine gun license, the feds charge you $500 a year and they can search your house at any time to ensure that the guns are in a gunsafe when they are not being used. The system has really failed us here.

I trust my government not to use them irresponsibly, partly because i have no choice, and partly because i would hope a democratically elected government would use them wisely. We do use them irresponsibly with some frequency, but in America at least we don't often use them on our own people without a good cause. Something I can't say about certain other countries. I certainly can't trust society as a whole to not use them on itself. If you've heard about the people who shot over play station 3's, you'll understand why society can barley (some would argue not at all) be trusted with basic firearms.

Our government is a contract between the people and the state. Its not a very secure contract if only the state has weapons.

I will agree that some people should not have guns, but the more that you trust the state to protect you, the more you forfeit your freedoms.

Where do you draw the line at 'arms?'. Obviously in those days, single shot muskets were about as far as it went but nowadays it seems that some modern weapons are accepted but some aren't. If it is your constitutional right to own a handgun, could you argue that it is your constitutional right to have a howitzer pointing out of your front window?


(in conclusion, your constitution is far too vague)

I trust my government not to use them irresponsibly, partly because i have no choice, and partly because i would hope a democratically elected government would use them wisely.

You do have a choice. Laws could be passed that ban the government from having weapons.

Where do you draw the line at 'arms?'. Obviously in those days, single shot muskets were about as far as it went but nowadays it seems that some modern weapons are accepted but some aren't. If it is your constitutional right to own a handgun, could you argue that it is your constitutional right to have a howitzer pointing out of your front window?


(in conclusion, your constitution is far too vague)

Technically, there were private artillery militias.

" the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

"the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated

"The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."


Can someone explain to me why in the second amendment, "the people" might refer collectively to some state or federal organization, while in all other instances it refers to individual citizens, and excludes explicitly the state and federal government?

You do have a choice. Laws could be passed that ban the government from having weapons.

Like I said, i have no choice. Hell will freeze over before America does not keep a standing army. I could move to like Iceland, I guess. Not to much of an army there.

Our government is a contract between the people and the state. Its not a very secure contract if only the state has weapons.

I will agree that some people should not have guns, but the more that you trust the state to protect you, the more you forfeit your freedoms.

Thats true, which is one of the reasons I don't support banning guns, but I really don't think that in the case of an armed conflict with the government even well equipped citizens could deal with America's army (I'm referring to specifically this country) unless some of it realized what was going on and joined us. I do think that people should be able to have guns, just not real extreme things.

Technically, there were private artillery militias.

Right, so why isn't the oh so glorious constitution defended to it's fullest? The thing is rather out of date, although many people don't seem to want to admit this for some reason. The third amendment is a pretty good example of this.

Where do you draw the line at 'arms?'. Obviously in those days, single shot muskets were about as far as it went but nowadays it seems that some modern weapons are accepted but some aren't. If it is your constitutional right to own a handgun, could you argue that it is your constitutional right to have a howitzer pointing out of your front window?

Thats a very important question. I think individuals should be allowed to own guns. For artillery or tanks, groups of citizens (militia) should be able to have them. As for nukes? as long as the safety systems like double keys and remote access codes are in place, I don't see why citizen militias should not be able to own them.

Right, so why isn't the oh so glorious constitution defended to it's fullest? The thing is rather out of date, although many people don't seem to want to admit this for some reason. The third amendment is a pretty good example of this.

It being "out of date" is merely your opinion. The majority of the first gun control laws were aimed at disarming free blacks. From there the courts and legislators nickel and dimed it further and further using whatever justification was handy at the time.

That's changing w/ US v Emerson and Parker v DC.

Right, so why isn't the oh so glorious constitution defended to it's fullest? The thing is rather out of date, although many people don't seem to want to admit this for some reason. The third amendment is a pretty good example of this.

Hmm, well if we decide its out-dated, then we should amend it. And I don't think the third amendment is out-of-date. I feel better having it in place.

Our government is a contract between the people and the state. Its not a very secure contract if only the state has weapons.

I will agree that some people should not have guns, but the more that you trust the state to protect you, the more you forfeit your freedoms.

Why dont we ask filipinos, who had a ratio of 1 gun to every man, women and child in their country? It used to be, percentage-wise, the most heavily armed populace in the world.

Guess how effective their guns were versus the tanks and helecopters of the army when the head general staged a coup

Why dont we ask filipinos, who had a ratio of 1 gun to every man, women and child in their country? It used to be, percentage-wise, the most heavily armed populace in the world.

Guess how effective their guns were versus the tanks and helecopters of the army when the head general staged a coup

You have sources to back this up?

Why don't we ask the Afghani's, who defeated one of the most powerful militaries on the planet starting out w/ bolt action and single shot rifles.

Why dont we ask filipinos, who had a ratio of 1 gun to every man, women and child in their country? It used to be, percentage-wise, the most heavily armed populace in the world.

Guess how effective their guns were versus the tanks and helecopters of the army when the head general staged a coup

right, so at the very least, if the government can have helicopters and tanks, the people should have them too.

Theory

Key: Primary Verbage, Implied Connecting Verbage

Interestingly bolded. I was just thinking about the meaning of "regulated".

People have the right to own weapons, any and all weapons.
Cool. So where can I go shop for tanks and nuclear warheads?

Cool. So where can I go shop for tanks and nuclear warheads?

Thats where the well regulated militia comes in. People can have them, but not individuals. Would you trust your local church to maintain an artillery battery? What if your neighborhood was in charge of a nuclear silo? With rights come responsibility.

You have sources to back this up?

Why don't we ask the Afghani's, who defeated one of the most powerful militaries on the planet starting out w/ bolt action and single shot rifles.


Yes. A Filipino.


But the afghans had *ak 47s, RPGs, uh idk maybe billions of dollars (and Stinger Missles, and some sattilite, plus and actual covert CIA group) from the US, billions upon billions of dollars (and many, many, guns and many, many insurgents) from Saudi Arabia and more billions of dollars (and intellegence, spymaking, more guns, and thousands of insurgents) from Pakistan.

Whearas the Filipinos had none of these.


You see, it takes funding and arms to defeat a superpower, and while insurgents are the most cost-effective, they are still not cheap. They require time, money, dedication, and a skillful learning of tactics.

Yes. A Filipino.

So that would be a no.


But the afghans had *ak 47s, RPGs, uh idk maybe billions of dollars (and Stinger Missles, and some sattilite, plus and actual covert CIA group) from the US, billions upon billions of dollars (and many, many, guns and many, many insurgents) from Saudi Arabia and more billions of dollars (and intellegence, spymaking, more guns, and thousands of insurgents) from Pakistan.
Only later. They primarily armed themselves w/ soviet equipment after victories.

Whearas the Filipinos had none of these.

From your unsourced source.



You see, it takes funding and arms to defeat a superpower, and while insurgents are the most cost-effective, they are still not cheap. They require time, money, dedication, and a skillful learning of tactics.

Which they primarily did themselves. Thank you for playing.

I was talking about this at dinner and my friends and I could only agree on one thing about the second amendment. Its kind of vague.

So how do you interpret this big run-on sentence?

I think it means tow things:


The people should form a militia for defense of the country
People have the right to own weapons, any and all weapons.


Does anyone think that conceal-carry laws violate this amendment? What about background checks to keep guns away from convicted felons? Assault weapons ban? Deadly weapons ban. Are these not all huge violations of our bill of rights?

True, but the question was "How do concealed carry laws violate the second amendment?" I also wanted to point out that there are places where open carry is illegal but unconstitutional (IMHO).

Meh. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess and carry firearms. The right is not absolute, however, any more than the other provisions of the Bill of Rights.

In other words, that right is no more a right to all weapons and no regulation than the First Amendment right to free speech is a right to defame people and yell "fire" in a crowded theater.

To quote a case often cited by those that favor gun rights, Robertson v. Baldwin (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=165&invol=275), 165 U.S. 275, 281-282 (1897) (emphasis added):

The law is perfectly well settled that the first 10 amendments to the constitution, commonly known as the 'Bill of Rights,' were not intended to lay down any novel principles of government, but simply to embody certain guaranties and immunities which we had inherited from our English ancestors, and which had, from time immemorial, been subject to certain well-recognized exceptions, arising from the necessities of the case. In incorporating these principles into the fundamental law, there was no intention of disregarding the exceptions, which continued to be recognized as if they had been formally expressed. Thus, the freedom of speech and of the press ( article 1) does not permit the publication of libels, blasphemous or indecent articles, or other publications injurious to public morals or private reputation; the right of the people to keep and bear arms (article 2) is not infringed by laws prohibiting the carrying of concealed weapons; the provision that no person shall be twice put in jeopardy (article 5) does not prevent a second trial, if upon the first trial the jury failed to agree, or if the verdict was set aside upon the defendant's motion (U. S. v. Ball, 163 U.S. 662, 627 , 16 S. Sup. Ct. 1192); nor does the provision of the same article that no one shall be a witness against himself impair his obligation to testify, if a prosecution against him be barred by the lapse of time, a pardon, or by statutory enactment (Brown v. Walker, 161 U.S. 591 , 16 Sup. Ct. 644, and cases cited). Nor does the provision that an accused person shall be confronted with the witnesses against him prevent the admission of dying declarations, or the depositions of witnesses who have died since the former trial.


why should they be banned? If you trust the government to posses these things and use them wisely, why don't you trust your fellow countrymen to do the same?

Although nuclear bombs are a little out there. There should be laws banning the production of nukes. People should be allowed to posses them, but regulation and safety systems are a big deal.

Come now. Everyone should be allowed to possess nuclear weapons -- the power to cause the destruction of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. That is just crazy.

Thats where the well regulated militia comes in. People can have them, but not individuals. Would you trust your local church to maintain an artillery battery? What if your neighborhood was in charge of a nuclear silo? With rights come responsibility.

You are seeing some sense, but you are now contradicting yourself. The right protected by the Second Amendment belongs to "the people," not merely with militias. But that is not to say the right is absolute. See the difference?

Although nuclear bombs are a little out there. There should be laws banning the production of nukes. People should be allowed to posses them, but regulation and safety systems are a big deal.

Don't worry. In many places it is illegal to detonate a nuclear bomb. For instance, if you do it in San Francisco, you may be fined $500! :eek:

The only case law from the Supreme Court I know of on the issue is US v. Miller (1939), which suggests the 2nd Amendment confers a collective right, not an individual one. Furthermore, the Circuit Courts for the most part agree that the right expressed is a collective one.

The Miller case at the very least requires that the weapons owned relate to the preservation of a well-regulated militia, and be part of "ordinary military equipment." That establishes the right to own arms is not unlimited by any means.

There's a case on the docket right now I believe, Parker v. DC, which might answer the question more clearly. That case (Parker) was a circuit court decision claiming an individual right.

I think it means: "If the British try to take over again, we should have it easier this time to get regiments of irregular troops set up and eventually a regular rebel army as well. So just in case we somehow manage to get a Loyalist elected as President, let's make sure the defense structure won't be compromised."

No more and no less.

For those most truly interested in the meaning of the Second Amendment, I refer to the recent landmark decision in Parker v. District of Columbia, 478 F.3d 370 (D.C. Cir. 2007) (sub nom. District of Columbia v. Heller), in which the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the Second Amendment protects an individual right that was violated by the District of Columbia's gun laws. Here is a pdf of the decision (http://www.gurapossessky.com/news/parker/documents/parkerdc030907.pdf). Here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parker_v._District_of_Columbia) is Wikipedia's summary of the case and here (http://www.nraila.org/Issues/FactSheets/Read.aspx?id=216&issue=010) is a summary by the NRA.

Here is a quote from the case relevant to the discussion of the breadth of protection provided by the Second Amendment:

Pistols certainly bear “some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia.” They are also in “common use” today, and probably far more so than in 1789. Nevertheless, it has been suggested by some that only colonial-era firearms (e.g., single-shot pistols) are covered by the Second Amendment. But just as the First Amendment free speech clause covers modern communication devices unknown to the founding generation, e.g., radio and television, and the Fourth Amendment protects telephonic conversation from a “search,” the Second Amendment protects the possession of the modern-day equivalents of the colonial pistol. See, e.g., Kyllo v. United States, 533 U.S. 27, 31-41 (2001) (applying Fourth Amendment standards to thermal imaging search).

That is not to suggest that the government is absolutely barred from regulating the use and ownership of pistols. The protections of the Second Amendment are subject to the same sort of reasonable restrictions that have been recognized as limiting, for instance, the First Amendment. See Ward v. Rock Against Racism, 491 U.S. 781, 791 (1989) (“[G]overnment may impose reasonable restrictions on the time, place, or manner of protected speech . . . .”). Indeed, the right to keep and bear arms—which we have explained pre-existed, and therefore was preserved by, the Second Amendment—was subject to restrictions at common law. We take these to be the sort of reasonable regulations contemplated by the drafters of the Second Amendment. For instance, it is presumably reasonable “to prohibit the carrying of weapons when under the influence of intoxicating drink, or to a church, polling place, or public assembly, or in a manner calculated to inspire error . . . .” State v. Kerner, 107 S.E. 222, 225 (N.C. 1921). And as we have noted, the United States Supreme Court has observed that prohibiting the carrying of concealed weapons does not offend the Second Amendment. Robertson, 165 U.S. at 281-82. Similarly, the Court also appears to have held that convicted felons may be deprived of their right to keep and bear arms. See Lewis v. United States, 445 U.S. 55, 65 n.8 (1980) (citing Miller, 307 U.S. at 178). These regulations promote the government’s interest in public safety consistent with our common law tradition. Just as importantly, however, they do not impair the core conduct upon which the right was premised.

Reasonable restrictions also might be thought consistent with a “well regulated Militia.” The registration of firearms gives the government information as to how many people would be armed for militia service if called up. Reasonable firearm proficiency testing would both promote public safety and produce better candidates for military service. Personal characteristics, such as insanity or felonious conduct, that make gun ownership dangerous to society also make someone unsuitable for service in the militia. Cf. D.C. Code § 49-401 (excluding “idiots, lunatics, common drunkards, vagabonds, paupers, and persons convicted of any infamous crime” from militia duty). On the other hand, it does not follow that a person who is unsuitable for militia service has no right to keep and bear arms. A physically disabled person, for instance, might not be able to participate in even the most rudimentary organized militia. But this person would still have the right to keep and bear arms, just as men over the age of forty-five and women would have that right, even though our nation has traditionally excluded them from membership in the militia. As we have explained, the right is broader than its civic purpose. See Volokh, supra, at 801-07.17

I know the quote is lengthy and dense, but I hope it helps explain how the Second Amendment, although an individual right, is not absolute.

Meh. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess and carry firearms. The right is not absolute, however, any more than the other provisions of the Bill of Rights.

In other words, that right is no more a right to all weapons and no regulation than the First Amendment right to free speech is a right to defame people and yell "fire" in a crowded theater.

To quote a case often cited by those that favor gun rights, Robertson v. Baldwin (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=165&invol=275), 165 U.S. 275, 281-282 (1897) (emphasis added):

The law is perfectly well settled that the first 10 amendments to the constitution, commonly known as the 'Bill of Rights,' were not intended to lay down any novel principles of government, but simply to embody certain guaranties and immunities which we had inherited from our English ancestors, and which had, from time immemorial, been subject to certain well-recognized exceptions, arising from the necessities of the case. In incorporating these principles into the fundamental law, there was no intention of disregarding the exceptions, which continued to be recognized as if they had been formally expressed. Thus, the freedom of speech and of the press ( article 1) does not permit the publication of libels, blasphemous or indecent articles, or other publications injurious to public morals or private reputation; the right of the people to keep and bear arms (article 2) is not infringed by laws prohibiting the carrying of concealed weapons; the provision that no person shall be twice put in jeopardy (article 5) does not prevent a second trial, if upon the first trial the jury failed to agree, or if the verdict was set aside upon the defendant's motion (U. S. v. Ball, 163 U.S. 662, 627 , 16 S. Sup. Ct. 1192); nor does the provision of the same article that no one shall be a witness against himself impair his obligation to testify, if a prosecution against him be barred by the lapse of time, a pardon, or by statutory enactment (Brown v. Walker, 161 U.S. 591 , 16 Sup. Ct. 644, and cases cited). Nor does the provision that an accused person shall be confronted with the witnesses against him prevent the admission of dying declarations, or the depositions of witnesses who have died since the former trial.



I see what you're saying about the bill of rights not being absolute, but I disagree with this court case. Maybe the ability to walk around in public with a concealed weapon is not an absolute right, but then what does having conceal-carry permit laws do to insure public safety? Why does it matter whether or not I have a permit when I carry my glock to the grocery store with me? I do not like the idea of the state having a list of all the people who carry guns around. That sort of information can be easily abused by the government.


Come now. Everyone should be allowed to possess nuclear weapons -- the power to cause the destruction of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. That is just crazy.


I agree, there should be laws against concealed nukes. I don't think individuals or small groups should have them either. Actually, the federal government does a very good job keeping our missile defense system up and ready, but I do not like the idea of the government having more powerful weapons than the people. Perhaps there is a way to take some of this responsibility from the government and give it to the people without compromising security or effectiveness.



You are seeing some sense, but you are now contradicting yourself. The right protected by the Second Amendment belongs to "the people," not merely with militias. But that is not to say the right is absolute. See the difference?

yeah thats a good point. People doesn't exactly mean militia. Sometimes you can tell that I'm not a law student.

Actually, the federal government does a very good job keeping our missile defense system up and ready, but I do not like the idea of the government having more powerful weapons than the people. Perhaps there is a way to take some of this responsibility from the government and give it to the people without compromising security or effectiveness.


Not possible. The many layered security systems on nuclear arms right now work because you'd need a large conspiracy of government people including the President in order for you to use them. Take that out of government hands, and you'll effectively have the possibility of another David Koresh or Unabomber with his hands on a nuclear device.

The only case law from the Supreme Court I know of on the issue is US v. Miller (1939), which suggests the 2nd Amendment confers a collective right, not an individual one.

You are correct that United States v. Miller (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=307&invol=174), 307 U.S. 174 (1939) is the only SCOTUS decision that directly addresses meaning of the Second Amendment. Although I used to agree that the case was clear in referring to the Second Amendment as conferring a collective right, I now believe the case is ambiguous.

There is also passing mention of the Second Amendment that implies an individual right in various cases from the 19th Century. See, e.g., Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393, 450 (1857), Robertson v. Baldwin (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=165&invol=275), 165 U.S. 275, 281-282 (1897).

As you note below, there is now a case on the docket in which the Court will re-address the question of the Second Amendment.

Furthermore, the Circuit Courts for the most part agree that the right expressed is a collective one.

This is true. Although two Circuits have recently held otherwise and the question is now before the Supreme Court.

The Miller case at the very least requires that the weapons owned relate to the preservation of a well-regulated militia, and be part of "ordinary military equipment." That establishes the right to own arms is not unlimited by any means.

Agreed.

There's a case on the docket right now I believe, Parker v. DC, which might answer the question more clearly. That case (Parker) was a circuit court decision claiming an individual right.

Yep. The Court has granted certiorari in Parker v. District of Columbia, 478 F.3d 370 (D.C. Cir. 2007) (sub nom. District of Columbia v. Heller):

The petition for a writ of certiorari is granted limited to the following question: Whether the following provisions, D.C. Code §§ 7-2502.02(a)(4), 22-4504(a), and 7-2507.02, violate the Second Amendment rights of individuals who are not affiliated with any state-regulated militia, but who wish to keep handguns and other firearms for private use in their homes?

Thankyou for doing some real research! Most of us, including myself are to lazy.



Reasonable restrictions also might be thought consistent with a “well regulated Militia.” The registration of firearms gives the government information as to how many people would be armed for militia service if called up. Reasonable firearm proficiency testing would both promote public safety and produce better candidates for military service. Personal characteristics, such as insanity or felonious conduct, that make gun ownership dangerous to society also make someone unsuitable for service in the militia. Cf. D.C. Code § 49-401 (excluding “idiots, lunatics, common drunkards, vagabonds, paupers, and persons convicted of any infamous crime” from militia duty). On the other hand, it does not follow that a person who is unsuitable for militia service has no right to keep and bear arms. A physically disabled person, for instance, might not be able to participate in even the most rudimentary organized militia. But this person would still have the right to keep and bear arms, just as men over the age of forty-five and women would have that right, even though our nation has traditionally excluded them from membership in the militia. As we have explained, the right is broader than its civic purpose. See Volokh, supra, at 801-07.17[/INDENT]
.

So by that logic, people over 45 and the physically handicapped should be exempt of the conceal carry law. And the part about needing to know who is a good candidate for a militia is a weak excuse. Its not really necessary to own a gun prior to being in a militia. Thats why they train you. And if its a volunteer militia it doesn't matter.

Not possible. The many layered security systems on nuclear arms right now work because you'd need a large conspiracy of government people including the President in order for you to use them. Take that out of government hands, and you'll effectively have the possibility of another David Koresh or Unabomber with his hands on a nuclear device.

Yes I agree. What about what I said is not possible?

The way I read the second amendment is:
Because we need to have an army to avoid being attacked by everyone and their grandmother, the people can have guns in case the govt. goes crazy.
Which would have as the standard for "arms" "arms that could be used to fight the U.S Army".
Which includes all types of guns, and all kinds of body/car armor, but not nukes.
Because:
If the govt. did go crazy, and the people did have nukes, there wouldn't be much use for them; because in order for them to do anything worth using up a nuke you'd have to use them in a city, which would have the side effect of killing millions of innocent people.
This is, incidentally, true for the govt. too, which is the second reason why the people don't need nukes.

The way I read the second amendment is:
Because we need to have an army to avoid being attacked by everyone and their grandmother, the people can have guns in case the govt. goes crazy.
Which would have as the standard for "arms" "arms that could be used to fight the U.S Army".
Which includes all types of guns, and all kinds of body/car armor, but not nukes.
Because:
If the govt. did go crazy, and the people did have nukes, there wouldn't be much use for them; because in order for them to do anything worth using up a nuke you'd have to use them in a city, which would have the side effect of killing millions of innocent people.
This is, incidentally, true for the govt. too, which is the second reason why the people don't need nukes.

yeah i follow that. So do you think people need tanks, artillery and fighter/bombers to fight the government?

And rather than have an army, what if the people were in charge of defending the country?

My reading of , "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," is that the right of the people to keep and bear Arms in the name of self-defense (including hunting) is allowed and should not be infringed upon without a compelling reason (like the First Amendment caveat of yelling FIRE).


I think that gun control legislation like D.C.s should be allowable as a police powers claim, DC has some pretty compelling reasons why they need those laws. It only bans handguns, still allowing for other weapons.

As a law student, my best guess is that the Supreme Court will affirm the District Court's ruling, nullifying D.C.s handgun law.

Thankyou for doing some real research! Most of us, including myself are to lazy.



So by that logic, people over 45 and the physically handicapped should be exempt of the conceal carry law. And the part about needing to know who is a good candidate for a militia is a weak excuse. Its not really necessary to own a gun prior to being in a militia. Thats why they train you. And if its a volunteer militia it doesn't matter.

You do realize that concealed carry laws are BY STATE... So even if it was imposed under the militia laws, it would be imposed under STATE militia laws, which are many times different than the federal militia laws composition (in Virginia, the ages are 16-55).

I want grenades. I should be able to carry grenades strapped to my chest.

My reading of , "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," is that the right of the people to keep and bear Arms in the name of self-defense (including hunting) is allowed and should not be infringed upon without a compelling reason (like the First Amendment caveat of yelling FIRE).


I think that gun control legislation like D.C.s should be allowable as a police powers claim, DC has some pretty compelling reasons why they need those laws. It only bans handguns, still allowing for other weapons.

As a law student, my best guess is that the Supreme Court will affirm the District Court's ruling, nullifying D.C.s handgun law.

Actually you are only partially correct on the DC law. Long arms are "allowed" after you go through a year long process that has to be approved by the authorities (and that isn't guaranteed) and must keep them in a state of in-operation while in your home. That is part of what SCOTUS decision covers.

Could you justify your reading of the 2nd using period sources? Why do you think SCOTUS will overturn the appellate court? Have you read the pertinent documents?

I have a feeling they will nullify the DC law, as being overly infringing... While I sympathize with those who are approving of the police powers and "compelling reasons"; there is little in the way of "compelling" reason to overtly infringe upon guaranteed rights, specifically protected by the constitution... And the rulings have been inline with protecting particular rights over affirming governmental power to infringe those rights... While I do not feel that licensing is in itself an infringement of rights; requiring a lengthy process where the authorities will only approve the license under specific reasons is overly restrictive upon the law abiding citizens and "people" which the second amendment is designed to protect.

I think the Second Amendment can be interpreted to imply that the people cannot be outright barred from owning firearms, however, the conditions of ownership can (and must) be regulated.

Today we have highly advanced weapons that have the potential for mass-slaughter if put into the wrong hands. The government has a responsibility to ensure that firearms do not fall into the hands of people that will misuse them. That is why it is important to have background checks and registration and permits. When you have a weapon, you have the ability to kill a whole lot of people. With that kind of power, comes a certain level of responsibility. The government must do its part in making sure only responsible citizens have weapons. We do not want criminals or disturbed individuals to easily gain access to firearms.

The government makes people register their vehicles and requires driver's licenses because operating a motor vehicle requires an individual to be responsible. I expect the same (if not more) responsibility when someone buys a firearm. Purchasers of firearms must know how to safely operate their new weapons and they must have nothing in their past that would make it unsafe for them to possess firearms.

As for tanks, artillery, and other sorts of heavy military-grade equipment... well, I think the sheer cost required to maintain such things bars ordinary citizens from having them, but I suppose HIGHLY-regulated private groups could be permitted to maintain them. This would be the "well-regulated militia" and I would hope to God that it would be well-regulated. The potential to destroy is gigantic with these things and they were built only to destroy. If you think people should be able to possess them with no regulation... you're mad.

As for nuclear arms... no. No way in hell should anyone be allowed to possess such things. I personally would argue the government shouldn't even have them let alone private groups. The responsibility levels in possessing such awesome weapons only belong to the most stable and rational states.

The people should form a militia for defense of the country
People have the right to own weapons, any and all weapons.


Small correction:
People have the right to own weapons, any and all weapons, for the sole purpose of forming a militia for defense of the country.

This means it is completely legal to shoot the hypothetical invading soldier or hypothetical oppressive warlord that has taken over your country.

It does not mean you are allowed to use those guns on burglars or for any other purpose.

Small correction:
People have the right to own weapons, any and all weapons, for the sole purpose of forming a militia for defense of the country.

This means it is completely legal to shoot the hypothetical invading soldier or hypothetical oppressive warlord that has taken over your country.

It does not mean you are allowed to use those guns on burglars or for any other purpose.

What's wrong with using a gun on someone who is in the process of burgling your house? If they have a weapon, you better believe that I'll shoot them.

What's wrong with using a gun on someone who is in the process of burgling your house? If they have a weapon, you better believe that I'll shoot them.

If it is right or wrong to shoot is not the question here - the question is what the second amendment says.
Shooting a burglar with your gun is not a constitutional right in the USA, even though owning the gun is.

If it is right or wrong to shoot is not the question here - the question is what the second amendment says.
Shooting a burglar with your gun is not a constitutional right in the USA, even though owning the gun is.

I'd argue that the right to defend yourself or your property is a constitutional right; albeit a non-enumerated one.

People have the right to own weapons, any and all weapons.
[/LIST]

So you have the right to own a nuclear bomb?

I'd argue that the right to defend yourself or your property is a constitutional right; albeit a non-enumerated one.

Hmmm. Defensible indeed. Not included in the second amendment, but somewhat in the spirit of the whole document.
If and when deadly force is an appropiate response can be left to the courts.

Small correction:
People have the right to own weapons, any and all weapons, for the sole purpose of forming a militia for defense of the country.

This means it is completely legal to shoot the hypothetical invading soldier or hypothetical oppressive warlord that has taken over your country.

It does not mean you are allowed to use those guns on burglars or for any other purpose.

Incorrect, it also includes upholding the laws of the Union.

Hmmm. Defensible indeed. Not included in the second amendment, but somewhat in the spirit of the whole document.
If and when deadly force is an appropiate response can be left to the courts.

Indeed, I don't see any problem with some form of judicial review of self-defense cases as, once again, an overt infringement of the right... There should be a difference between shooting an armed robber who is posing a real threat to the person(s) upon a property, and shooting an unarmed robber in the back as they flee.

You do realize that concealed carry laws are BY STATE... So even if it was imposed under the militia laws, it would be imposed under STATE militia laws, which are many times different than the federal militia laws composition (in Virginia, the ages are 16-55).

yes, and I still contest that conceal-carry laws offer no protection to the general public and are an infringement of the 2nd amendment.

I think the Second Amendment can be interpreted to imply that the people cannot be outright barred from owning firearms, however, the conditions of ownership can (and must) be regulated.

Today we have highly advanced weapons that have the potential for mass-slaughter if put into the wrong hands. The government has a responsibility to ensure that firearms do not fall into the hands of people that will misuse them. That is why it is important to have background checks and registration and permits. When you have a weapon, you have the ability to kill a whole lot of people. With that kind of power, comes a certain level of responsibility. The government must do its part in making sure only responsible citizens have weapons. We do not want criminals or disturbed individuals to easily gain access to firearms.

The government makes people register their vehicles and requires driver's licenses because operating a motor vehicle requires an individual to be responsible. I expect the same (if not more) responsibility when someone buys a firearm. Purchasers of firearms must know how to safely operate their new weapons and they must have nothing in their past that would make it unsafe for them to possess firearms.

As for tanks, artillery, and other sorts of heavy military-grade equipment... well, I think the sheer cost required to maintain such things bars ordinary citizens from having them, but I suppose HIGHLY-regulated private groups could be permitted to maintain them. This would be the "well-regulated militia" and I would hope to God that it would be well-regulated. The potential to destroy is gigantic with these things and they were built only to destroy. If you think people should be able to possess them with no regulation... you're mad.

As for nuclear arms... no. No way in hell should anyone be allowed to possess such things. I personally would argue the government shouldn't even have them let alone private groups. The responsibility levels in possessing such awesome weapons only belong to the most stable and rational states.

Agreed, except for nukes, people should be allowed to have them so long as their is a large security network in control.

yes, and I still contest that conceal-carry laws offer no protection to the general public and are an infringement of the 2nd amendment.

You're not forbidden by concealed carry laws from carrying a weapon; merely carrying the weapon in a manner in which the weapon is concealed from the view of others... So explain to me how "not allowing one to carry a weapon hidden upon your person without this concealed weapons permit" infringes on your right to carry a weapon...

yes, and I still contest that conceal-carry laws offer no protection to the general public and are an infringement of the 2nd amendment.

I'm going to differ w/ you on this. Shall Issue laws are currently not an infringement in that the authorities are required to give you the license if you are legally able to own a firearms (ie not a felon) and in most cases go through a a course that is inexpensive and regularly available. These shouldn't be classified as an infringement until the Gov't decides to start banning the classes or making the license beyond the reach of the average citizen. May issue laws are an infringement.

Registration would have had the same argument to support it if it hadn't been used in nearly every case to ban and confiscate firearms. Since it has been regularly used for that, it does classify as an infringement.

It is a good idea to ban guns from violent criminals and mental patients. It is no use to ban guns from the general public. That would only give criminals free reign. I think what some don't realize is that only law abiding citezins, who pose no threat to the peace or others, will turn in thier guns. There are enogh guns on the streets to arm plenty of criminals. They are the danger and illegal trafficking can't be cleaned up by government action. And all the railing against gunshops and shows is nonsense. Why would a criminal pay 500$ at a gunstore or show for a new gun when he can by it for 100$ and a few dimebags from the dealer.
Oh and the trick is to shoot the criminal in the head and then you're the only witness.
(Don't pull the nuke crap because that is not what I'm validating)

If they're not allowed to infringe on the people's right to bear arms, how do they have the ability to abuse the information? As to privacy, how is it a violation of privacy when the reason for a right to bear arms is for the purpose of having a militia to call... Wouldn't the state need to know WHO the potential components of the militia are, for when they are needed to be called?

They'll know who has a gun, and when shit hits the fan Big Brother will come a knock knock knockin' on gun owners' doors asking for their guns. When that happens there will be lots of dead cops, and lots of dead gun owners.

In CT, there is no registration of firearms (other than what was registered as an assault weapon when the CT AWB took effect, and full/select fire weapons, which are registered with the BATFE). So, even if someone had a pistol permit (which I don't, because I'm a procrastinator), that wouldn't necessarily mean they'd own a firearm (ahthough I do). In fact, I believe my older sister has a pistol permit, even though all the firearms in her house are ones my brother in law bought before they were married.

I'm going to differ w/ you on this. Shall Issue laws are currently not an infringement in that the authorities are required to give you the license if you are legally able to own a firearms (ie not a felon) and in most cases go through a a course that is inexpensive and regularly available. These shouldn't be classified as an infringement until the Gov't decides to start banning the classes or making the license beyond the reach of the average citizen. May issue laws are an infringement.

Registration would have had the same argument to support it if it hadn't been used in nearly every case to ban and confiscate firearms. Since it has been regularly used for that, it does classify as an infringement.

Yeah, right now the states don't abuse that information, but its definitely a step in the wrong direction to require permits and paperwork to own or carry a gun. The government does not need that information and the more laws they pass the more freedom we lose IMO.

You have sources to back this up?

Why don't we ask the Afghani's, who defeated one of the most powerful militaries on the planet starting out w/ bolt action and single shot rifles.

The Afgans had huge advantages that America doesn't. For a start, the Russians barely knew their way around. Secondly, they were defending near-nonnegotiable terrain, and thirdly, they were very few urban population centres that could be captured and used to the advantage of the Russians.

You're not forbidden by concealed carry laws from carrying a weapon; merely carrying the weapon in a manner in which the weapon is concealed from the view of others... So explain to me how "not allowing one to carry a weapon hidden upon your person without this concealed weapons permit" infringes on your right to carry a weapon...

So I can walk around town with an M1 Garand slung over my shoulder? Go to the grocery store? To the mall? etc?

So I can walk around town with an M1 Garand slung over my shoulder? Go to the grocery store? To the mall? etc?

In some states, yes... You could...

In some states, yes... You could...

Although the grocery store or mall might impose their own rules on what you can and cannot do on their private property.

Although the grocery store or mall might impose their own rules on what you can and cannot do on their private property.

True, but then, I've never been one to argue that enumerated or non-enumerated constitutional rights apply to private businesses, and therefore a mall or grocery store can impose whatever restrictions is deemed necessary on their property...

You're not forbidden by concealed carry laws from carrying a weapon; merely carrying the weapon in a manner in which the weapon is concealed from the view of others... So explain to me how "not allowing one to carry a weapon hidden upon your person without this concealed weapons permit" infringes on your right to carry a weapon...

Why should I need a permit to carry a gun in my pocket? Maybe I wouldn't be apposed to conceal-carry if I knew it was for the good of society or national defense, but it isn't. Conceal-carry laws are pointless and I don't trust the state to know who has guns and who doesn't. That sort of information has been abused by governments (you know who you are you limeys) since 1776.

True, but then, I've never been one to argue that enumerated or non-enumerated constitutional rights apply to private businesses, and therefore a mall or grocery store can impose whatever restrictions is deemed necessary on their property...

People walk in to the store where I work with guns on their hips all the time. Although, walking into Macy's in downtown Atlanta with a rifle slung over your shoulder might scare some people. Handguns are a little more low key and most people just assume that you are an off duty cop or a security guard if you carry one and dress nice.

I guess people are just used to seeing handguns but walking into a mall with a rifle slung over your shoulder is really no different, it just looks dangerous.

People walk in to the store where I work with guns on their hips all the time. Although, walking into Macy's in downtown Atlanta with a rifle slung over your shoulder might scare some people. Handguns are a little more low key and most people just assume that you are an off duty cop or a security guard if you carry one and dress nice.

I guess people are just used to seeing handguns but walking into a mall with a rifle slung over your shoulder is really no different, it just looks dangerous.

But its legal to carry a gun?

But its legal to carry a gun?

yes, but if mall security asks you to leave, you better.

People walk in to the store where I work with guns on their hips all the time. Although, walking into Macy's in downtown Atlanta with a rifle slung over your shoulder might scare some people. Handguns are a little more low key and most people just assume that you are an off duty cop or a security guard if you carry one and dress nice.

I guess people are just used to seeing handguns but walking into a mall with a rifle slung over your shoulder is really no different, it just looks dangerous.
Where do you work? I don't believe you, when you say people walk around with visible firearms. Not in Atlanta and probably not in the suburbs.

Where do you work? I don't believe you, when you say people walk around with visible firearms. Not in Atlanta and probably not in the suburbs.

I work at CVS pharmacy in Milledgeville Georgia (population app. 19,000 in the city limits). My hometown is Atlanta. I moved here to go to school.

I work at CVS pharmacy in Milledgeville Georgia (population app. 19,000 in the city limits). My hometown is Atlanta. I moved here to go to school.

*has been to Milledgeville*

*totally believes it*

You never answered my question, Soyut. Do you believe that individuals have the right to own nuclear bombs?

yes, but if mall security asks you to leave, you better.

What if you already have your gun drawn and they don't?

What if you already have your gun drawn and they don't?

I'd assume that in that instance, they'd back off, and once they were out of sight, call the police to deal with the situation. While waiting for the police, they'd probably contain the situation the best they could, by not allowing customers into the area that you are.

I was talking about this at dinner and my friends and I could only agree on one thing about the second amendment. Its kind of vague.

So how do you interpret this big run-on sentence?

I think it means tow things:


The people should form a militia for defense of the country
People have the right to own weapons, any and all weapons.


I view it as thus:

The "well-regulated" means overseen or having a check upon its power. Militia would mean military and by virtue of that the government. Therefore, the People's right to own firearms is directly intended to be a check on the government.

That's how I see it and that's how I'll always see it. It's a necessary check in my mind.

What if you already have your gun drawn and they don't?

BAm! BAM! people get shot and die! wait who said anything about drawing guns?

*has been to Milledgeville*

*totally believes it*

You never answered my question, Soyut. Do you believe that individuals have the right to own nuclear bombs?

Oh I'm sorry, the answer is NO.

But I do believe that the people should be able to own them. So long as the proper security measures are in place. But I can imagine some fundamentalist baptist neighbor hood getting their hands on a nuke and aiming it at Mecca (that would also require an ICBM). I think most Americans can be trusted with that responsibility so long as not 1 person or a close nit group is put in charge of a nuclear device.

I view it as thus:

The "well-regulated" means overseen or having a check upon its power. Militia would mean military and by virtue of that the government. Therefore, the People's right to own firearms is directly intended to be a check on the government.

That's how I see it and that's how I'll always see it. It's a necessary check in my mind.

Thats pretty obvious, but also very interesting. Do you think that the people can regulate the militia with only pistols and rifles? What do you think about giving tanks and missiles directly to the people and making them defend the country? Like what Jefferson said about making every citizen a soldier.

Why should I need a permit to carry a gun in my pocket? Maybe I wouldn't be apposed to conceal-carry if I knew it was for the good of society or national defense, but it isn't. Conceal-carry laws are pointless and I don't trust the state to know who has guns and who doesn't. That sort of information has been abused by governments (you know who you are you limeys) since 1776.

I'm curious because I thought you were usually a staunch supporter of "states' rights."

Why on this one issue are you afraid of the state and local governments?

Why should state and local governments have the power to regulate the privacy of my bedroom and to discriminate on the basis of race, gender, or sexual orientation, but not have any power regarding firearms?

EDIT: I note that on this issue there is a reading of the Second Amendment as protecting a states' right rather than an individual right. In fact, this is the majority reading of the courts. But you choose not to embrace that states' right position and instead take an extremist individual position.

I'm curious because I thought you were usually a staunch supporter of "states' rights."

Why on this one issue are you afraid of the state and local governments?

Why should state and local governments have the power to regulate the privacy of my bedroom and to discriminate on the basis of race, gender, or sexual orientation, but not have any power regarding firearms?

EDIT: I note that on this issue there is a reading of the Second Amendment as protecting a states' right rather than an individual right. In fact, this is the majority reading of the courts. But you choose not to embrace that states' right position and instead take an extremist individual position.

In my mind, the rights of the individual come before the rights of the state which come before the rights on the feds. Is that backwards? I don't care. Maybe I'm an anarchist and I just don't know it yet.

Oh I'm sorry, the answer is NO.

But I do believe that the people should be able to own them. So long as the proper security measures are in place. But I can imagine some fundamentalist baptist neighbor hood getting their hands on a nuke and aiming it at Mecca (that would also require an ICBM). I think most Americans can be trusted with that responsibility so long as not 1 person or a close nit group is put in charge of a nuclear device.

So you do think that the government can restrict arms ownership. The difference between you and anyone you might argue with is most likely simply disagreement over what constitutes a reasonable restriction.

In my mind, the rights of the individual come before the rights of the state which come before the rights on the feds. Is that backwards? I don't care. Maybe I'm an anarchist and I just don't know it yet.

Wouldn't you support keeping the government out of personal decisions (such as who to sleep with or how) and treating everyone equally under the law then?

So you do think that the government can restrict arms ownership. The difference between you and anyone you might argue with is most likely simply disagreement over what constitutes a reasonable restriction.

Yeah, pretty much I guess.


Wouldn't you support keeping the government out of personal decisions (such as who to sleep with or how) and treating everyone equally under the law then?

yes? I think

In my mind, the rights of the individual come before the rights of the state which come before the rights on the feds. Is that backwards? I don't care. Maybe I'm an anarchist and I just don't know it yet.

This heirarchy is fine. But remember that when we are dealing with the Bill of Rights and/or the 14th Amendment, we are talking about individual rights protected by the federal Constitution. So those should be first on the list.

So you do think that the government can restrict arms ownership. The difference between you and anyone you might argue with is most likely simply disagreement over what constitutes a reasonable restriction.
Yeah, pretty much I guess.

Agreed. Although we vastly disagree as to what is a reasonable restricition, we agree that there are some such restrictions.

Wouldn't you support keeping the government out of personal decisions (such as who to sleep with or how) and treating everyone equally under the law then?
yes? I think

Good. We are making progress. So issues like abortion, gay marriage, gun control, are issues of individual rights and those take precedence over the powers of states on such issues. Right?

Does anyone think that conceal-carry laws violate this amendment? What about background checks to keep guns away from convicted felons? Assault weapons ban? Deadly weapons ban. Are these not all huge violations of our bill of rights?

As long as the laws/statutes don't violate the basic principal that people are allowed to bear arms then not a problem. The gun laws are meant to put a more specific definition on what 'bearing arms' means. I don't think anyone would disagree that it's not okay to own nuclear weapons, for example.

The argument has been where to draw the line with regard to weapons regulation. I think requiring registration of all weapons is a good idea myself as we wouldn't want to go back to the Wild West or the various forms of vigilantiism (sp?) we have had in the past. Don't want people gunning each other down in the street.

I work at CVS pharmacy in Milledgeville Georgia (population app. 19,000 in the city limits). My hometown is Atlanta. I moved here to go to school.
I understand. My apologies for thinking that I was the only one here that lived in a rural part of the state.

People walk in to the store where I work with guns on their hips all the time. Although, walking into Macy's in downtown Atlanta with a rifle slung over your shoulder might scare some people. Handguns are a little more low key and most people just assume that you are an off duty cop or a security guard if you carry one and dress nice.

I guess people are just used to seeing handguns but walking into a mall with a rifle slung over your shoulder is really no different, it just looks dangerous.

Yes, but my point was, if the property owner decided to not allow customers to do so, it's not a violation of your constitutional rights, as it is protections against government actions.

So you have the right to own a nuclear bomb?

Of course.

The second amendment was put in place by the founding fathers to prevent a British invasion. The 2nd amendment is so that if an army attacks, people will be ready. Not that there will be no standing army, but the fact that if a lot of the army is fighting a battle, lets say in New England. Battles are going up north. A few divisions may be down south, but who's to say that the division will get to that area when they need to? If the British invade near Georgia, and the closest army is in Virginia, how will they get there in time? To prevent a counter attack after the American Revolution, they allowed people to carry guns in case something were to happen. This became useful in the War of 1812 and the American Civil war. That is why the amendment was put into place.

The second amendment was put in place by the founding fathers to prevent a British invasion. The 2nd amendment is so that if an army attacks, people will be ready. Not that there will be no standing army, but the fact that if a lot of the army is fighting a battle, lets say in New England. Battles are going up north. A few divisions may be down south, but who's to say that the division will get to that area when they need to? If the British invade near Georgia, and the closest army is in Virginia, how will they get there in time? To prevent a counter attack after the American Revolution, they allowed people to carry guns in case something were to happen. This became useful in the War of 1812 and the American Civil war. That is why the amendment was put into place.

Good illustration... During the revolutionary war a good chunk of the Continental Army was fighting in the New England area... when Lord Cornwallis was fighting in South Carolina... It was large groups of militia which chased Cornwallis out of South Carolina.

The second amendment was put in place by the founding fathers to prevent a British invasion. The 2nd amendment is so that if an army attacks, people will be ready. Not that there will be no standing army, but the fact that if a lot of the army is fighting a battle, lets say in New England. Battles are going up north. A few divisions may be down south, but who's to say that the division will get to that area when they need to? If the British invade near Georgia, and the closest army is in Virginia, how will they get there in time? To prevent a counter attack after the American Revolution, they allowed people to carry guns in case something were to happen. This became useful in the War of 1812 and the American Civil war. That is why the amendment was put into place.

Really? Do you have some primary source evidence for this?

Actually, yes. It's all over the internet. Like at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

Really? Do you have some primary source evidence for this?

If you look at Federalist 46, it would appear that protection from the Federal government is more like what was intended by Mr Madison.

Let a regular army, fully equal to the resources of the country, be formed; and let it be entirely at the devotion of the federal government; still it would not be going too far to say, that the State governments, with the people on their side, would be able to repel the danger. The highest number to which, according to the best computation, a standing army can be carried in any country, does not exceed one hundredth part of the whole number of souls; or one twenty-fifth part of the number able to bear arms. This proportion would not yield, in the United States, an army of more than twenty-five or thirty thousand men. To these would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands, officered by men chosen from among themselves, fighting for their common liberties, and united and conducted by governments possessing their affections and confidence. It may well be doubted, whether a militia thus circumstanced could ever be conquered by such a proportion of regular troops.

And in No. 25, Hamilton states clearly that the militia isn't made for a defense against foreign invasion.

The American militia, in the course of the late war, have, by their valor on numerous occasions, erected eternal monuments to their fame; but the bravest of them feel and know that the liberty of their country could not have been established by their efforts alone, however great and valuable they were. War, like most other things, is a science to be acquired and perfected by diligence, by perserverance, by time, and by practice.

Thats pretty obvious, but also very interesting. Do you think that the people can regulate the militia with only pistols and rifles? What do you think about giving tanks and missiles directly to the people and making them defend the country? Like what Jefferson said about making every citizen a soldier.

I don't think that would be necessary. It's unfortunate that since the 2nd Amendment was written warfare and technology has advanced to the point where it is much harder for the private citizen to place a check upon their government through firearms alone.

But it is not impossible, as shown by the example of the Iraqis who are making a mess of Iraq with only firearms and improvised explosives. We would do well to follow their example should we need to defend ourselves against a government run amok.

So no, I would not advise giving tanks and missiles directly to the people.

I don't think that would be necessary. It's unfortunate that since the 2nd Amendment was written warfare and technology has advanced to the point where it is much harder for the private citizen to place a check upon their government through firearms alone.

But it is not impossible, as shown by the example of the Iraqis who are making a mess of Iraq with only firearms and improvised explosives. We would do well to follow their example should we need to defend ourselves against a government run amok.

So no, I would not advise giving tanks and missiles directly to the people.
When the Second Amendment was approved, Madison did say that a properly formed government, i.e. a Federal government that was more dependent on the States, would be unlikely to present a threat to liberty. Of course, through our complacence, we've allowed the Federal government to become less dependent on the States and people to whatever end that may bring.

When the Second Amendment was approved, Madison did say that a properly formed government, i.e. a Federal government that was more dependent on the States, would be unlikely to present a threat to liberty. Of course, through our complacence, we've allowed the Federal government to become less dependent on the States and people to whatever end that may bring.

I disagree with Madison, but that's because I've always been an anti-states right person. I've never seen the point of "state rights" anyway. They've always been abused by those who would use them to oppress others and ignored whenever they are used to try and lessen oppression(or worse, those who would use them to oppress argue for the federal government to intervene.)

But my main point is that a government is a government is a government. A state government is not any less--or more for that matter--likely to become an oppressive dictatorship than a federal government and as such the 2nd Amendment is an equal check upon all governments in this country.

I disagree with Madison, but that's because I've always been an anti-states right person. I've never seen the point of "state rights" anyway. They've always been abused by those who would use them to oppress others and ignored whenever they are used to try and lessen oppression(or worse, those who would use them to oppress argue for the federal government to intervene.)

But my main point is that a government is a government is a government. A state government is not any less--or more for that matter--likely to become an oppressive dictatorship than a federal government and as such the 2nd Amendment is an equal check upon all governments in this country.
I think his point -- and I can't remember in which Federalist it was published, was that a weak Federal government doesn't have the resources to become 'imperial'. The same can be said for any government that is dependent on the people. As long as the people control the government, that same government can't become imperial, corrupt, or despotic.

Of course, the nay-sayers were right on this one -- I think de Toqueville put it best about democracy being a great way to put your hand in someone else's pocket. We have let our government become corrupt and despotic at the Federal level and I don't know that the militia is enough to throw it off.

I was talking about this at dinner and my friends and I could only agree on one thing about the second amendment. Its kind of vague.

So how do you interpret this big run-on sentence?

I think it means tow things:


The people should form a militia for defense of the country
People have the right to own weapons, any and all weapons.


Watch Office Space. Pay attention to the guy who keeps muttering "I could burn down the building." Do you really want people like him to own nukes? What about the guy who shot up the mall recently? What do you think would have happened if he used this mythological right to own grenades that you seem to think he had?

I think his point -- and I can't remember in which Federalist it was published, was that a weak Federal government doesn't have the resources to become 'imperial'. The same can be said for any government that is dependent on the people. As long as the people control the government, that same government can't become imperial, corrupt, or despotic.

Of course, the nay-sayers were right on this one -- I think de Toqueville put it best about democracy being a great way to put your hand in someone else's pocket. We have let our government become corrupt and despotic at the Federal level and I don't know that the militia is enough to throw it off.

I think I can agree with that to a point, that point being that it's not so much the power of the federal government that matters so much as whether it remains subservient to the People. So long as the People continue to hold the reigns we needn't fear a powerful federal government.

I think it could be argued, and don't know whether it has, that 'bear arms' can be taken literally and narrowly enough to get around the absurd-conclusion arguments like 'but then people could own atomic bombs and tanks and poison gas.'

If a distinction is drawn between arms that people actually bear, physically, like rifles and pistols and other man portable small arms, and weapons that people operate, like tanks and atomic bombs and artillery, then the right could be construed only to protect the former.

It would also be reasonable to regulate explosives separately, which are not arms in themselves, and which would cover hand grenades, rockets, and missiles.

This would leave us where we were before Reagan's closing of the NFA register, with small arms legal with certain safeguards against buying machine guns and explosives, a state of affairs I don't see a problem with.

Watch Office Space. Pay attention to the guy who keeps muttering "I could burn down the building." Do you really want people like him to own nukes?

Just because I'd rather he not doesn't mean I don't recognize his right to do it. And at any rate, it's better than the alternative (slavery to the state).

What about the guy who shot up the mall recently? What do you think would have happened if he used this mythological right to own grenades that you seem to think he had?

Nothing "mythological" about it. It's very real, and follows logically from the mere fact of his existence as a human being.

It is far better to die as a free man than to live as a slave.

Yes I agree. What about what I said is not possible?

Giving the responsibility to average people without compromising security.

The problem with the most liberal of interpretations of the second amendment (those that swear it allows the ownership of any and all weapons) is the misinterpretation of one word - the last one in the sentence in question.

'Infringed' does not equal 'regulated'. The definition of infringe in this context is "encroach beyond the usual or normal limits". Our society and courts have determined that 'normal limits' do not include explosives, automatic weapons and many other things. In short, the prudent and sensible regulation of weapon ownership is within the scope of the second amendment.