2nd Ammendment

[Mogul]

"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. "

Those that interpret this as stating that the Militia has the right to keep and bear arms are connecting 'well regulated Militia' with 'right to keep and bear arms', correct? How can you drop 'the right of the people' out of it? 'The right of the people to keep and bear arms' is one statement of a right... is that the right given to the Militia? Doesn't sound correct to me.

BTW, as I understand it, at that time every able bodied man of age was part of the militia. Your gun you kept and cared for at your house. The public could not and still can not defend itself from a tyranical government if it were otherwise.

Peace

 

[jayleew]

Guns don't cause crime or prevent it. What they do is make the results of crime worse than what they would have been without the guns.

That is a logical assumption, but not evidence. Allegedly, in Florida their violent crime has dropped 80% Can anyone confirm this?

 

[chuck u farley]

"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. "

Those that interpret this as stating that the Militia has the right to keep and bear arms are connecting 'well regulated Militia' with 'right to keep and bear arms', correct? How can you drop 'the right of the people' out of it? 'The right of the people to keep and bear arms' is one statement of a right... is that the right given to the Militia? Doesn't sound correct to me.

BTW, as I understand it, at that time every able bodied man of age was part of the militia. Your gun you kept and cared for at your house. The public could not and still can not defend itself from a tyranical government if it were otherwise.

Peace

Well stated, Mogul. But please take it easy on these guys. You see, I think Spidegoat and Raven are probably eighth graders or something, and they really haven't learned much yet. They obviously have never heard of Richard Henry Lee or any of the other movers and shakers who contributed to fashioning the second amendment. If they had even a little familiarity with the history, they would not be making such asinine statements.

 

[mars13]

http://www.fdle.state.fl.us/FSAC/Crime_Trends/violent/index.asp

http://www.fdle.state.fl.us/FSAC/Crime_Trends/violent/fa_index.asp


http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/glance.htm#serious


but since the law is relitivly new,they july2005-december 2005 stats are not finished yet.

trust me,violent crime has dropped to almost nothing.


also,the second amendment states that a well regulated militia AND the peoples right to bear arms,shall not be infringed.it means that public militias,and the citizens right to carry a weapon shall not be infringed upon.

 

[spidergoat]

Handguns are almost useless for the purposes of the 2nd ammendment. I have nothing against owning a rifle, I think everyone should be required to serve some time in the military, and be trained in shooting. Remember, in the early days of the US, there was no standing army. Today, we have a National Guard, which is a well regulated militia. The proliferation of handguns is a big problem in the US, just compare the rates of homicide between the UK and the US. It's 6.3% US .vs 1.35% in the UK.

Basically, the gun industry has sold everyone a lie.

 

[spuriousmonkey]

Amendment II

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.

Ok. This is the first time I have seen this amendment. Obviously it doesn't specifically state that the people should be allowed to have firearms, although often arms is referred to as firearms. Arms means technically weapons.

It doesn't say the right to keep ALL POSSIBLE ARMS. Otherwise it would be ok to have a tank, a nuke, biological weapons in your backgarden. According to this logic you don't necessarily have the right to own firearms, guns, pistols, semi-automatic guns.

I think it would be perfectly legal to restrict the people's arms to knives, spears, baseball bats, bare fists etc.

Moreover and more importantly, It is obvious from this amentment that you should only be allowed to have arms if you are part of a well regulated militia. WELL REGULATED MILITIA!!!

Why doesn't anyone ever mention this? How many of you gun owners are member of a well regulated militia???

About zero?

thought so.

 

[chuck u farley]

Amendment II

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.

Ok. This is the first time I have seen this amendment. Obviously it doesn't specifically state that the people should be allowed to have firearms, although often arms is referred to as firearms. Arms means technically weapons.

It doesn't say the right to keep ALL POSSIBLE ARMS. Otherwise it would be ok to have a tank, a nuke, biological weapons in your backgarden. According to this logic you don't necessarily have the right to own firearms, guns, pistols, semi-automatic guns.

I think it would be perfectly legal to restrict the people's arms to knives, spears, baseball bats, bare fists etc.

Moreover and more importantly, It is obvious from this amentment that you should only be allowed to have arms if you are part of a well regulated militia. WELL REGULATED MILITIA!!!

Why doesn't anyone ever mention this? How many of you gun owners are member of a well regulated militia???

About zero?

thought so.

Spurious, how long are you going to continue to go through life without ever learning or understanding anything? Please do a little bit of homework. The militia are the people for crying out loud. If you would do just a little bit of research you would understand that.

Here, I'll help you out a little because I like you and I hate to see you make such a fool of yourself. Read this please:

http://www.constitution.org/mil/cs_milit.htm

 

[spidergoat]

The National Guard is the people, too. I really wish you would stop with the condescending attitude, chuck u farley, there is a wide variety of valid opinions on the subject of gun ownership.

 

[Baron Max]

...., there is a wide variety of valid opinions on the subject of gun ownership.

Well, I sure don't see how there can be!! It's written right there in black n' white, plain as the nose on ye're face! One of our most sacred and revered documents of government! How can you argue with that part and not argue with all of it???

And one can't possibly argue much about the decrease in crime since the 'permit to carry' law was passed in Florida in '88 (I think it was '88). And that same reduced violent crime rate is true in other 'carry' states. How can you argue with it?

Baron Max

 

[spuriousmonkey]

Spurious, how long are you going to continue to go through life without ever learning or understanding anything? Please do a little bit of homework. The militia are the people for crying out loud. If you would do just a little bit of research you would understand that.

Here, I'll help you out a little because I like you and I hate to see you make such a fool of yourself. Read this please:

http://www.constitution.org/mil/cs_milit.htm

A well regulated militia is not the same as THE people.

People is people. Unless they are well regulated and bear arms they are not a well regulated militia. That is what it says. Obviously people have their own interpretations of what is what. By according to the letter of the amendment people DO NOT have the right to bear arms. A well regulated militia has the right. WELL REGULATED it says. How should I interpret WELL REGULATED as being the same as PEOPLE?

Because someone says so?

 

[spidergoat]

There are all kinds of guns you can't own, a howitzer, for instance, and full auto weapons (which are the preferred kind for war), so it is legal to regulate gun ownership in some ways. This is what I mean by a diversity of valid opinions. Hunting weapons have never been in jeopardy.

The insurgency in Iraq would be ineffective if all they had were rifles, how do people expect to fight the federal government without rocket launchers and bombs?

 

[spuriousmonkey]

from your own link

The word "militia" is a Latin abstract noun, meaning "military service", not an "armed group" (with the connotation of plurality), and that is the way the Latin-literate Founders used it. The collective term, meaning "army" or "soldiery" was "volgus militum". Since for the Romans "military service" included law enforcement and disaster response, it might be more meaningfully translated today as "defense service", associated with a "defense duty", which attaches to individuals as much as to groups of them, organized or otherwise.

It doesn't really say militia means people now does it? I know I am a bit thick, but I am not blind.

 

[spuriousmonkey]

There are all kinds of guns you can't own, a howitzer, for instance, and full auto weapons (which are the preferred kind for war), so it is legal to regulate gun ownership in some ways. This is what I mean by a diversity of valid opinions. Hunting weapons have never been in jeopardy.

The insurgency in Iraq would be ineffective if all they had were rifles, how do people expect to fight the federal government without rocket launchers and bombs?

My iranian friend said he had 2 kalashnikovs in his home when he was still in Iran. Because they were only 20$ or so. I think weapon penetration is quite high in Iran because of the Iran-Iraq war. Something similar must be the case in Iraq. And isn't the Iraqi militia still fighting for freedom?

 

[Baron Max]

There are all kinds of guns you can't own, a howitzer, for instance, and full auto weapons (which are the preferred kind for war), so it is legal to regulate gun ownership in some ways. This is what I mean by a diversity of valid opinions.

No, I think ye're making the mistake of calling it "legal" just because there weren't many people who cared to own howitzers, etc, and so didn't complain. But that does NOT make regulating howitzers legal! It may be a law, but it just ain't been challenged in the Supreme Court yet, that's all!

...how do people expect to fight the federal government without rocket launchers and bombs?

I'm sure that once we start the revolution, we won't really be too worried about following all of the laws and rules, do you????

Baron Max

 

[Baron Max]

It doesn't really say militia means people now does it? I know I am a bit thick, but I am not blind.

No, I don't think ye're blind OR a bit thick ....but ye're just playing word games that have little or no relevance to the actual discussion. For one thing, you have no idea what the founding fathers meant when they used the word "militia". So arguing about symantics is pretty senseless.

Baron Max

 

[chuck u farley]

A well regulated militia is not the same as THE people.

People is people. Unless they are well regulated and bear arms they are not a well regulated militia. That is what it says. Obviously people have their own interpretations of what is what. By according to the letter of the amendment people DO NOT have the right to bear arms. A well regulated militia has the right. WELL REGULATED it says. How should I interpret WELL REGULATED as being the same as PEOPLE?

Because someone says so?

Hi Spurious:
What part of "all men capable of bearing arms" do you not understand.

Now, you do the same thing here as you do when you have a disagreement with someone on a biological topic. You have your mind made up ahead of time. You then refuse to acknowledge what is right in front of your face. You stick with your position even if it's clear that you are wrong. That kind of approach is what is hampering you in your efforts to become a competent research scientist.

Try approaching a topic with an open mind. Then, consider all of the evidence and accept the truth no matter where it leads. Please try that. Best of luck to you.

 

[spuriousmonkey]

Hi Spurious:
What part of "all men capable of bearing arms" do you not understand.

aha... I see now from wikipedia that there are different versions of the 2nd amendment. The one I saw didn't have your sentence in it. Hence you tirade seems a bit superfluous.

 

[mars13]

i wish people would learn to read.

the second amendment means militias AND the peoples right to bear arms[they clearly had/ment guns],shall not be infringed.

that mean the people have the right to own ,posses,and use guns.

and that a well regulated militia of the people is a right as well.

the amendment implies two very diffrent things as being civil rights.

one is personal gun ownerhsip,the other is the peoples right to assemble for protection with regulation.

its written in old english,but the meaning is abundantly clear .

they had guns in 1776,they called them ''arms'',and im sure they could invision a day where guns fired more then 3 rounds a minute and they still put that in the constitution.

the militia was supposed to be an orginized ,state[country] regulated group of civilian protectors . they had just fought a bloddy war for independence and they saw the need for a well organized standing army. that concept has been batsrdized since then,but the spirit remains. we do have a well regulated standing army composed of u.s. citizens.i think non u.s. contracters fighting in the military[haliburtons ''security contracters'']is a violation of the second amendment.but thats a supreme court matter to rule on.

also,gun laws do not in them selves,violate the second amendment,unless they restrict a law abiding citizens right to protect them selves from harm. banning hand guns[which they had in 1776]or the ability to posses/carry those arms is a violation of that right.thats not to say they cant/shouldnt regulate or license a firearm,but ALL citizens do have the right to posses or carry the weapon of there choosing for personal defence.

now should people be allowed to own a howitzer or cruise missle?of course,what ever weapons the militia has the citizens of the country should have access to as well.they had canons in 1776 so im sure they thought about canons being more powerful in the future when they wrote the constitution and im sure they considered the average citizen haveing accsess to those weapons,after all the militia IS made up of the people,but i dont think they intended to have a military that is seperate from the citizens,which leads us back to the batsardization of the second amendment.

 

[chuck u farley]

aha... I see now from wikipedia that there are different versions of the 2nd amendment. The one I saw didn't have your sentence in it. Hence you tirade seems a bit superfluous.

No tirade there buddy. That was part of a quote from Richard Henry Lee. Ever heard of him?

Ok fine. Now, if you have time, please look over these quotes. They are from certain individuals who were discussing the second amendment back about 1789 or so. Please look these over objectively and see if you can understand who the militia is, according to them. Thank you.

http://www.gmu.edu/departments/economics/wew/quotes/arms.html

 

[spuriousmonkey]

Well, let's learn how to read then.

It says 'bear arms' and not own, possess arms.

bear (dictionary.com)
To hold up; support.

So I'm afraid if we would really follow the letter of the amendment it actually doesn't say you have the right to own a gun. You have the right to hold a gun.