If the Second Amendment was Repealed...

[LuisDantas]

10 U.S. Code § 311 - Militia: composition and classes | LII / Legal Information Institute

Going by that text, females who are not of the National Guard and citizens that are not between 17 and 45 years of age are not to be considered a part of the militia, with these exceptions.

Is it generally understood that the Second Ammendment does not apply to civilians over 45 years of age without a military background of some sort?

 

[dyanaprajna2011]

What's funny to me, is how many of our constitutional rights have already been taken away, and many people don't say a thing about it. Why are some people so caught up with the Second amendment, but not other constitutional rights?

 

[LuisDantas]

What's funny to me, is how many of our constitutional rights have already been taken away, and many people don't say a thing about it. Why are some people so caught up with the Second amendment, but not other constitutional rights?

Because there are deep, powerful instincts of empowerment that people have convinced themselves that the Second Ammendment protects.

I can think of no other reason.

 

[McBell]

The right to free speech is already restricted, much more so than the right to bear arms.

Please be so kind as to support this claim.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

10 U.S. Code § 311 - Militia: composition and classes | LII / Legal Information Institute[/URL]


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

So the Second Amendment only grants the right to bear arms to males between 17 and 45?

 

[Mister Emu]

No, not really. I do greatly oppose it, of course. But that makes no difference here, none at all.

Only someone so greatly biased against the idea of widespread private gun ownership would read the second amendment in such a nonsensical fashion.

So the Second Amendment only grants the right to bear arms to males between 17 and 45?

No, because the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution doesn't limit the right to the militia.

It is a right held by the people informed by the necessity of the militia.

 

[Apex]

The SCOTUS has already ruled on the meaning of "the people" in the 2nd amendment:

Justice Antonin Scalia, writing for the majority in Heller, stated:

Nowhere else in the Constitution does a “right” attributed to “the people” refer to anything other than an individual right. What is more, in all six other provisions of the Constitution that mention “the people,” the term unambiguously refers to all members of the political community, not an unspecified subset. This contrasts markedly with the phrase “the militia” in the prefatory clause. As we will describe below, the “militia” in colonial America consisted of a subset of “the people”— those who were male, able bodied, and within a certain age range. Reading the Second Amendment as protecting only the right to “keep and bear Arms” in an organized militia therefore fits poorly with the operative clause’s description of the holder of that right as “the people”.[156]
​

 

[freethinker44]

Please be so kind as to support this claim.

It's no secret that freedom of speech is restricted in the US.

Freedom of speech in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

There is always some controversy going on about what some type of speech or expression and whether it should be restricted or not. If you really want a demonstration of just how limited your speech is, go into a court room and question a judge's ruling or orders, see how fast you get thrown in jail. Judge's have way too much power.

[youtube]iZC8mf_Alvg[/youtube]
Contempt of court: judge vs attorney - YouTube

 

[McBell]

It's no secret that freedom of speech is restricted in the US.

Freedom of speech in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

There is always some controversy going on about what some type of speech or expression and whether it should be restricted or not. If you really want a demonstration of just how limited your speech is, go into a court room and question a judge's ruling or orders, see how fast you get thrown in jail. Judge's have way too much power.

[youtube]iZC8mf_Alvg[/youtube]
Contempt of court: judge vs attorney - YouTube

Perhaps you misunderstood.
I am not asking you to support your above strawman.

I am asking you to support that there are more restrictions to freedom of speech than there are to the right to bear arms.

 

[CMike]

Is this question even safe to answer?

Not in my opinion.

 

[Sunstone]

What's funny to me, is how many of our constitutional rights have already been taken away, and many people don't say a thing about it. Why are some people so caught up with the Second amendment, but not other constitutional rights?

The other constitutional rights don't have the gun industry behind them.

 

[Revoltingest]

The other constitutional rights don't have the gun industry behind them.

We're lucky there, just as free speech advocates have media money & influence behind them.
Rights without strong support will erode.

 

[freethinker44]

We're lucky there, just as free speech advocates have media money & influence behind them.
Rights without strong support will erode.

I have to disagree with you there. The handful of massive corporations that control nearly all the media work more closely with the government than with the people.

 

[Revoltingest]

I have to disagree with you there. The handful of massive corporations that control nearly all the media work more closely with the government than with the people.

Perhaps you use a definition of freedom of speech different from mine.
I don't see that a few dominant voices curtail our ability to say what we want.
(But I don't think they are so few anyway.)
Moreover, we just made some progress in extending protections afforded the press to bloggers.
Blogger gets same speech protections as traditional press: U.S. court | Reuters

 

[Iti oj]

Not in my opinion.

Agreed.Now that is sad and scary.

 

[LuisDantas]

Only someone so greatly biased against the idea of widespread private gun ownership would read the second amendment in such a nonsensical fashion.

Really? How/why so?

No, because the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution doesn't limit the right to the militia.

It is a right held by the people informed by the necessity of the militia.

I quoted the whole Amendment as I am aware of it, and I saw not even a hint of that in there. What am I missing?

 

[Revoltingest]

I quoted the whole Amendment as I am aware of it, and I saw not even a hint of that in there. What am I missing?

Remember that the Constitution is more than just this single document. The framers'
intentions are also discerened from their writings & background in English common law.
A full picture cannot be had solely by reading the words in the document....although
strict constructionists argue otherwise.

 

[LuisDantas]

I actually agree.

Of course, that just underscores how worthless the Amendment is after all...

 

[Revoltingest]

I actually agree.
Of course, that just underscores how worthless the Amendment is after all...

To you, an anti-gun resident of a country half a world away, it would be so.
Note that Brazil's constitution is worthless to me, but I generally don't bring it up.
That would be rude.

 

[Mister Emu]

Really? How/why so?

Okay, two examples, the first being a representative of the statements you made that do not touch on the subject...

Regulations are not freedoms. Porn is regulated. War treaties are regulated. Free speech, a freedom, is protected instead of regulated.

This is what I mean... this is actual nonsense. What does this have to do with the discussion? Nothing. You may as well have wrote about Chewbacca...

Another very interesting piece of text. It does not even state that such a right exists at all

And a very different sort of nonsense... The kind of nonsense that would understand the statement "The blue sky is very beautiful today" to not say the sky is blue.

What am I missing?

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.

Operative clause highlighted. it is a right of the people, that is a personal right of every individual citizen, to keep and bear arms. Not a right of the militiamen.