Repeal the 2nd Amendment

[metis]

I don't recall if that story was apocryphal or not, but he was a leading scientist in his day.
The 18th century version of a rock star he was.

No doubt. Ever been to Monticello, by chance? Jefferson wasn't much of a slacker either, let me tell ya.

 

[Revoltingest]

No doubt. Ever been to Monticello, by chance? Jefferson wasn't much of a slacker either, let me tell ya.

Never been.
Perhaps some day.

 

[Ingledsva]

Yes. Very much yes. Exactly yes.

I love how much people want to ignore the whole first part of the Amendment. When it was written, what it meant, those things don't seem to matter to some people. Just the part that says "the right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed"...they don't give a crap about the who, when, and why.

Who is ignoring the 1st Ammendment?

We had to study this in school.

The topic here is - Repeal the 2nd Amendment, - thus we are discussing it, - and not the 1st.

*

 

[Ingledsva]

Well, it shouldn't need that much "interpreting". It clearly states it is about arming a militia. A militia is a trained, organized, fighting force. To ignore that in favor of trying to "interpret" it to mean otherwise is to still pretty much ignore the first part of the Amendment.

Damn, people treat the Constitution like the bible. If they don't like what it says they make it mean something else. At least with the bible, being a mythology written in allegory and metaphor it is at least reasonable. The Constitution was not meant to be legend or myth to be deciphered through metaphor to be interpreted to fit a person's liking.

It isn't about "arming a militia." It is about being armed, so as to having the ability to form a militia, if needed, against a governing body, - which they had just done, - resulting in the birth of the US.

"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."

It means exactly that. We know from other information, articles of the time, etc., that it does mean the citizens have the right to own weapons, to keep themselves free from government tyranny.

"I ask sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people ... To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them."-- George Mason (who opposed ratification of the Constitution without the Bill of Rights)

"And that the said Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press, or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms…" -- Samuel Adams, Debates of the Massachusetts Convention of 1788

"Americans have the right and advantage of being armed, unlike the people of other countries, whose people are afraid to trust them with arms." (James Madison:Federalist Paper #46)

*

 

[Curious George]

That's very much a stretch, both because no such weapon is hinted at by the Constitution, plus no such weapon would have been allowed in civilian use based on previous SCOTUS decisions. The 2nd Amendment refers to the right of states to have their own "militia", and up until this last decision it was never viewed as pertaining to every one's right to hold any hand-held weapon they may want.

Different weapons have been outlawed, plus different people have not been allowed to have guns legally, and previous SCOTUS decisions upheld this general approach. The recent decision was a totally bizarre decision that was not based on any precedent whatsoever. According to Scalia's possible drift, I could possibly and legally have my own personal hand-held nuclear device. Or how about having my own bazooka?

Except, the amendment says the right of the people, so the conclusion that it is about the right of a state is not necessarily true.

 

[Curious George]

That's very much a stretch, both because no such weapon is hinted at by the Constitution, plus no such weapon would have been allowed in civilian use based on previous SCOTUS decisions. The 2nd Amendment refers to the right of states to have their own "militia", and up until this last decision it was never viewed as pertaining to every one's right to hold any hand-held weapon they may want.

Different weapons have been outlawed, plus different people have not been allowed to have guns legally, and previous SCOTUS decisions upheld this general approach. The recent decision was a totally bizarre decision that was not based on any precedent whatsoever. According to Scalia's possible drift, I could possibly and legally have my own personal hand-held nuclear device. Or how about having my own bazooka?

Different weapons have been outlawed, this is true. However, that Heller is out of the blue or completely contradictory is a fabrication. Certainly, that other decisions such as Miller have held that a law unrelated to the preservation or efficiency of a militia do not infringe upon the second amendment is at odds with Scalia's suggestion that the prefatory clause in the second amendment stands to introduce purpose but in no way limits the operative clause. However, this is not the same as saying Scalia's interpretation was totally bizarre. Yes we limit the right of individuals and groups to own guns. This passes the strict scrutiny necessary.

That the second amendment is interpreted such that Heller did, only makes it so laws affecting that right must pass strict scrutiny. So the only reason to bemoan the interpretation is to want overly broad laws which do not serve a compelling government interest.

 

[Brickjectivity]

There are some very eloquent arguments made in this thread.

 

[Draka]

Who is ignoring the 1st Ammendment?

We had to study this in school.

The topic here is - Repeal the 2nd Amendment, - thus we are discussing it, - and not the 1st.

*

Read for comprehension then get back to me. That does seem to be the issue here, reading for comprehension.

 

[Draka]

It isn't about "arming a militia." It is about being armed, so as to having the ability to form a militia, if needed, against a governing body, - which they had just done, - resulting in the birth of the US.

"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."

It means exactly that. We know from other information, articles of the time, etc., that it does mean the citizens have the right to own weapons, to keep themselves free from government tyranny.

"I ask sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people ... To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them."-- George Mason (who opposed ratification of the Constitution without the Bill of Rights)

"And that the said Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press, or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms…" -- Samuel Adams, Debates of the Massachusetts Convention of 1788

"Americans have the right and advantage of being armed, unlike the people of other countries, whose people are afraid to trust them with arms." (James Madison:Federalist Paper #46)

*

Typing in various pretty colors and sizes of fonts does not validate points. Not only have you now shown an issue with reading comprehension, you show an inability to communicate online in such a way as to have anyone even bother to attempt to read what you post. I don't bother with glaring eyesore. Not going to even bother to try to get through that. It's too annoying to try to read.

 

[Ingledsva]

Typing in various pretty colors and sizes of fonts does not validate points. Not only have you now shown an issue with reading comprehension, you show an inability to communicate online in such a way as to have anyone even bother to attempt to read what you post. I don't bother with glaring eyesore. Not going to even bother to try to get through that. It's too annoying to try to read.

Sorry you don't like the colors -

however - the colors were to delineate the different parts, and the enlarging of text was to point out - and show - that they specifically meant for THE PEOPLE to have their own weapons.

*

 

[Draka]

Sorry you don't like the colors -

however - the colors were to delineate the different parts, and the enlarging of text was to point out - and show - that they specifically meant for THE PEOPLE to have their own weapons.

*

People who would be a part of a militia. A militia is a trained and organized fighting force. Not everyone. Not anyone. A militia. Unless you want to claim that every single citizen in the U.S. is well trained with guns and willing to be part of an organized militia then your argument has not a leg to stand upon.

 

[Revoltingest]

People who would be a part of a militia. A militia is a trained and organized fighting force. Not everyone. Not anyone. A militia. Unless you want to claim that every single citizen in the U.S. is well trained with guns and willing to be part of an organized militia then your argument has not a leg to stand upon.

I posted the legal definition earlier.
It doesn't require training.
Earlier definitions didn't require it either.

 

[Ingledsva]

People who would be a part of a militia. A militia is a trained and organized fighting force. Not everyone. Not anyone. A militia. Unless you want to claim that every single citizen in the U.S. is well trained with guns and willing to be part of an organized militia then your argument has not a leg to stand upon.

I know you don't like the color delineation, and enlarged text but it was done to show what keeps getting left out.

"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."

It means exactly that. We know from other information, articles of the time, etc., that it does mean the citizens have the right to own weapons, to keep themselves free from government tyranny.

"I ask sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people ... To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them."-- George Mason (who opposed ratification of the Constitution without the Bill of Rights)

It is very obvious from the amendment itself - and what the people of the time are writing, including those whom helped write it, that it means the PEOPLE can hold weapons in case they need to form a militia against our government.

*

 

[Curious George]

People who would be a part of a militia. A militia is a trained and organized fighting force. Not everyone. Not anyone. A militia. Unless you want to claim that every single citizen in the U.S. is well trained with guns and willing to be part of an organized militia then your argument has not a leg to stand upon.

Yet it doesn't say "militia members' right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed," does it?

 

[Willamena]

The right to bear arms is a central tenet of a free society.

How do you figure?

 

[Willamena]

If the government tries to take away all guns from Americans, there's going to be a literal, sweeping blood bath. There are many who would rather die that give up the right to bear arms. It wouldn't be a pretty scene.

The second amendment will never be repealed, not in my lifetime anyway. The NRA is almost as powerful as God and has many followers. If a Republican president wins the election and congress continues to be a Republican majority, rivers of guns and ammo will continue to flow.

I can't see that that's a problem. The forces taking the firearms would win over any forces refusing to relinquish their firearms.

You have to break a few eggs... (to make a good movie).

 

[Willamena]

I don't know whether repealing the Second is currently politically feasible, but I think it soon enough will be if the NRA and other groups continue to succeed in thwarting the will of the people. There are reforms they oppose that are supported by nearly 90% of the population. Some reforms are even supported by a majority of NRA rank and file members.

Those terrorist.

 

[Buttercup]

I can't see that that's a problem. The forces taking the firearms would win over any forces refusing to relinquish their firearms.
.

Not sure if that comment was expressed satirically, but in case it wasn't, I'm not sure how you envision the scenario of citizens surrendering firearms to the government. It's doesn't seem feasible to have the military or police come to every home and snatch up guns. When Australia had their national gun buy back program in 1996 after the Port Arthur mass shooing, people turned in their semi-automatic rimfire rifles and shotguns as well as pump-action shotguns and got paid for them. I'm quite confident a large portion of Americans would be unwilling to do that. I have no doubt if the Second Amendment was repealed, there would be blood shed. I'm not sure exactly how it would play out but, it would happen.

 

[Willamena]

Not sure if that comment was expressed satirically, but in case it wasn't, I'm not sure how you envision the scenario of citizens surrendering firearms to the government. It's doesn't seem feasible to have the military or police come to every home and snatch up guns. When Australia had their national gun buy back program in 1996 after the Port Arthur mass shooing, people turned in their semi-automatic rimfire rifles and shotguns as well as pump-action shotguns and got paid for them. I'm quite confident a large portion of Americans would be unwilling to do that. I have no doubt if the Second Amendment was repealed, there would be blood shed. I'm not sure exactly how it would play out but, it would happen.

Yes, satirically. I'm an action movie and monster movie fan.

Real life imitates art.

 

[Buttercup]

Yes, satirically. I'm an action movie and monster movie fan.

Real life imitates art.

Ha! Sorry, haven't been around much for the last year and I've forgotten about your finely tuned sense of humor. Of course, I like it. I'm just rusty.