About the Amendment II.

[James Raynor]

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.


This clearly states that only Militia has the right to bear arms, so don't use the second amendment as a way to say "Gun Control is unconstitutional".



Edit: Adding my replies.

Standard legal construction is to look all parts of the same amendment so that they fit together and make sense.

You can setup a "Well Regulated Militia" ahead of time, so they won't have to "Throw Rocks".


If the right to bear arms was independent of the militia, your reading the militia part of the second amendment out of the second amendment... That's improper legal analysis.

Why is the militia part in the second amendment if not to regulate who gets the guns?

 

[Nimbus]

Yeah, that's totally enough information to start a thread over.

 

[Johnn Johnston]

Whoah... I just had deja vu there.

 

[Brokkr]

The term militia is commonly used today to refer to a military force composed of ordinary citizens[1] to provide defense, emergency law enforcement, or paramilitary service, in times of emergency without being paid a regular salary or committed to a fixed term of service.

That was taken from Wikipedia. If the ordinary citizens didn't have guns to begin with, when an emercency came along, they would be throwing rocks.

 

[Rajin Cajun]

The term militia is commonly used today to refer to a military force composed of ordinary citizens[1] to provide defense, emergency law enforcement, or paramilitary service, in times of emergency without being paid a regular salary or committed to a fixed term of service.

That was taken from Wikipedia. If the ordinary citizens didn't have guns to begin with, when an emercency came along, they would be throwing rocks.

/Thread

 

[Aardvark]

So you're saying you have to be a card-carrying militia member to own a gun? Ok, gotcha. We'll start handing out the militia cards with every gun sold. Game on, son, you've made the world a safer place. Bully for you.

 

[Random Argument Man]

You didn't understand the amendment.

Plus, you just use one part of the amendment.

"regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state" Do you know the meaning of Militia?

I'll use your logic against you
"being necessary to the security of a free state, the (right of the people) to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

How can you have the conclusion "This clearly states that only Militia"? It didn't say "only the militia should have guns" The second amendment says people can have their own gun for their security.

 

[Rooster Cogburn]

Heard it a billion times. Besides, even if you were right, you'd at least have to give me an armed militia.

 

[Drakstern]

In this thread, people have been trolled.

Don't feed the trolls, people.

 

[gmer412]

The term militia is commonly used today to refer to a military force composed of ordinary citizens[1] to provide defense, emergency law enforcement, or paramilitary service, in times of emergency without being paid a regular salary or committed to a fixed term of service.

That was taken from Wikipedia. If the ordinary citizens didn't have guns to begin with, when an emercency came along, they would be throwing rocks.

Right. It's more important for civilians to have guns in times of war in our nation (which hasn't happened since... 1865) than to stop people like the guy who shot up VT last year. He had mental problems and just bought his guns from a gun store. We no longer need militias. Back when the amendment was created, our army didn't exist. The Articles of Confederation didn't allow for a national army. The founding fathers didn't know that the idea would become obsolete. It's akin to the third amendment. How many times have people complained about somebody violating their third amendment rights?

 

[Jark212]

National Guard = Militia...

 

[James Raynor]

Standard legal construction is to look all parts of the same amendment so that they fit together and make sense.

You can setup a "Well Regulated Militia" ahead of time, so they won't have to "Throw Rocks".


If the right to bear arms was independent of the militia, your reading the militia part of the second amendment out of the second amendment... That's improper legal analysis.

Why is the militia part in the second amendment if not to regulate who gets the guns?

 

[TheHorizon]

OP, have you looked at the definition of malitia?
Specifically of the definition during the time the Constitution was written?

 

[Ace of Spades]

You didn't understand the amendment.

Plus, you just use one part of the amendment.

"regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state" Do you know the meaning of Militia?

I'll use your logic against you
"being necessary to the security of a free state, the (right of the people) to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

How can you have the conclusion "This clearly states that only Militia"? It didn't say "only the militia should have guns" The second amendment says people can have their own gun for their security.

This suits your name perfectly, though you do make a very good point.

 

[Mariena]

Shucks. What would happen if America was to ban all firearms, meaning you'd have to have a license to own firearms?

Some say that there will be 'mass robberies' and all that, because civilians will no longer have a gun to protect themselves against armed robbers. Other the other hand, I'm of the opinion that this is a load of bullwhacky because criminals will get their guns anyway.

In The Netherlands, for instance, it's illegal to carry firearms. It's illegal to own firearms, unless you have a license. And even that's checked regularly and you'd have to pass certain regulations and bla bla bla legal stuff.

We don't have guns, and we don't seem to have mass murders by psycho kids that took their dad's shotgun. But we also don't seem to have a stupid amount of armed robberies. We don't seem to have a stupid amount of criminals breaking into people houses with their guns, because the civilians living in those houses don't have a gun.

There are obviously still criminals with firearms. They'll always get their weapons through other means. So, if you ask me.. Get rid of that second Amendment.

 

[KSarty]

Standard legal construction is to look all parts of the same amendment so that they fit together and make sense.

You can setup a "Well Regulated Militia" ahead of time, so they won't have to "Throw Rocks".


If the right to bear arms was independent of the militia, your reading the militia part of the second amendment out of the second amendment... That's improper legal analysis.

Why is the militia part in the second amendment if not to regulate who gets the guns?

Nice double-standard you got there. You completely ignored the "the right of the people" part in your op, but when someone points it out, you harp on them for ignoring the militia part.

There are obviously still criminals with firearms. They'll always get their weapons through other means. So, if you ask me.. Get rid of that second Amendment.

You hit the nail on the head, but you took it in the opposite direction that I would have. Criminals will always have access to guns, illegal or not, so what will making them illegal do?

 

[fluffylandmine]

It is possible to over turn an amendment(see the relationship between amendments 18 and 21), but that's only if it was a terrible idea(see amendment 18 if you disobeyed me the first time).

Amendment 2 is really misunderstood and I shall not correct anyone, but only tell you it's not your problem to fix. It's the gun owner's.

 

[Random Argument Man]

Alright then, I'll put the amendement in words that you could understand.

Since the militia is needed to defend the freedom of the USA, the right to have guns shall not be revoked.

If the right to bear arms was independent of the militia, your reading the militia part of the second amendment out of the second amendment... That's improper legal analysis.

I giggled there for a second.