Elementary school shooting

"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"

No room for interpreations which would suggest the disarmament of the people, or the regulation of firearms, or what kind of firearms they should be allowed to own. Its pretty clear.

The militia, before they are orgenaized, before they are called up, are the abled body men carrying the very arms a standing army of our day would carry.

In 1776 it was muskets. In 1886 it was Henry rifles and cartridge pistols. Today it would be AR-15's and M-16's.

Militia = A body of citizens organized in a paramilitary group typically guarding themselves as defenders of individual rights against the presumed interference of the federal government.

All abled body males considered by law eligble for military service, or a body of citizens as distinguished from professional soldiers, called up periodically for drills or serving full time only in emergencies.

AR-15's and M-16's are exactly the kind of arms he 2nd amendment was meant to protect, because the purpose of it is to preserve a military capacity of the American people. Removing them, or banning them, or restricting them, would remove that capacity.

The military power for domestic use is supposed to be in the hands of the American people, just like it is in Switzerland, for instance. To be there to balance and counter the state, if need be.


Lastly.

Those of you who don't believe armed civilians could do much against a well trained army have clearly not paid much attention, you also need to study more.

 

Well regulated? I don't think any of us are well regulated. We could do something against the gov't just because of how vast it is.

It can be argued that limitations aren't necessarily infringements if they can bear arms within reason.

I'm just playing lawyer.

 

"Arms" is open to interpretation. Are we talking guns? Rifles? Cannons? A nuke in my basement? Your mention of AR-15's and M-16's is also an interpretation.

"A body of citizens organized in a paramilitary group typically guarding themselves as defenders of individual rights against the presumed interference of the federal government" is open to interpretation. Or seems to be in Northern Ireland, Afghanistan and Pakistan.

Yeah, because the Syrians seem to be doing so well. And we don't see any dictatorships lasting very long at all.

 

I'd love to see one of these militias take on the Seals or Marines, hell I'd like to see them take on the engineering core.

 

It can't be argued that limitations aren't infringements, a lawyer would of course like to have you think otherwise. As I pointed out in my previous post: the people are to bare the arms of the day.

It would be in its nature that when they are attacking the 2nd amendment they would misinterpret, mispresent, twist and redefine what is written.

Edit.
Well regulated militia? Remember I said they are called upon.

AR-15's and M-16's are names of automatic rifles, pretty clear. You can add shotguns, pistols, and sniper rifles too.


Edit 2 (missed this one)

I wouldn't, I wouldn't want to see a confrontation between the army and the people, I don't think anyone would.

With that said.

If the county Sheriff would call upon the militia, remember he can deputise all abled body men in his county, they would then make up the legitimate militia, now if we take Wyoming as an example here, with all its counties combined (believe there are five counties), we would be talking about ~500 000 men.

That's one state, start counting.

 

There's no mention of what kind of arms? I don't see how a limitation of what weapons exactly are allowed would be going against the amendment?

 

Does the 2nd allow a citizen to own a nuclear weapon?

 

If you read the language of the first 10 amendments, they are not constructed in a way that "allows" the citizen anything. They are intended to limit what the Federal government can do. Strictly speaking, there is nothing in the 2nd amendment that limits any weapon whatever. In other words, it purpose is not to limit the people but the government. This is what Barak Obama today (and FDR in the past) has referred to as "negative rights". Of course, negative, and positive are simply subjective terms based on whether you are in the government or not.

Any twisting by talented rhetoric to try to stretch the principles involved can easily be settled by plainly reading the 10th amendment: "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."

As above, no mention of what type (so no limitations there) and the phrase "shall not be infringed." explicitly states that the Fed may not make any such limitations. That's the entire point of the amendment.

However, modern law that has been passed limits access to materials such as uranium and plutonium. So it is unlawful to acquire the materials needed but it has nothing to do with the 2nd amendment. It would be like if there was an amendment that says "the right for citizens to bake a cake shall not be infringed" and then they try to restrict the baking of certain types of unpopular cake (fruit cakes perhaps...)

BTW, ANY state can prohibit anything in their respective constitutions for any reason as long as it doesn't conflict with the Federal amendments on a fundamental level.

 

So people can buy and keep rocket launchers and the like?

 

My point was the 2nd Amendment does not authorize the Fed to infringe on it. /tongue and cheek mode/ But I must confess, we really must get this rocket launcher based violence under control....

 

So, can people buy rocket launchers and the like?

It's the principle, nothing do whether there has or hasn't been any violence involving rocket launchers.

 

I think the point is that the second amendment doesn't provide a limit however later legislation can. So you can't have nukes because you can't have Uranium there is probably federal legislation regarding the use of rocket propelled objects over a certain size and there is nothing stopping the government implementing a restriction on firearms except the lack of political will or a resistance from the electorate.

 

+1

 

We are starting to talk past one another. You are the one that brought up rocket launchers. I was merely explaining the language of the 2nd Amendment. States can, have, and are limiting available weapons (NY just passed another law) which is totally in their right under the 10th amendment.

As I read it, the principle you are arguing is "the ends" i.e. That certain types of weapons available should be limited and the 2nd amendment allows that.

I am also arguing a principle in direct response to your question which is more along "the means" in that, no, the 2nd Amendment cannot be used as authorization to do so as it is written. It is a limitation on the government not the people no matter how much you want it to be.

 

I was merely wondering whether people could, since if they can't, then limits have already been imposed, so people arguing that the government can't limit gun sales since it would go against the 2nd amendment wouldn't be making much sense.

So, each state could limit the sale of weapons, just not the overall government?

 

Precisely, purchasing uranium and plutonium is restricted. I will take a slight exception about the later laws point. New law cannot conflict with existing law. You can amend the constitution and nullify an amendment with another one like in the case of the 18th and 21st amendments involving prohibition. The 21st amendment nullified the 18th.

 

Yes, States can and do limit the sale of weapons. The 2nd amendment is a simple statement stating what the Fed can't do. The 10th amendment states that everything else is up to the states and individuals.

This is yet another case of the Fed working way outside is boundaries. A classic example of this is the Supreme Court case Lopez v US where a guy was arrested near a school with a gun in his possession. The Fed took over the case and charged him under, of all things, the Commerce clause and lost. The stupid thing is that the state of Texas had arrested him for violating state law that they could easily have prosecuted him for (carrying a weapon near a school).

 

Why are we having this argument again?
It doesn't matter what some men decided to write down 200 years ago. It irrelevant.

The debate should purely based on arguments for guns; civil liberties, self defence and protection of the citizenry from some tyrannical government.
Against this you have the large numbers of deaths resulting from easy firearm access.

 

This is the construct of our government and society. The construct is amendable to the will of the people and always has been, whether it was written 200 or 20 years ago is irrelevant. What's the expiration date on the Theory of Relativity or the pythagorean theorem, or Shakespeare or Michelangelo or Socrates? Your comment was written 5 minutes ago so instead of arguing the principle, I just dismiss it based on my subjective criteria of idealogical staleness.

Hammers and knives kill more people. Where's the outrage!?

 

This argument again ?

What is the primary use of a hammer ? Construction tool.
What is the primary use of a knife ? Food preparation and eating.
What is the primary use of a car ? Transportation.
What is the primary use of a gun ? Killing (animals or humans).

Do you finally understand the difference ?