User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 4/21/2016 3:42:26 PM EDT
[#1]
It should be amended to read "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. This is an individual right, anything that stops anyone from buying anything they can afford is an infringement. Do not infringe people's rights. Any of them."
ETA: Frankly, the idea of rights has gotten so bastardized that arguing about them is pointless. What it really boils down to is what we will allow the government to force upon us. They can pass whatever laws they want but if enough people stand up and say no it will be effectively void, nullification by the people should be a thing. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/21/2016 3:47:57 PM EDT
[#2]
Quote HistoryQuoted: You are splitting a fine hair there. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: You have to put it in context. The Constitution forbid a standing army, but since a well regulated militia was necessary for security of the state, (and could be corrupted just like an army to be used against the people) the right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed. You are splitting a fine hair there. Semantics are important… From Article 1 Section 8 "12: To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;” Hardly a prohibition on a standing army… |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/21/2016 3:53:05 PM EDT
[#3]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
It should be amended to read "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. This is an individual right, anything that stops anyone from buying anything they can afford is an infringement. Do not infringe people's rights. Any of them." ETA: Frankly, the idea of rights has gotten so bastardized that arguing about them is pointless. What it really boils down to is what we will allow the government to force upon us. They can pass whatever laws they want but if enough people stand up and say no it will be effectively void, nullification by the people should be a thing. It can be done via Article V. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/21/2016 3:54:34 PM EDT
[#4]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Semantics are important… From Article 1 Section 8 "12: To raise and support Armies,but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than twoYears;” Hardly a prohibition on a standing army… Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
You have to put it in context. The Constitution forbid a standing army, but since a well regulated militia was necessary for security of the state, (and could be corrupted just like an army to be used against the people) the right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed. You are splitting a fine hair there. From Article 1 Section 8 "12: To raise and support Armies,but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than twoYears;” Hardly a prohibition on a standing army… I said it has to go in context and what I said is correct. The whole reason it what phrased the way it was is because you couldn't have a standing army. Now you may not believe that is what that says, but it is in fact what it does no matter what you believe. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/21/2016 3:57:02 PM EDT
[#5]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/21/2016 4:03:11 PM EDT
[#6]
"Regulated" means trained, drilled, and equipped.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/21/2016 4:03:31 PM EDT
[#7]
It should also have read:
¡ATTENTION READ HERE! Unless it says somewhere on this here parchment that the government is specifically permitted to do something then it can't do it. Also, please note that the President isn't a magical King who will single-handedly fix all of your problems. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/21/2016 4:05:58 PM EDT
[#8]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
"Regulated" means trained, drilled, and equipped. Which the average gun owner is not, so it's a terrible argument. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/21/2016 4:07:41 PM EDT
[#9]
My GF had the misfortune of living her whole life here in CA. She's not a liberal, but she is definitely confused about some things.
She told me last week that "the 2A gives the National Guard the right to carry guns, so if you aren't in the NG then it's just a privilege like driving is."  She was taught in school that that is what the 2A actually means.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/21/2016 4:11:18 PM EDT
[#10]
I think back then, having weapons for hunting and defense on oneself and home were irrefutable
But there was much ado about how the states would go about defending themselves and whether to have a national standing army or not. They decide on using militia and simply incorporated that into the 2nd amendment so states go about setting their own militias rules. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/21/2016 4:11:24 PM EDT
[#11]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
My GF had the misfortune of living her whole life here in CA. She's not a liberal, but she is definitely confused about some things. She told me last week that "the 2A gives the National Guard the right to carry guns, so if you aren't in the NG then it's just a privilege like driving is." She was taught in school that that is what the 2A actually means. I can only assume she isn't aware the national guard didn't exist until the early 20th century. You corrected her right? |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/21/2016 4:14:51 PM EDT
[#12]
While your proposed revision might make it a little harder for the antis to do the mental gymnastics of twisting the meaning of the 2A it wouldn't stop them. .
Remember, their position isn't based on ignorance of the meaning of the second amendment. At least not entirely. They just disagree with it. Many of the antis know good and damn well the founders didn't want the government banning guns. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/21/2016 4:18:30 PM EDT
[#13]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I said it has to go in context and what I said is correct. The whole reason it what phrased the way it was is because you couldn't have a standing army. Now you may not believe that is what that says, but it is in fact what it does no matter what you believe. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: You have to put it in context. The Constitution forbid a standing army, but since a well regulated militia was necessary for security of the state, (and could be corrupted just like an army to be used against the people) the right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed. You are splitting a fine hair there. From Article 1 Section 8 "12: To raise and support Armies,but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than twoYears;” Hardly a prohibition on a standing army… I said it has to go in context and what I said is correct. The whole reason it what phrased the way it was is because you couldn't have a standing army. Now you may not believe that is what that says, but it is in fact what it does no matter what you believe. I get your point… as in a perpetual standing army that requires no action on the part of congress to exist… |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/21/2016 4:26:22 PM EDT
[#14]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
It needs no justification. The First Amendment offers no justification for the rights it lists, why should the Second? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
nope. The first half of the 2nd Amendment justifies the need for the rights it gives. It needs no justification. The First Amendment offers no justification for the rights it lists, why should the Second? Yep....we the people.... The argument goes if the 2nd amendment only applies to the national guard then the first only applies to the press |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/21/2016 4:27:23 PM EDT
[#15]
Militias were out of control, stealing and murdering like gangs. The British Tories were the worst of them.
So I read it as, "Armed gangs being necessary for the survival of govt, the right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed." |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/22/2016 9:18:57 AM EDT
[#16]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
It should also have read: ¡ATTENTION READ HERE! Unless it says somewhere on this here parchment that the government is specifically permitted to do something then it can't do it. Also, please note that the President isn't a magical King who will single-handedly fix all of your problems. It does say that, in the 10th amendment. For what it's worth... |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/22/2016 9:24:32 AM EDT
[#17]
No, government would still play games with it even if it said "Every citizen has the right to own any weapon of their choice without taxation, limit, or interference from the federal or state government in any form they may exist."
Libtards would still find a way to dismantle it. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/22/2016 9:30:46 AM EDT
[#18]
Almost half of the United States Supreme Court Justices say it is not clear enough. They are one hell of a lot more educated about the constitution and law than I am.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/22/2016 9:31:06 AM EDT
[#19]
Here is Virginia's state constitution wording. It still has the militia thing, but just adding the word "therefore" clears up so much. No. The word "therefore" actually detracts from the right by tying it directly to the militia. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/22/2016 9:33:30 AM EDT
[#20]
Good thing the SCOTUS already ruled on this and determined it is an individual right. Of course, let's not let constitutional law get in our way of defining what the 2A means for political expediency. With Scalia gone, that ruling is hanging by a thread. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/22/2016 9:52:28 AM EDT
[#21]
The 2nd Amendment should include a proviso that if anyone cannot afford a suitable weapon, it shall be given to him from government stockpiles. (The Swiss model.) An armed society is a polite society.
Therefore, there should be a guarantee that the population is armed. The right to arms is just as important as the right to education, health care, and a living wage. It's not fair that only the wealthy should be armed. Democracy demands that everyone should be armed equally. ETA: Want to get rid of school shootings? Require that all teachers be armed while in the classroom, and make marksmanship qualification mandatory for them. And the school system should supply the guns. Since it's impossible to eliminate all guns from society, let's do the opposite and flood society with guns. It's not the absolute possession of guns by the bad guys that's the problem, it's the differential advantage it gives them. Remove the differential advantage by arming everybody. Anyone who wants to rob their local 7-11 would know that he would face a host of armed employees and customers. That would cause any rational criminal to think twice. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/22/2016 10:35:04 AM EDT
[#22]
Self-defense being important to the American people, the right of those people to keep a handgun in their homes shall be subject to licensing, regulation and taxation at the convenience of local, state and Federal officials.
The Bill of Rights Article II * * as interpreted by the Federal judiciary 
|
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
