User Tag List

Page 1 of 18 12311 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 178

Thread: 2nd Amendment

  1. #1
    Banned Jiggyfly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    9,221

    2nd Amendment

    What does this part of it mean?

    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.

    Who is supposed to do this regulation and could that be interpreted as including some forms of gun control?

    I don't really believe in banning any form of guns but I think some guns should be regulated more than others.

    Just wondered why that part of the amendment seems to be ignored.

  2. #2
    Senior Member Genghis Khan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    9,982
    in this context, it means well drilled basically. Nothing to do with controlling or limiting gun ownership. Keep in mind we didn't have a standing army when this was written so this is addressing that.

    As an aside, there's a satirical essay on this, I believe it's called A Well Regulated Militia. Something about requiring weekend drills for gun ownership.

  3. #3
    Senior Member L.T. Fan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    14,604
    I am neutral on guns but If I were going to make a law I would center it on all assault weapons automatic and semi. The seller would do all the clearances as is being done now and even if the buyer passed they could buy the gun with this caveat. A part of the gun would be removed rendering it useless and to get the necessary part to make it operable the buyer would have to be interviewed and make a final clearance with the FBI and only if cleared would the missing part be issued.
    Since Day One

  4. #4
    Senior Member jsmith6919's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    6,047
    Fully automatic rifles are already very hard to get cleared for, it's not the normal go in buy and wait to be ok'd. Holding a part back isn't as easy as you think, there are tons of aftermarrket parts. I might be fine with not letting individuals be able to buy guns if they're being investigated by the FBI, if they can't run for President then either

  5. #5
    Senior Member Cowboysrock55's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    18,571
    Quote Originally Posted by Jiggyfly View Post
    What does this part of it mean?

    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.

    Who is supposed to do this regulation and could that be interpreted as including some forms of gun control?
    You're looking at two separate things. One is the need to maintain a militia and the other is the right of the people to bear arms without it being infringed. That's why there is a coma in that sentence. They are basically saying regulate a the militia but don't you dare touch a person's right to keep a gun.

    Now you might argue that the constitution was written during a time when they didn't even know what an assault rifle was, which is true, but in the context of the time they were dealing with they still wouldn't have wanted that right infringed upon. They basically viewed people as needing to be able to defend themselves from outside sources to the best of their ability. It's actually a little sad that a country founded on principles of freedom is now slowly trying to eliminate freedoms and become more like the countries that this country fought so hard to separate themselves from once upon a time.

  6. The following user likes this post:


  7. #6
    Senior Member L.T. Fan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    14,604
    Quote Originally Posted by Cowboysrock55 View Post
    You're looking at two separate things. One is the need to maintain a militia and the other is the right of the people to bear arms without it being infringed. That's why there is a coma in that sentence. They are basically saying regulate a the militia but don't you dare touch a person's right to keep a gun.

    Now you might argue that the constitution was written during a time when they didn't even know what an assault rifle was, which is true, but in the context of the time they were dealing with they still wouldn't have wanted that right infringed upon. They basically viewed people as needing to be able to defend themselves from outside sources to the best of their ability. It's actually a little sad that a country founded on principles of freedom is now slowly trying to eliminate freedoms and become more like the countries that this country fought so hard to separate themselves from once upon a time.
    I agree with this but my take is that even with a Militia in place the circumstances could arrive that the Milita would not be readily available so the individual has the right to arm themselves because of this. The ability to solely rely on military for help was a virtual impossibility then.

    Some judges would argue that now there are local, county, state and even national forces to mitigate the original purpose. That's the current battleground position.
    Last edited by L.T. Fan; 06-17-2016 at 04:02 PM.
    Since Day One

  8. #7
    Banned Jiggyfly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    9,221
    Quote Originally Posted by Genghis Khan View Post
    in this context, it means well drilled basically. Nothing to do with controlling or limiting gun ownership. Keep in mind we didn't have a standing army when this was written so this is addressing that.

    As an aside, there's a satirical essay on this, I believe it's called A Well Regulated Militia. Something about requiring weekend drills for gun ownership.
    Even if you use regulated to mean well drilled, that's still does not fit everybody having guns with little restrictions.

    If they are well drilled it means that all guns owners are somewhat accounted for which flies in the face of what some are railing against.

    And at the very least there is some interpretation needed and it's not as simple as every citizen has the right to carry.

  9. #8
    Senior Member Cowboysrock55's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    18,571
    Quote Originally Posted by Jiggyfly View Post
    Even if you use regulated to mean well drilled, that's still does not fit everybody having guns with little restrictions.

    If they are well drilled it means that all guns owners are somewhat accounted for which flies in the face of what some are railing against.
    The well drilled has to do with the militia.

    This is a pretty clear and unambiguous statement: the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed

  10. #9
    Banned Jiggyfly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    9,221
    Quote Originally Posted by Cowboysrock55 View Post
    You're looking at two separate things. One is the need to maintain a militia and the other is the right of the people to bear arms without it being infringed. That's why there is a coma in that sentence. They are basically saying regulate a the militia but don't you dare touch a person's right to keep a gun.

    Now you might argue that the constitution was written during a time when they didn't even know what an assault rifle was, which is true, but in the context of the time they were dealing with they still wouldn't have wanted that right infringed upon. They basically viewed people as needing to be able to defend themselves from outside sources to the best of their ability. It's actually a little sad that a country founded on principles of freedom is now slowly trying to eliminate freedoms and become more like the countries that this country fought so hard to separate themselves from once upon a time.
    That's your interpretation and I am not saying it does not fit but a comma does not make a sentence have 2 different meanings.

    Reading the sentence as worded all of those things are intertwined.

    The way I read it is citizens have the right to bear arms so that they can have the security of a free state by having a well regulated militia.

  11. #10
    Senior Member Cowboysrock55's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    18,571
    Quote Originally Posted by Jiggyfly View Post
    That's your interpretation and I am not saying it does not fit but a comma does not make a sentence have 2 different meanings.

    Reading the sentence as worded all of those things are intertwined.

    The way I read it is citizens have the right to bear arms so that they can have the security of a free state by having a well regulated militia.
    Again, well regulated modifies the term militia. It doesn't modify the portion giving the right to bear arms. It's just English. Maybe I've been in law too long or something but this isn't confusing at all.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •