Posted on May 24, 2015
2nd Amendment... How long has this REALLY been applicable?
12.8K
157
86
3
-3
6
I see people constantly quoting the Second Amendment anytime an issue comes up having to do with personally owned weapons... but did you know, that the individual did not have this right until 2008? As a nation, we have had the right to form well regulated militias. The individual person, however, has only had the right to own weapons for seven years now.
It was District of Columbia v Heller (2008) that allowed all of us to own weapons.
http://www.lawnix.com/cases/dc-heller.html
It was District of Columbia v Heller (2008) that allowed all of us to own weapons.
http://www.lawnix.com/cases/dc-heller.html
Posted in these groups: 
2nd Amendment
2nd Amendment
Posted 9 y ago
Responses: 30
0
0
0
You took an oath to support and defend the Constitution. You may want to consider reading it.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
SFC (Join to see)
The 2nd Amendment always insured the right of individual ownership of weapons. District of Columbia v Heller simply affirmed that we have that right and that DC was violating it.
The 2nd Amendment always insured the right of individual ownership of weapons. District of Columbia v Heller simply affirmed that we have that right and that DC was violating it.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
This had nothing to do with the nation as a whole, but Washington D.C. You're comment is basically invalid and VERY uninformed.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
The idea that Heller is the origin of private firearms ownership right is the US is pretty shortsighted. Control of firearms in private hands didn't come about in the US until the 1930s with the violence that came out of Prohibition. Note that that violence was a result of government restriction of property rights--the possession, manufacture, and sale of certain beverages--so the government caused the problem, and then tried to solve it with new prohibition restricting property rights on firearms.
Perhaps the distinction that needs to be made is that we need to recognize that neither the Constitution nor government gives us our rights. We believe, or are supposed to believe, in Natural Rights--rights that all people have simply because they exist in the natural world--those who are so inclined ascribe these to God. But the point is that the origin of the right is being a person. The Second Amendment (nor any other Amendment) doesn't grant us a right--it only limits the government's authority in regard to our exercise of a right we already had.
Perhaps the distinction that needs to be made is that we need to recognize that neither the Constitution nor government gives us our rights. We believe, or are supposed to believe, in Natural Rights--rights that all people have simply because they exist in the natural world--those who are so inclined ascribe these to God. But the point is that the origin of the right is being a person. The Second Amendment (nor any other Amendment) doesn't grant us a right--it only limits the government's authority in regard to our exercise of a right we already had.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
I'm just going to leave this here:
https://www.rallypoint.com/answers/does-the-second-amendment-need-to-be-amended
https://www.rallypoint.com/answers/does-the-second-amendment-need-to-be-amended
Does the Second Amendment need to be Amended? | RallyPoint
There's been a lot of debate about firearms and firearm ownership recently. I've been a part of a lot of it. I think one thing that is achingly necessary is some close reading of the Second Amendment itself. I slapped together a powerpoint for my sister a few years ago on the topic, and will post the text here with the title slide as an image (because it outlines the argument.) 2. Inherent Right to Self DefenseAll persons entitled to defend...
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
An incredibly unbelievable question and statement of legitimacy by this RP member. It certainly takes all kinds...
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
Wrong on two counts. Firstly, what is a militia but a collection of individuals coming together for a common purpose? And where else in the Constitution does the phrase 'the People' mean anything but?
Second, if you're going to make the 'militia' argument, it might've behooved you to actually know what the legal definition of the militia actually is. In relief of your ignorance, the legal definition follows:
10 U.S. CODE § 311 - MILITIA: COMPOSITION AND CLASSES
(a)The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b)The classes of the militia are—
(1)the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2)the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.
Based on subsection a, combined with later court rulings and laws barring discrimination based on physical disability, age and gender, the unorganized militia is ANY citizen of the minimum legal age to buy firearms and not legally barred from doing so for reasons such as a felony conviction etc. Second, according to the Supreme Court’s District of Columba v. Heller decision, the 2nd Amendment does apply to individuals, regardless of being in an organized militia or otherwise.
Second, if you're going to make the 'militia' argument, it might've behooved you to actually know what the legal definition of the militia actually is. In relief of your ignorance, the legal definition follows:
10 U.S. CODE § 311 - MILITIA: COMPOSITION AND CLASSES
(a)The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b)The classes of the militia are—
(1)the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2)the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.
Based on subsection a, combined with later court rulings and laws barring discrimination based on physical disability, age and gender, the unorganized militia is ANY citizen of the minimum legal age to buy firearms and not legally barred from doing so for reasons such as a felony conviction etc. Second, according to the Supreme Court’s District of Columba v. Heller decision, the 2nd Amendment does apply to individuals, regardless of being in an organized militia or otherwise.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
On another note, every able bodied male between the age of 18 and 45 was made a member of the militia in 1792 anyway. That statute still stands, with minor modifications (the original said white males only, and it's since been changed to 54 vice 45 as well) - so even if the grammar fail in the op were correct about the second amendment, it would still apply to every adult male in the U.S.
He's not correct, because the "well regulated" clause of the second amendment is written such that the rest of the amendment is not contingent on it, but even if he were it wouldn't matter - to those of us men between 18 and 54 anyway.
He's not correct, because the "well regulated" clause of the second amendment is written such that the rest of the amendment is not contingent on it, but even if he were it wouldn't matter - to those of us men between 18 and 54 anyway.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
i have frequently answered ammosexuals that since i am a retired member of the nat'l guard, that i have a right to own firearms and they don't
the other comment is that the weapon of an infantryman is a rifle, therefore you have a right to own a rifle, and you don't have a right to own a handgun unless you are an officer, and your reading skills are terrible so you don't qualify for that
the other comment is that the weapon of an infantryman is a rifle, therefore you have a right to own a rifle, and you don't have a right to own a handgun unless you are an officer, and your reading skills are terrible so you don't qualify for that
(0)
(0)
MAJ (Join to see)
Actually SSG John Jensen, if we were to hold to your severely flawed and diseased line of of thought on this matter, you would no longer have the right to own any firearms either. You are now retired, and medically retired at that. Whereas you are no longer of any tangible value to the force, there exists no further justification for you to continue to own or retain firearms.
(2)
(0)
1
-1
2
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google