7
7
0
First off, I support our 2nd Amendment rights to own weapons. I do want regulations in place just like our regulations on other licensed property such as cars, but at the core, I support our Bill of Rights and am a liberal member of the ACLU.<div><br></div><div>How do you interpret the 2nd Amendment?</div><div><br></div><div>Please don't quote anything from the NRA or your favorite gun rights advocate. I want to hear your opinions on the subject. Here is the text of the Amendment:</div><div><br></div><div>"<span style="color: rgb(37, 37, 37); font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 21px;">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.</span>"</div><div><br></div><div>Some people quibble about the comma, some link the right to keep and bear arms to the well regulated militia. Some say it means we can keep weapons to deter tyrants. There are a lot of interpretations, I want to hear yours. Do you feel it means weapon ownership should be absent any regulations? Why or why not? Do you think we can/should be able to own fully automatic weapons? Explosive weapons? Speak your mind and let's discuss!</div>
2nd Amendment
Weapons
Firearms and Guns
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 41
1
1
0
Could someone explain to me how a background check is an infringement on your right to bear arms? If you're not adjudicated mentally unstable, and if you're not a felon, the background check comes back positive, and you get your gun purchase.
Proper reform of the mental health system, and proper reform of the laws regarding mental health, would allow for reporting to the NICS for those that are a danger to themselves or others.
If you get your gun, then you're not suffering from an infringement on your rights.
The right to life is worth more than any other right, in my not so humble opinion, and I am a strong supporter of the 2nd Amendment. There's got to be balance, though. We have to be able to keep deadly weapons out of the hands of the mentally unstable and violent felons, while not taking them away from law-abiding citizens. Both are equally important.
Proper reform of the mental health system, and proper reform of the laws regarding mental health, would allow for reporting to the NICS for those that are a danger to themselves or others.
If you get your gun, then you're not suffering from an infringement on your rights.
The right to life is worth more than any other right, in my not so humble opinion, and I am a strong supporter of the 2nd Amendment. There's got to be balance, though. We have to be able to keep deadly weapons out of the hands of the mentally unstable and violent felons, while not taking them away from law-abiding citizens. Both are equally important.
(1)
(0)
1LT (Join to see)
Mr. Walker,
I would argue that any individual trusted to be outside of confinement should have the ability to possess a firearm.
You state the right to life is worth more than any other right. Would not the right to be able to defend yourself with the most effective tool fall under that right to life? Should that change if you were convicted, served your time, and then released?
I would agree that those who are dangerous should be prohibited from having access to *anything* that can be used to harm others - however, those are the people that should be incarcerated permanently, if not already taken down by someone defending themselves.
As someone who works in the web hosting industry, I could turn around the argument that specific demographics should be prohibited from owning firearms due to a concern for them being possibly violent into an argument that we should also have background checks and require licensure to have access to a computer. Couldn't a violent individual, who was released from incarceration (or someone who is mentally unstable), and has the technical know how severely harm others (and possibly en mass) via the internet - identity theft, for example.
I would argue that any individual trusted to be outside of confinement should have the ability to possess a firearm.
You state the right to life is worth more than any other right. Would not the right to be able to defend yourself with the most effective tool fall under that right to life? Should that change if you were convicted, served your time, and then released?
I would agree that those who are dangerous should be prohibited from having access to *anything* that can be used to harm others - however, those are the people that should be incarcerated permanently, if not already taken down by someone defending themselves.
As someone who works in the web hosting industry, I could turn around the argument that specific demographics should be prohibited from owning firearms due to a concern for them being possibly violent into an argument that we should also have background checks and require licensure to have access to a computer. Couldn't a violent individual, who was released from incarceration (or someone who is mentally unstable), and has the technical know how severely harm others (and possibly en mass) via the internet - identity theft, for example.
(1)
(0)
CW3 (Join to see)
Then we disagree on the meaning of infringement, and there's really nothing left for me to talk about in this discussion.
I am weighing the amount of time you or I would have to wait while the background check is conducted against the possibility that a violent felon or mentally unstable person could obtain a firearm sans background check and kill someone's loved one.
Waiting time vs. life.....I know which side of the fence I'm on.
I am weighing the amount of time you or I would have to wait while the background check is conducted against the possibility that a violent felon or mentally unstable person could obtain a firearm sans background check and kill someone's loved one.
Waiting time vs. life.....I know which side of the fence I'm on.
(1)
(0)
SSG (Join to see)
CW2 Walker, I think it's fairly safe to say NO ONE wants violent felons or the mentally unstable to acquire a firearm. Before I continue on though, I'd like to ask you a question. Why do we want that?
(0)
(0)
CPL Charles Gale
"People willing to trade their freedom for temporary security deserve neither and will lose both." - Benjamin Franklin
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
It means to me that we are entitled to own the current infantry small arms of the day in order to protect our life, our liberty, and to ensure our ability to pursue happiness.
(1)
(0)
SFC Cornelius Walsh
Well played, Sir, though mine was simply an opinion. I think, however, that while certainly there were private merchant ships that had cannon, and individuals may have owned a few, I would take more issue with the fact that then, like now, it would be inadvisable for a private citizen to be capable of owning an entire battery. Great discussion, though.
(0)
(0)
SFC Cornelius Walsh
Well, Sir, I'd say the fear of ownership was misstated - more accurately, the USE of an entire artillery battery by a private citizen could be problematic. Realistically though, I really believe that gun laws don't really affect criminals, and are instead, just a way to hamper law-abiding citizens from obtaining weapons. As a Baltimore resident, I'm constantly reminded that felons, drug dealers, and habitual criminals all have guns - I'm not sure many if any of them obtained those firearms legally. My opinion remains, though, that we should have the right to bear small arms in order to protect ourselves, our families, and our belongings from those who which to do us harm.
(1)
(0)
SSG (Join to see)
SFC Walsh, I would say the MISUSE of ANY tool is problematic. it all boils down to responsibility and accountability. Gun laws definitely don't affect criminals because they are just that: criminals. they DON'T obey laws. Ultimately, it's about control of the populace. One thing that is really funny, for example, is how does restricting the number of cartridges in a magazine help society? Take NY's latest law, the SAFE Act. How is it that a magazine with 10 cartridges is safe but put one more then it's all of a sudden dangerous??? No logic there. The danger lies in the INTENT of the person operating the mechanism, not the mechanism itself. By the same token, having ONE cannon is no different than having 10 cannons, except in quantity. Yes, the more cannons the more destruction but again the problem isn't the mechanisms, it's the willful choice of the person to cause harm.
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
I take the 2nd amendment at face value.
At the time, there was no large, standing Army. The ability to quickly call up a militia for defense was therefore crucial. Logistically it would be very difficult to call up that many people, get them trained, outfitted and armed, and utilize them in time to deter whatever threat justified the call up in the first place. So the amendment makes perfect sense to me. It's an efficient way to expedite the process of banding your militias.
Having said that, I believe the creation of the modern military has rendered it irrelevant. We have state Armies (the National Guards) and a fully formed federal Army (and Marine Corps, Navy, Air Force, Coast Guard) ready at all times for our defense. The days of quickly having to assemble a militia are over.
Bear in mind, I am looking at this solely through a national defense stand point. I don't care about conspiracy theories, or Red Dawn masturbatory fantasies. I leave those to... better men.
At the time, there was no large, standing Army. The ability to quickly call up a militia for defense was therefore crucial. Logistically it would be very difficult to call up that many people, get them trained, outfitted and armed, and utilize them in time to deter whatever threat justified the call up in the first place. So the amendment makes perfect sense to me. It's an efficient way to expedite the process of banding your militias.
Having said that, I believe the creation of the modern military has rendered it irrelevant. We have state Armies (the National Guards) and a fully formed federal Army (and Marine Corps, Navy, Air Force, Coast Guard) ready at all times for our defense. The days of quickly having to assemble a militia are over.
Bear in mind, I am looking at this solely through a national defense stand point. I don't care about conspiracy theories, or Red Dawn masturbatory fantasies. I leave those to... better men.
(1)
(0)
SSG Gerhard S.
SSG H. Your contention is out of line with the thoughts and considerations of those who framed our Constitution, and it's principles... Here are a few quotes to put things into perspective for you regarding WHO are the militia, and their purpose for being, as argued by those who argued, framed, and ratified the Document which defines our governmental system and explicitly limits the powers granted to the General government.
Richard Henry Lee: “A militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves…and include all men capable of bearing arms.” (Additional letters from the Federal Farmer, at 169, 1788)
George Mason: “I ask you sir, who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people.” (Elliott, Debates, 425-426)
Tenche Coxe: “Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man against his own bosom. Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American… The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people.” – Tenche Coxe, The Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788.
Alexander Hamilton: “…that standing army can never be formidable (threatening) to the liberties of the people, while there is a large body of citizens, little if at all inferior to them in the use of arms.” (Federalist Paper #29)
Patrick Henry: “The great object is that every man be armed. Everyone who is able might have a gun.” 3 Elliot, Debates at 386.
George Washington: “A free people ought not only to be armed and disciplined but they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence from any who might attempt to abuse them, which would include their own government.”
Lastly, a not on what the word "regulated" meant with regards to military action in the days when the Constitution was written.
IMPORTANT NOTE: Back in the 18th century, a “regular” army meant an army that had standard military equipment. So a “well regulated” army was simply one that was “well equipped” and organized. It does not refer to a professional army. The 17th century folks used the term “standing army” or “regulars” to describe a professional army. Therefore, “a well regulated militia” only means a well equipped militia that was organized and maintained internal discipline. It does not imply the modern meaning of “regulated,” which means controlled or administered by some superior entity.
Richard Henry Lee: “A militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves…and include all men capable of bearing arms.” (Additional letters from the Federal Farmer, at 169, 1788)
George Mason: “I ask you sir, who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people.” (Elliott, Debates, 425-426)
Tenche Coxe: “Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man against his own bosom. Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American… The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people.” – Tenche Coxe, The Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788.
Alexander Hamilton: “…that standing army can never be formidable (threatening) to the liberties of the people, while there is a large body of citizens, little if at all inferior to them in the use of arms.” (Federalist Paper #29)
Patrick Henry: “The great object is that every man be armed. Everyone who is able might have a gun.” 3 Elliot, Debates at 386.
George Washington: “A free people ought not only to be armed and disciplined but they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence from any who might attempt to abuse them, which would include their own government.”
Lastly, a not on what the word "regulated" meant with regards to military action in the days when the Constitution was written.
IMPORTANT NOTE: Back in the 18th century, a “regular” army meant an army that had standard military equipment. So a “well regulated” army was simply one that was “well equipped” and organized. It does not refer to a professional army. The 17th century folks used the term “standing army” or “regulars” to describe a professional army. Therefore, “a well regulated militia” only means a well equipped militia that was organized and maintained internal discipline. It does not imply the modern meaning of “regulated,” which means controlled or administered by some superior entity.
(2)
(0)
COL Randall C.
SSG Hasburn - one correction (nothing to do with the 2A discussions). The "State Armies" are not the National Guard, but rather the State Defense Forces (all are authorized, but less than half the states actually have a SDF).
The National Guard of today (the full name is the National Guard of the United States, but hardly anyone ever uses that) traces its roots back to the militias, but has evolved through various laws (notably the National Defense Act of 1916 and later with the National Guard Mobilization Act) to what it is today.
The National Guard of today (the full name is the National Guard of the United States, but hardly anyone ever uses that) traces its roots back to the militias, but has evolved through various laws (notably the National Defense Act of 1916 and later with the National Guard Mobilization Act) to what it is today.
(2)
(0)
LTC (Join to see)
Also, I suggest that you read the Military Laws of your State. The Militias of the various States do include but are not limited to the National Guard. Title 44 Code of Virginia - the Military Law of Virginia lists four elements to the Virginia Militia: (1) the Army and Air National Guard; (2) The Virginia State Defense Force; (3) The Naval Militia and (4) The Unorganized Militia. The last being essentially all able bodied citizens and residents intending to become citizens between 16 and 55 years of age (see Title 44, Ch 1, Art 1 Codenof Virginia). That being said, if Ammendment 2 U.S. Constitution was referring to the "right" of the States rather than the Right of individuals, I believe the Founders would have said so.
(0)
(0)
1
1
0
I interpret that second amendment in a literal sense... It says that the right to bear arms shall not be infringed.... We can reasonably understand that "Arm" is short for armament(Merriam Webster, 2014) Thus, a right to bear arms would preclude that we also have the right to bear armaments. As well as "a : a means (as a weapon) of offense or defense; especially : firearm
b : a combat branch (as of an army)
c : an organized branch of national defense (as the navy)
2
plural
a : the hereditary heraldic devices of a family
b : heraldic devices adopted by a government
3
plural
a : active hostilities : warfare <a call to arms>
b : military service" (Merriam Webster, 2014)
As you can see the right to bear arms would be the right to bear any weapon for offense and defense in accordance with accepted definitions.
b : a combat branch (as of an army)
c : an organized branch of national defense (as the navy)
2
plural
a : the hereditary heraldic devices of a family
b : heraldic devices adopted by a government
3
plural
a : active hostilities : warfare <a call to arms>
b : military service" (Merriam Webster, 2014)
As you can see the right to bear arms would be the right to bear any weapon for offense and defense in accordance with accepted definitions.
(1)
(0)
Cpl Benjamin Long
It just makes a revelation, ban firearms and people start hucking molatovs and piped bombs at each other... or just toss make a hydrazine fogger in public area.... I would rather have them shooting at each other...
(1)
(0)
MSG Mitch Dowler
The militia is defined in Title 10 of the United States Code. The portion of the militia referred to in the 2nd Amendment is those male Citizens not otherwise a part of the active military, reserves, or national guard. Those militia are male Citizens and are the final check and balance to keep our government properly in servitude to the People. This militia is the original militia that took arms against the tyranny of King George and subsequent tyrannous individuals who may try to place themselves in the position of king.
(1)
(0)
Cpl Benjamin Long
Ifthe militia is meant to be for the preservationof a "free" state. how can it maintain the integrity of a free state and serve an occupier at the same time??? Just because it is a law does not make it sensible.
(1)
(0)
Cpl Benjamin Long
I would like to also like to say that I find "a "Well regulated Militia" separate from "Keep and bear arms. The modifier issue aside, they are two main clauses that should be separated with a semi colon... Since they are independent... the right to bear arms has absolutely nothing to do with Maintaining a militia. Just my two cents on that.
(0)
(0)
1
1
0
<p>One thing I don't agree with about gun control is how they use a specific incident for example Sandy Hook to try to push new laws on the people. Using the Sandy Hook for example to target assault weapons when the shooter didn't even use an assault weapon. Additionally Connecticut already had more strict laws than what were recommended to combat shooting like this from happening.</p><p> </p>
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
Exactly what it says. We are citizens and have the right to bear arms. I firmly believe that if a gov. Believes it's people are well armed then the will second guess qbout trying something crazy and crooks will second guess about attacking if they think someone might have a weapon.
Now I do believe some regulation is needed, but not to the point that governments are saying you can only one so many mags or the type of gun(this does not include military grade weapons sys.)
Now I do believe some regulation is needed, but not to the point that governments are saying you can only one so many mags or the type of gun(this does not include military grade weapons sys.)
(1)
(0)
(0)
(0)
Cpl Benjamin Long
Also It can be regarded as a squinting modifier... does regulation apply to the first clause (Right to bear arms) or the second clause (Well regulated militia... Free state)?
(0)
(0)
MSG Mitch Dowler
"Well Regulated" as it refers to the militia means individual private Citizens who are well trained because they have a wide variety of military weapons at their disposal to become very proficient with.
(1)
(0)
Cpl Benjamin Long
Corroborate with facts MSG.... how does causation of regulation correlate to being well trained because of wide variety of weapons? Without evidence you merely are at post hoc logic.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
First, thank you for using the text of the amendment as it was originally passed. All the commas that usually appear were added later, as was the capitalization of the word "State". I believe that the second amendment says:
1. A functional militia is necessary to the security of a free state. That means that a state that is FREE has need of a militia. The militia is the sum total of armed civilians, and yes many of them would be worse than useless in a fight. So were most of the Continental militia, but they kept showing up to the party, and the survivors got better. The same would happen now in any protracted fight between militia (that's not the Reserve or National Guard) against regulars (and that should include the Reserve and National Guard in this usage.)
Since the Federal government was given the sole power to make and declare war, it was obvious that there would be at least a small standing army. The States would also have their own armed forces -- that was just how things were at the time, and nobody saw any issue with that. These organized forces were not and never have been part of the militia.
2. The people, and that's everyone -- although mentally incompetent and children would have been excepted at the time, as they should be now -- has the right to keep and carry arms of any sort. That right is not to be interfered with. I don't believe that this means that any and all regulations regarding gun ownership are wrong, but anything that says, either explicitly or by logical extension, that you need government permission to own and use a gun (or any other weapon) is unconstitutional on its face. And therefore null and void.
I'm aware that the 18th century view would have also excluded women, chattel slaves, and possibly even unpropertied men from any sort of militia service, but those were contemporary beliefs that have changed. The wording of the second amendment has nothing that would necessarily exclude any of these groups.
1. A functional militia is necessary to the security of a free state. That means that a state that is FREE has need of a militia. The militia is the sum total of armed civilians, and yes many of them would be worse than useless in a fight. So were most of the Continental militia, but they kept showing up to the party, and the survivors got better. The same would happen now in any protracted fight between militia (that's not the Reserve or National Guard) against regulars (and that should include the Reserve and National Guard in this usage.)
Since the Federal government was given the sole power to make and declare war, it was obvious that there would be at least a small standing army. The States would also have their own armed forces -- that was just how things were at the time, and nobody saw any issue with that. These organized forces were not and never have been part of the militia.
2. The people, and that's everyone -- although mentally incompetent and children would have been excepted at the time, as they should be now -- has the right to keep and carry arms of any sort. That right is not to be interfered with. I don't believe that this means that any and all regulations regarding gun ownership are wrong, but anything that says, either explicitly or by logical extension, that you need government permission to own and use a gun (or any other weapon) is unconstitutional on its face. And therefore null and void.
I'm aware that the 18th century view would have also excluded women, chattel slaves, and possibly even unpropertied men from any sort of militia service, but those were contemporary beliefs that have changed. The wording of the second amendment has nothing that would necessarily exclude any of these groups.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
The core argument of those who argue against private ownership of weapons is that the 2nd ammendment was meant for "a well regulated militia". In their opinion, if you aren't a policeman or a member of the Military (Guard or reserve,,, with your weapon in an armory) you don't have a right to own a firearm.
In my opinion the Militia of that time was completely different than what we consider militia of today. A militia was any group of citizens who responded to an emergency, be it attacks by natives, foriegn military or criminals.
Two perfect examples of a group of citizens acting as militia with ad-hoc organization were incidents involving criminals. The first was the raid/robbery attempt in 1876 in Northfield Minnesota where armed Citizens killed or wounded 5 members of the Jesse James/Cole Younger Gang.
The second was in the 1992 LA riots when Shop Owners banded together to protect their property from looters.
A "well regulated Militia" is nother more than one or more law abiding citizens with a firearm, in my opinion.
In my opinion the Militia of that time was completely different than what we consider militia of today. A militia was any group of citizens who responded to an emergency, be it attacks by natives, foriegn military or criminals.
Two perfect examples of a group of citizens acting as militia with ad-hoc organization were incidents involving criminals. The first was the raid/robbery attempt in 1876 in Northfield Minnesota where armed Citizens killed or wounded 5 members of the Jesse James/Cole Younger Gang.
The second was in the 1992 LA riots when Shop Owners banded together to protect their property from looters.
A "well regulated Militia" is nother more than one or more law abiding citizens with a firearm, in my opinion.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
I interpret it as Citizens of this country can have whatever kind of weapon they want. However the line that must be drawn is how much is to much. Tanks, Rockets, Mortars, Bombs, Grenades etc are things I wouldn't include as being protected by the second.
The Militia is the people all of them. Historically speaking if hostiles attacked your settlement everyone grabbed a gun and defended the settlement. That was the Founders True intent.
The Militia is the people all of them. Historically speaking if hostiles attacked your settlement everyone grabbed a gun and defended the settlement. That was the Founders True intent.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
The 2nd Amendment also covers people in the U.S. illegally ...
People living in the United States illegally have a constitutional right to bear arms but are still barred from doing so by a separate law, a federal appeals court ruled.
The three-judge panel of the U.S. 7th Circuit Court of Appeals issued its ruling Thursday in a case involving Mariano Meza-Rodriguez. His family brought him to the United States from Mexico illegally when he was four or five years old, according to the 7th Circuit ruling. Now an adult, he was arrested in 2013 after a bar fight in Milwaukee. Police found a .22-caliber bullet in his shorts pocket.
Federal law prohibits people in the country illegally from possessing guns or ammunition. Meza-Rodriguez argued that the charges should be dismissed because the law infringes on his Second Amendment right to bear arms. U.S. District Judge Rudolph Randa rejected that contention on the broad grounds that the Second Amendment doesn't apply to people in the country illegally. Meza-Rodriguez was ultimately convicted of a felony and deported.
The 7th Circuit panel, however, ruled unanimously Thursday that the term "the people" in the Second Amendment's guarantee that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed also applies to those in the country illegally. The ruling, which applies in Illinois, Indiana and Wisconsin, conflicts with opinions from three other federal appellate courts in recent years that found the Second Amendment doesn't apply to people in the country illegally.
http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/court-second-amendment-also-covers-those-in-us-illegally/ar-BBm5Bx1?li=AA54ur
People living in the United States illegally have a constitutional right to bear arms but are still barred from doing so by a separate law, a federal appeals court ruled.
The three-judge panel of the U.S. 7th Circuit Court of Appeals issued its ruling Thursday in a case involving Mariano Meza-Rodriguez. His family brought him to the United States from Mexico illegally when he was four or five years old, according to the 7th Circuit ruling. Now an adult, he was arrested in 2013 after a bar fight in Milwaukee. Police found a .22-caliber bullet in his shorts pocket.
Federal law prohibits people in the country illegally from possessing guns or ammunition. Meza-Rodriguez argued that the charges should be dismissed because the law infringes on his Second Amendment right to bear arms. U.S. District Judge Rudolph Randa rejected that contention on the broad grounds that the Second Amendment doesn't apply to people in the country illegally. Meza-Rodriguez was ultimately convicted of a felony and deported.
The 7th Circuit panel, however, ruled unanimously Thursday that the term "the people" in the Second Amendment's guarantee that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed also applies to those in the country illegally. The ruling, which applies in Illinois, Indiana and Wisconsin, conflicts with opinions from three other federal appellate courts in recent years that found the Second Amendment doesn't apply to people in the country illegally.
http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/court-second-amendment-also-covers-those-in-us-illegally/ar-BBm5Bx1?li=AA54ur
Court: Second Amendment also covers those in US illegally
MADISON, Wis. — People living in the United States illegally have a constitutional right to bear arms but are still barred from doing so by a separate law, a federal appeals court ruled.The three-judge panel of the U.S. 7th Circuit Court of Appeals issued its ruling Thursday in a case involving Mariano Meza-Rodriguez. His family brought him to the United States from Mexico illegally when he was four or five years old, according to the 7th...
(0)
(0)
PO2 Mark Saffell
I just dont understand why courts want to give people that are here illegally and are not citizens the same rights as those that follow the law or are US Citizens. These are the same people that want to violate the law and bring enemy combatants to US Prisons. This is against the LAW! Presidents, politicians and judges that refuse to follow or enforce the law should be removed from office NOW. I took my oath seriously, WHY dont these A$$wipes??
(1)
(0)
0
0
0
We're somewhat alone when it comes to arms which makes it a hot topic as a country. There are countries out there that think we're nuts having this 2nd Amendment thing. I referee soccer in Europe every summer and get asked many questions and hear about their contrived stereotypes about American Cowboys. Then there are a few countries that promote ownership like the Swiss.
So we have "No" countries, "Yes" countries, and we seem to be the "Smoke 'em if you got 'em" which defies logic to outsiders.. It's a right but you are not required to exercise it. Same goes for speech and religion.
We see a lot of the "framers said this". Yes they did say it but in context with their times which was white gentry landowners are the only ones who can vote. Things have changed since then. We struggle with these questions because there is no clear answer that would work for most everyone. There won't be one. So if you're a Constitutional purist, then you have to realize you're working against gravity and have to work at not losing more and work harder to regain what has been lost. With the uberliberal gun control media, it becomes harder.
That said, I wonder if things are headed the right direction with more carry friendly states. And how about that national carry idea? You'd never see that 20 years ago.
So we have "No" countries, "Yes" countries, and we seem to be the "Smoke 'em if you got 'em" which defies logic to outsiders.. It's a right but you are not required to exercise it. Same goes for speech and religion.
We see a lot of the "framers said this". Yes they did say it but in context with their times which was white gentry landowners are the only ones who can vote. Things have changed since then. We struggle with these questions because there is no clear answer that would work for most everyone. There won't be one. So if you're a Constitutional purist, then you have to realize you're working against gravity and have to work at not losing more and work harder to regain what has been lost. With the uberliberal gun control media, it becomes harder.
That said, I wonder if things are headed the right direction with more carry friendly states. And how about that national carry idea? You'd never see that 20 years ago.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
This part of the sentence says it all. "... the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." IF you look at the Amendment line for line and word for word, the conclusion is simple.
Militias can be looked at as either State Funded Militias or the National Guard and Reserve Forces. It could also mean that it is each of our Obligation to defend our nation through owning our own firearms and wanting to whip our enemies ass.
However, I look at the Second Amendment as my Right to Responsibly own firearms and ensure I keep them safe and out of the hands of douche bags, politicians, criminals, my wife, and Joe Biden.
Militias can be looked at as either State Funded Militias or the National Guard and Reserve Forces. It could also mean that it is each of our Obligation to defend our nation through owning our own firearms and wanting to whip our enemies ass.
However, I look at the Second Amendment as my Right to Responsibly own firearms and ensure I keep them safe and out of the hands of douche bags, politicians, criminals, my wife, and Joe Biden.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
In the hunt to be the 2016 GOP pick, top contenders agree on 1 thing: Guns
The near-unanimity in supporting the Second Amendment — even among candidates who don’t own firearms — underscores the importance of guns in modern-day conservatism.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
The founding fathers felt so strongly about a citizens right to bear arms, they took up the issue "Second", only behind the right to speak! My interpretation means little to those who have given the ultimate sacrifice defending my right to bear arms. Their sacrifice was not in vain and I continue to bear it proudly!
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
My understanding is that the Bill of Rights applies to citizens, not the government. That being the case "A well regulated militia" has nothing to do with the military which is very much a part of the government.
(0)
(0)
1LT Aaron Barr
Actually, it's just the opposite. Our Natural Rights, referred to in the Declaration of Independence as 'inalienable rights', precede government and men establish governments for their protection. The fundamental Natural Rights, as defined by John Locke whom the Founders plagiarized, are Life, Liberty and Property. They're fundamental because they apply even if you're totally alone. These, in turn, form the basis of other Natural Rights that apply when in the company of others to include Privacy, Trade, Movement, Association etc.
Our fundamental equality of rights forms their natural limit; since my rights do not, by nature, trump anybody else's nor do their rights trump mine, the limit of their exercise is that nobody may violate the rights of anybody else. However, it's well-understood that people will do this. Therefore, another Natural Right that precedes government is that of Self-Defense; if a person will threaten or apply force against another in violation of their rights, that person has an absolute right to respond in kind.
The Founders recognized this philosophy as well as the fact that the government is also the worst violator of the rights of its people. To wit, they crafted the Constitution to include democratic representation, division of power between the Federal government and the states and between the branches of the Federal government and a whole slew of others. In addition, they added the Bill of Rights which applies to the Federal government and reads like the Ten Commandments. Each one is a 'thou shalt not' aimed at the government. In this manner, the Constitution establishes LEGAL rights, at the highest level of law, to prevent the government from infringing on pre-existing NATURAL rights.
Our fundamental equality of rights forms their natural limit; since my rights do not, by nature, trump anybody else's nor do their rights trump mine, the limit of their exercise is that nobody may violate the rights of anybody else. However, it's well-understood that people will do this. Therefore, another Natural Right that precedes government is that of Self-Defense; if a person will threaten or apply force against another in violation of their rights, that person has an absolute right to respond in kind.
The Founders recognized this philosophy as well as the fact that the government is also the worst violator of the rights of its people. To wit, they crafted the Constitution to include democratic representation, division of power between the Federal government and the states and between the branches of the Federal government and a whole slew of others. In addition, they added the Bill of Rights which applies to the Federal government and reads like the Ten Commandments. Each one is a 'thou shalt not' aimed at the government. In this manner, the Constitution establishes LEGAL rights, at the highest level of law, to prevent the government from infringing on pre-existing NATURAL rights.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
I think that the right to keep and bear arms is essential to keep our other rights. If we lose that right, we have no way to guarantee we keep the others. It was put in place to protect us from our own government should it decide it wants to become tyrannical. Remember that at the time it was written, all weapons were military style. To limit one type of weapon based on looks is irrational. Limiting the type of weapons we are allowed to bear to something far less the what the government has effectively limits our ability to resist a tyrannical government. I'm not saying that our government will ever be tyrannical. It is a way to keep our government "for the people" and not "against the people". Lets hope we never have to use our right that way but that's what I think it was written for.
With all that said, I believe that being denied the right because you're crazy is a touchy subject. If you are the only sane person in a room of crazy people, by definition, you're the crazy one. Who gets to decide who is crazy or not and for what reasons would that judgment be given? It is a slippery road when you say that someone can't keep or bear arms because they are crazy. It only takes someone to say that if a person is crazy because of one thing, than we can say they are crazy for an unrelated thing. Next thing you know, people are crazy for stupid things like walking or talking different. That doesn't make them crazy, just different. The judgment should not be given lightly.
If the person committed a crime with a weapon then YES, by all means deny them the right. They have proven that they're not responsible enough to have it. We are innocent until proven guilty and thus should have the right until proven that we shouldn't have it.
With all that said, I believe that being denied the right because you're crazy is a touchy subject. If you are the only sane person in a room of crazy people, by definition, you're the crazy one. Who gets to decide who is crazy or not and for what reasons would that judgment be given? It is a slippery road when you say that someone can't keep or bear arms because they are crazy. It only takes someone to say that if a person is crazy because of one thing, than we can say they are crazy for an unrelated thing. Next thing you know, people are crazy for stupid things like walking or talking different. That doesn't make them crazy, just different. The judgment should not be given lightly.
If the person committed a crime with a weapon then YES, by all means deny them the right. They have proven that they're not responsible enough to have it. We are innocent until proven guilty and thus should have the right until proven that we shouldn't have it.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
I don't see what is wrong with the regulation of what guns we can have. If a citizen is allowed to have a pistol or shotgun, why would they want/need a semi-automatic or automatic rifle?
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
There is no 'interpretation.' It is written as any person can understand, and it should be followed as such.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
Quibble or not, both halves of the one-liner are integral to the meaning that I interpret it as and that takes a small amount of explanation, please bear with me.
First, let's separate the two statements broken up and put in a reverse manner:
"...the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state..."
For the term 'regulated' I am defining it as the ability to keep up with modern challenges.
For the term 'militia' I am defining it as a group of citizens banded together under the cause for common defense against an enemy, such as was the case at the dawning of our nation.
Bearing arms by the citizenry, when looked at in such a fashion, is undeniably appreciated and encouraged in a manner to maintain the security of the free state.
The simplicity of the sentence lends itself to adapt to the present and future times as well in my humble opinion.
How can a militia be up to the task of securing/maintaining a state of freedom if, in modern terms, it cannot provide superior firepower to repel attacks from an enemy such as the world's recognized best in the days of the writing of the Constitution?
Simply, if your neighbors across the border have fully automatic weapons plus other weapons with unkind abilities to produce a massive amount of casualties in short order, how can our people defend with pea shooters and dirt clods?
First, let's separate the two statements broken up and put in a reverse manner:
"...the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state..."
For the term 'regulated' I am defining it as the ability to keep up with modern challenges.
For the term 'militia' I am defining it as a group of citizens banded together under the cause for common defense against an enemy, such as was the case at the dawning of our nation.
Bearing arms by the citizenry, when looked at in such a fashion, is undeniably appreciated and encouraged in a manner to maintain the security of the free state.
The simplicity of the sentence lends itself to adapt to the present and future times as well in my humble opinion.
How can a militia be up to the task of securing/maintaining a state of freedom if, in modern terms, it cannot provide superior firepower to repel attacks from an enemy such as the world's recognized best in the days of the writing of the Constitution?
Simply, if your neighbors across the border have fully automatic weapons plus other weapons with unkind abilities to produce a massive amount of casualties in short order, how can our people defend with pea shooters and dirt clods?
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
Lots of great discussion here, my hats off to everyone. I'm not a huge fan of the "right to bear arms" as it applies to the average citizen, based on this thought process: When in uniform, we trained professionals can't access our government issue small arms on a moments notice due to all the regs that govern said weapons. These are the very weapons that we use to defend against all enemies, foreign and domestic. We are barred from carrying personal weapons when in uniform (a rising debate in light of recent incidents), especially in combat. Take off the uniform and that becomes the great equalizer. We're on the same playing field with those who abuse the right and show little to no responsibility that having that right entails. We're trained in ROE, use of force and restraint. Where are the ROE on Main street? Just MHO.
(0)
(0)
MAJ Robert (Bob) Petrarca
I guess I come from a different school of thought. Yes there are terrible people out there who use weapons for the wrong reasons. But if we have a police force, I don't personally see a NEED to be armed & carrying. I don't oppose those who do, but I also don't see the NEED to be carrying an assault weapon - IMHO - anything over 10 rounds. I am well aware that anyone of us can come faced to face with an armed criminal at any time or be in a position when one's life and well being is in imminent danger and a police officer will not be right there. I feel that violence will beget more violence and me drawing in a bad situation could still get me or someone around me injured or worse. Same issue I have with carrying on post - another discussion here on RP.
The scenario that goes through my mind and why I mention ROE is this. I come across an individual drawn and shouting, are they the perpetrator or the suppressor? They fire, still can't see who or what they are firing at because I just dove for cover - Am I on the right or wrong side of the tracks? Will I get taken down because I'm carrying too? they turn towards my direction and see me, carrying and drawn, do I shoot first and ask questions later because I may be in imminent danger? do I have the training to asses the individual's intent and make that fatal decision?
I'm carrying and cross state lines? It's my responsibility to know the laws & regs there, am I on the right side of the law for carrying, does imminent danger apply here?
The scenario that goes through my mind and why I mention ROE is this. I come across an individual drawn and shouting, are they the perpetrator or the suppressor? They fire, still can't see who or what they are firing at because I just dove for cover - Am I on the right or wrong side of the tracks? Will I get taken down because I'm carrying too? they turn towards my direction and see me, carrying and drawn, do I shoot first and ask questions later because I may be in imminent danger? do I have the training to asses the individual's intent and make that fatal decision?
I'm carrying and cross state lines? It's my responsibility to know the laws & regs there, am I on the right side of the law for carrying, does imminent danger apply here?
(0)
(0)
SFC (Join to see)
Sir, to be fair, the law enforcement officer that finds himself in the same scenario you just described is not any more prepared than you are to deal with that situation and likely faces the same questions. So why would it be advantageous to take no action and wait for a Policeman to arrive? That police officer is armed for his safety, not yours, so why is it reasonable that you aren't armed for the same reason. And if you are armed in that situation with a gun and a brain, (just like the cop), is it not reasonable for you to take action accordingly? I'm just saying it sounds as if bullets are flying in your scenario and you are in immediate potential danger. I'm not sure how doing nothing would be better in that situation than weighing your options while armed. I understand why you don't want to make a bad decision, but no decision is often worse. Whose to say you have to shoot anyone? There are many different options in your scenario. I can guarantee you one thing though, having a gun in your hand wont interfere with your ability to think outside the box. If you do nothing, well, bad things are already happening. And even worse, that guy could see you and mean you harm even without a gun. What happens when you decide you need to do something beyond a shadow of doubt, but you are ill equipped to do anything. Limiting your options doesn't limit risk, it magnifies it.
Also, I'm not sure "assault weapon" actually defines anything, but if you are referring to anything over ten rounds I believe I can justify all day every day. It is simple. I don't want to run out before the bad guy, and neither does anyone else. Having been in many firefights I can attest that bullets often become spent as quickly as adrenaline, and I have been shocked at how quickly I am looking for an opportunity to reload. With thirty round magazines. I currently carry 15 rounds (when I carry), and that makes me nervous. I cannot imagine being in a close quarters fight for the lives of myself and my family and being reliant on only ten opportunities to neutralize a threat. Hell I have hit my target more than 6 times before and the individual was still able bodied enough to kill me if he could. Imagine if I had missed all those shots and only have 4 left!
I don't carry because I believe I will save the day sometime or because I live in constant fear. I carry because it is my responsibility to make sure my family and myself are protected should the worst day happen. Frankly I find it inappropriate the idea of expecting a police officer (or anyone else) with his own family to place his life in harms way for me simply because I oppose being responsible for the task myself. Do I want the police to investigate crime and detain criminals who infringe on our liberty? Yes. Do I need the police to be there if an armed assailant decides he is going to make an attempt on my life or that of my family? No. And that is not their job. Contrarily, I would say that officer is actually less qualified than I am to be killed in defense of my loved ones.
The truth is, we actually make our community and each other safer by taking responsibility and refusing to be victims, without even squeezing a trigger. You just have to be willing to squeeze a trigger in order to take responsibility and refuse to be a victim.
Of course, these are just the ramblings of a neanderthal Infantryman and former LEO.
Also, I'm not sure "assault weapon" actually defines anything, but if you are referring to anything over ten rounds I believe I can justify all day every day. It is simple. I don't want to run out before the bad guy, and neither does anyone else. Having been in many firefights I can attest that bullets often become spent as quickly as adrenaline, and I have been shocked at how quickly I am looking for an opportunity to reload. With thirty round magazines. I currently carry 15 rounds (when I carry), and that makes me nervous. I cannot imagine being in a close quarters fight for the lives of myself and my family and being reliant on only ten opportunities to neutralize a threat. Hell I have hit my target more than 6 times before and the individual was still able bodied enough to kill me if he could. Imagine if I had missed all those shots and only have 4 left!
I don't carry because I believe I will save the day sometime or because I live in constant fear. I carry because it is my responsibility to make sure my family and myself are protected should the worst day happen. Frankly I find it inappropriate the idea of expecting a police officer (or anyone else) with his own family to place his life in harms way for me simply because I oppose being responsible for the task myself. Do I want the police to investigate crime and detain criminals who infringe on our liberty? Yes. Do I need the police to be there if an armed assailant decides he is going to make an attempt on my life or that of my family? No. And that is not their job. Contrarily, I would say that officer is actually less qualified than I am to be killed in defense of my loved ones.
The truth is, we actually make our community and each other safer by taking responsibility and refusing to be victims, without even squeezing a trigger. You just have to be willing to squeeze a trigger in order to take responsibility and refuse to be a victim.
Of course, these are just the ramblings of a neanderthal Infantryman and former LEO.
(2)
(0)
MAJ Robert (Bob) Petrarca
Thank you, SSG Allen! I have never met a "Neanderthal Infantryman" and I highly doubt you qualify after this, quite astounding essay. Like I said, I have different train of thought, as we all do, and I never considered the point of view, that you discuss. I think I always saw arming one's self as a risk as opposed to a responsibility. The scenario I discussed was my attempt to demonstrate my fear of what could happen. You are absolutely correct in that no one knows how a scenario can play out. I'm more a "commo puke" so it was very interesting to get color commentary on my scenario from someone more in the know.
I still feel that a police force is there to perform a similar function locally, to what armed forces do in a combat zone. You have a strong opinion on that and I do respect it. Your last paragraph, "the truth is...", is very intriguing and makes a very compelling statement. This gives me some very fulfilling food for thought. I greatly appreciate your input on this
I still feel that a police force is there to perform a similar function locally, to what armed forces do in a combat zone. You have a strong opinion on that and I do respect it. Your last paragraph, "the truth is...", is very intriguing and makes a very compelling statement. This gives me some very fulfilling food for thought. I greatly appreciate your input on this
(1)
(0)
MAJ Robert (Bob) Petrarca
I also wanted to add SSG Allen , that this entire discussion on the 2nd Amendment is a demonstration of the strength of RallyPoint. On Facebook, opposing opinions like this would lead to endless streams of profane inanity - been there on the giving and receiving end of a variety of topics - but here we mostly tend to behave as civilized adults because of our common bond.
(2)
(0)
Read This Next
-
Ask questionGet expert advice and
tips for your questions. -
Post updatePost pictures, personal updates, plans, or anything you like!
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google