My Position on the 2nd Amendment

[andyfox]

Yes, we've been over this before, and there's another thread here where we're going over it again. But I thought I would take the opportunity to clarify my position:

1) The 2nd amendment refers to arms necessary for militia.

2) If the 2nd amendment does not refer to militia, and it refers to an individual's rights to own a gun, it doesn't change what the amendment says: that the federal government does not control the right to keep and bear arms.

3) The 9th amendment says that even if a right is not enumerated in the Bill of Rights, it is still retained by the people. That is, the Bill of Rights does not create rights, it guarantees rights which already pre-existed. So this confirms that the Federal government cannot make decisions about a person's right to keep and bear arms.

4) The right to keep and bear arms is thus reserved to the people. The Second Amendment has no bearing on the question of whether guns should be freely available or sharply controlled. The Amendment is irrelevant to the issue, as important as that issue is. And that leaves the matter completely in the hands of the political process. I'm comfortable with that. People decide, by legislative choice, many important aspects of their lives together in society. The wisdom, effectiveness, configuration, and moral virtue of gun control is an appropriate matter for the expression of popular sovereignty rather than constitutional control.

[slamdunkpro]

Wait, stop….

You wrote
[ QUOTE ]
If the 2nd amendment does not refer to militia, and it refers to an individual's rights to own a gun, it doesn't change what the amendment says: that the federal government does not control the right to keep and bear arms.

[/ QUOTE ] <emphasis added>

Then you wrote
[ QUOTE ]
The wisdom, effectiveness, configuration, and moral virtue of gun control is an appropriate matter for the expression of popular sovereignty rather than constitutional control.

[/ QUOTE ]

So the constitution and the bill of rights are meaningless? Since “restrict” is a synonym for “infringe”, then even though the Second Amendment says what it says (we all know the words by now) the “people” via the legislative process - also known as the Federal government can restrict that right even though “that the federal government does not control the right to keep and bear arms”? <your quote>

So, since the first amendment says “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.”

Then you also believe – to use your logic and a simple substitution “The First Amendment has no bearing on the question of whether free speech should be freely available or sharply controlled. The Amendment is irrelevant to the issue, as important as that issue is. And that leaves the matter completely in the hands of the political process. I'm comfortable with that. People decide, by legislative choice, many important aspects of their lives together in society. The wisdom, effectiveness, configuration, and moral virtue of free speech is an appropriate matter for the expression of popular sovereignty rather than constitutional control.

[Jedster]

[ QUOTE ]
Yes, we've been over this before, and there's another thread here where we're going over it again. But I thought I would take the opportunity to clarify my position:

1) The 2nd amendment refers to arms necessary for militia.

2) If the 2nd amendment does not refer to militia, and it refers to an individual's rights to own a gun, it doesn't change what the amendment says: that the federal government does not control the right to keep and bear arms.

3) The 9th amendment says that even if a right is not enumerated in the Bill of Rights, it is still retained by the people. That is, the Bill of Rights does not create rights, it guarantees rights which already pre-existed. So this confirms that the Federal government cannot make decisions about a person's right to keep and bear arms.

4) The right to keep and bear arms is thus reserved to the people. The Second Amendment has no bearing on the question of whether guns should be freely available or sharply controlled. The Amendment is irrelevant to the issue, as important as that issue is. And that leaves the matter completely in the hands of the political process. I'm comfortable with that. People decide, by legislative choice, many important aspects of their lives together in society. The wisdom, effectiveness, configuration, and moral virtue of gun control is an appropriate matter for the expression of popular sovereignty rather than constitutional control.

[/ QUOTE ]

Couldn't Congress then regulate guns under the Commerce clause?

[elwoodblues]

Assuming one believes that the second amendment takes away this power, the commerce clause couldn't really give it back because when you have two clauses seemingly in conflict, the more specific one shall prevail.

[renodoc]

Member #187 talking about guns. Coicidence?

[hetron]

[ QUOTE ]
Yes, we've been over this before, and there's another thread here where we're going over it again. But I thought I would take the opportunity to clarify my position:

1) The 2nd amendment refers to arms necessary for militia.

2) If the 2nd amendment does not refer to militia, and it refers to an individual's rights to own a gun, it doesn't change what the amendment says: that the federal government does not control the right to keep and bear arms.

3) The 9th amendment says that even if a right is not enumerated in the Bill of Rights, it is still retained by the people. That is, the Bill of Rights does not create rights, it guarantees rights which already pre-existed. So this confirms that the Federal government cannot make decisions about a person's right to keep and bear arms.

4) The right to keep and bear arms is thus reserved to the people. The Second Amendment has no bearing on the question of whether guns should be freely available or sharply controlled. The Amendment is irrelevant to the issue, as important as that issue is. And that leaves the matter completely in the hands of the political process. I'm comfortable with that. People decide, by legislative choice, many important aspects of their lives together in society. The wisdom, effectiveness, configuration, and moral virtue of gun control is an appropriate matter for the expression of popular sovereignty rather than constitutional control.

[/ QUOTE ]

the 2nd amendment is completely useless. I am in complete agreement. It's a silly ambiguous annoying little line that needs to be repealed.

[FishHooks]

They very well could if you believe what this poster believes. Selling of guns is intrastate commerce and then could be regulated. Also the "elastic clause" lets the govt do pretty much want it wants the way some courts have decided on things.

[Felix_Nietsche]

Perhaps when you were in school you took classes on English. You know....the class where you talked about nouns, verbs, adverbs, and conjunctions. Perhaps if your teacher was particularly sadistic, you had to parse sentences. Anyway perhaps you remember the day they discussed:

DEPENDENT CLAUSES and
INDEPENDENT CLAUSES.

The independent clause contains the primary message of the sentence and the dependent does not. This is important because the verbage of the 2nd amendment contains an independent clause and a dependent clause.

Here are the words of the 2nd amendment:
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.

Independent Clause:
"the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

In addition to the people bearing arms they may organize themselves into militias and train without any govt interference. This clause was inspired by the American revolution in case the new govt would become tyranical, the people would have the arms necessary to overthrow the govt to bring back liberty. Perhaps some of you have noticed this word on US coins. L-I-B-E-R-T-Y. An example of liberty is the freedom to keep and bear arms or not to. It is a choice every American enjoys. Anyway here is the dependent clause.

Dependent Clause:
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,

Our founders believed that an armed militia was excellent insurance to keep a state free. These men were very wise because ALL STATES which suppress freedom do NOT allow the people to own arms....much less organize themselves into militias. This has been true throughout history from the times of the Roman Empire, Medievil Europe, Stalanist Russia, Nazi Germany, and modern dictatorships.

By the way although I disagree with the anti-gunners, the only anti-gunners I RESPECT are the ones that support repealing the 2nd amendment. At least they are honest enough to acknowledge the true meaning of the 2nd amendment and seek to dispose of it through legal means.

Here is some light reading from an anti-gunner who honest about the meaning of the 2nd amendment. I Believe he wrote a book called, "The Embarassing 2nd Amendment".
http://polyticks.com/polyticks/beararms/emb2nda2.htm

A well educated society, being necessary to a free state, the people's right to keep and read books shall not be infringed. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]
*******Anyone want to claim that keeping and reading books is not an individual right. LOL. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[ QUOTE ]

the 2nd amendment is completely useless. I am in complete agreement. It's a silly ambiguous annoying little line that needs to be repealed.

[/ QUOTE ]

That "annoying ambiguouse little line," is what shows the founding fathers' true intent of the second ammendment as a use for protecting oneself in a very different world from today. In the 18th century a mans' masculinity was defined by his ownership of a gun and property.

Also on another note while peoples rights are protected from the federal govenment there are restrictions to rights, such as the classic case of yelling fie in a theatre that is not on fire, or providing imminent danger by the use of words is not protected under free speech. such should be the case with guns in an ever changing world, and the reason for the placement of the elastic clause because they had the foresight to see this. in my opinion i would rather no have a gun and risk that sombody will hold me up than have police officers shot by armour piercing rounds from an AK in their closet. (not to mention the now non exhistant assault rifle ban thanks to our frien Jon Ashcroft)

[BCPVP]

[ QUOTE ]
not to mention the now non exhistant assault rifle ban thanks to our frien Jon Ashcroft

[/ QUOTE ]
Please define "assault rifle" and then explain how these guns are more deadly than non-"assault rifles".

And btw, Ashcroft can't make laws that are about to expire continue. So how this is Ashcroft's "fault" is anyone's guess. May I suggest taking a civics course?