NO gun confiscation

[MMMMMM]

[ QUOTE ]

In the second amendment, the first clause if clearly a modifier to the second. The amendment does not mean there is a right to a militia. It says that since a militia is a good thing, the people should have the right to keep and bear arms.

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually, Andy, it says that a militia is *necessary* to the security of a free state. A militia is not merely a "good" thing; it's a necessary thing.

[MMMMMM]

[ QUOTE ]
Let's grant the argument that a militia is still necessary to the security of a free state.

[/ QUOTE ]

Firstly, and this may be just a minor quibble: that argument need not be "granted" for purposes of this discussion. Rather, it is already clearly stated in the 2nd Amendment, so any claim to the contrary would need to be demonstrated convincingly.

OK, on to your point, you wrote: [ QUOTE ]
I say the amendment then says the state cannot infringe upon the right to keep and bear arms for the purpose of keeping that well regulated militia.


[/ QUOTE ]

Well then, since the definition of "militia" is not restricted to those in government employ, but rather encompasses all free citizens of legal age and sound body, who may jointly take up arms should the need arise and form a "well-regulated" body; then clearly the right of THE PEOPLE to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed--and it is so written as well! In other words, I don't see how you can argue that the second amendment allows the government to deny Joe Blow the right to keep and bear arms.

[tylerdurden]

There's a lot of discussion in here about the 2nd amendment and just what exactly it means. I say "who cares what the 2nd amendment says?" Whether the government has given itself the authority to take your gun or not doesn't change the fact that you as a human being have a RIGHT to self-defense, and a RIGHT to property, and anyone that takes a gun from you is violating both of those rights.

[andyfox]

"I don't see how you can argue that the second amendment allows the government to deny Joe Blow the right to keep and bear arms."

Within the context of militia, I can't argue it, and I don't. If it wasn't meant to be within that context, the militia clause simply wouldn't be there. I don't see how anyone who can read could argue anything else. It's an orginalist argument--the plain meaning of the words in the sentence.

[Zeno]

Amendment 10 - Powers of the States and People

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

__________________________________________________ __________________

In Colonial times and throughout all of American History people have kept arms for a variety of reasons and certainly held that it is an inherent right.

The second amendment simply enumerates one reason for allowing firearms in the hands of the people: the maintaining of a militia. The framers thought it necessary to explain this right in the context of formation of a militia, which was a common means of defense before the US had organized armed forces.

So in 1791 this could have also have been an amendment - A well fed household, being necessary for the welfare of children, the right to use firearms shall not be infringed.

But back to the 10th amendment. If you wish to construe the 2d has only meaning firearms are for militia purposes, there is still no doubt that in the America of 1789 it was a reasonable assumption that most people considered owning a firearm a right. Thus the 10th would applied and the 2d was put in to add that owning firearms necessary for a militia would at times be necessary for the people, that is, the people would own and use Military type weapons. So you see, I tend to agree with you Andy. I need even more and bigger and better weapons. Let’s form a militia.



But we have been down this road too many times before.

-Zeno

PS. I won't be able to post for awhile. Have fun with this - again.

[andyfox]

Well, if I was going to form a militia, you'd be the first one I'd call.

Really.

[benfranklin]

[ QUOTE ]
Well, if I was going to form a militia, you'd be the first one I'd call.

Really.

[/ QUOTE ]

You don't have to form a militia. You are already in it. [img]/images/graemlins/cool.gif[/img]

[Peter666]

I hate the police. They have only given me speeding tickets and wasted my time. I could protect myself much better from bodily harm than they could if I was allowed to do so unhindered.

[Cyrus]

[ QUOTE ]
I hate the police. They have only given me speeding tickets and wasted my time. I could protect myself much better from bodily harm than they can if I was allowed to do so unhindered.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is just oh so wrong.

The basic reason for the error in your line of thinking can be found here.

[MMMMMM]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I hate the police. They have only given me speeding tickets and wasted my time. I could protect myself much better from bodily harm than they can if I was allowed to do so unhindered.



This is just oh so wrong.

[/ QUOTE ]

The basic reason for the error in your line of thinking can be found here (link).

[/ QUOTE ]


Actually, Cyrus, that is largely irrelevant, because the police generally do not protect people from bodily harm; they respond after the fact. So if Peter were entirely unhindered in protecting himself from bodily harm, I don't much doubt that he would be able to do a better job of that than the police.