Yes indeed. It is a crying shame that this administration, and the administrations before this, have consistantly infringed upon our right to defend ourselves not only from criminals, but from any tyrannical government that may take power and violate the Constitution, the foundation of our country. Maybe the second amendment might get renstated sometime soon. That way we wouldn't have to throw hot water on those who want to kill or harm us.
Here is the opinion of a non american.
I live in a country where it is very uncommon for individuals to own guns. A few farmers and hunters, who use them for animal control. If someone gets shot over here, it makes the national news!
It is very simple. You have too many guns. Get rid of them, and no one gets shot.
Gun control, or rather, the disarmament of those outside of the State power structure, is a classic and predictable tool which works in two ways for the power-mongers: By increasing his vulnerability to 'private' violence it creates fear and a demand for 'protection', by increasing his vulnerability to 'public' violence it reduces the likelihood and effectiveness of resistance against the State.
UnfrozenCaveman Wrote:I'm personally a gun rights advocate; I believe that people are not inherent killers waiting for a means to act upon their feelings. I also believe the 2nd amendment guarantees my rights to own a firearm, just as the 1st guarantees my rights to free speech. The 2nd protects the 1st. Guns are nothing more than a tool, just like a hammer, a power saw, a camera, a computer, etc. We should enforce the laws we already have, not make more that only make it harder for the law-abiding citizen to protect themselves and make them vulnerable to the crooks who prey upon them, while the politicians who made the law are surrounded by bodyguards with guns.
I’d like to hear opinions on this matter.
OK.
You are wrong.
Quote:I also believe the 2nd amendment guarantees my rights to own a firearm, just as the 1st guarantees my rights to free speech.
No, the 2nd gives you the right to own a arm in order that the state can maintain a well-regulated militia.
Quote:The 2nd protects the 1st.
No, the 2nd is the citizen's check and balance against the government.
Quote:We should enforce the laws we already have, not make more that only make it harder for the law-abiding citizen to protect themselves and make them vulnerable to the crooks who prey upon them, while the politicians who made the law are surrounded by bodyguards with guns.
Old, and worn out, talking points. Gun control exists to pander to votes; nothing more, nothing less.
Think about
why the Constitution, and specifically, the Bill of Rights came about, and
why they were written the way they are. Do you think it is because the framers were concerned with your right to go hunting with whatever weapon you so chose, or do you think, considring the US just went through a
revolution that they were more concerned with not being oppressed by a tyrannical government again?
Quote:Guns are nothing more than a tool, just like a hammer
And therefore should be kept fully loaded in an unlocked easily accessible toolbox.
Byw, Waffletush, I completely disagree with your reasoning.
2nd Amendment Wrote: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.
Any reasonable reading of the above text brings us to the conclusion that:
(1) the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
because
(2)A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,
(2) is just a reason given for (1). But regardless, there is no getting around (2).
If (2) were "Space Aliens, being a constant threat to our freedom" this would change nothing.
dgun Wrote:Byw, Waffletush, I completely disagree with your reasoning.
2nd Amendment Wrote: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.
Any reasonable reading of the above text brings us to the conclusion that:
(1) the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
because
(2)A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,
(2) is just a reason given for (1). But regardless, there is no getting around (2).
If (2) were "Space Aliens, being a constant threat to our freedom" this would change nothing.
Completely, and factually, wrong.
The CotUS is not littered with 'for instance', 'here is an example' and 'oh, by the way'. The subject of the sentence is the militia, always has been, always will be.
UnfrozenCaveman Wrote:Guns are nothing more than a tool, just like a hammer, a power saw, a camera, a computer, etc.
You're right. Those teenagers that caused Columbine, or that lunatic behind the shootings at Virginia Tech, they could have used a hammar to kill everybody. Or a power saw. A Camera. A computer. Maybe even forks.
Quote:Completely, and factually, wrong.
100% undeniably true.
Quote:The subject of the sentence is the militia, always has been, always will be.
There are two subjects.
'Militia' and 'right'.
Compound sentences can be tricky, Waffletush.
It looks like the Supreme Court agrees with me on this. My first post above is the same reasoning the Supremes used today in their ruling.
http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf
Quote:Held:
1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a
firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for
traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.
Pp. 2–53.
(a) The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but
does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative
clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it
connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms. Pp. 2–22.
(b) The prefatory clause comports with the Court’s interpretation
2 DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER
Syllabus
of the operative clause. The “militia” comprised all males physically
capable of acting in concert for the common defense. The Antifederalists
feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in
order to disable this citizens’ militia, enabling a politicized standing
army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress
power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear
arms, so that the ideal of a citizens’ militia would be preserved.
Pp. 22–28.
© The Court’s interpretation is confirmed by analogous armsbearing
rights in state constitutions that preceded and immediately
followed the Second Amendment. Pp. 28–30.
(d) The Second Amendment’s drafting history, while of dubious
interpretive worth, reveals three state Second Amendment proposals
that unequivocally referred to an individual right to bear arms.
Pp. 30–32.
(e) Interpretation of the Second Amendment by scholars, courts
and legislators, from immediately after its ratification through the
late 19th century also supports the Court’s conclusion. Pp. 32–47.
(f) None of the Court’s precedents forecloses the Court’s interpretation.
Neither United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542, 553, nor
Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 252, 264–265, refutes the individualrights
interpretation. United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174, does not
limit the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes, but rather
limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by
the militia, i.e., those in common use for lawful purposes. Pp. 47–54.
2. Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited.
It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any
manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed
weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment
or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast
doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by
felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms
in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or
laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of
arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those
“in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition
of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons.
Pp. 54–56.
3. The handgun ban and the trigger-lock requirement (as applied to
self-defense) violate the Second Amendment. The District’s total ban
on handgun possession in the home amounts to a prohibition on an
entire class of “arms” that Americans overwhelmingly choose for the
lawful purpose of self-defense. Under any of the standards of scrutiny
the Court has applied to enumerated constitutional rights, this
Cite as: 554 U. S. ____ (2008) 3
Syllabus
prohibition—in the place where the importance of the lawful defense
of self, family, and property is most acute—would fail constitutional
muster. Similarly, the requirement that any lawful firearm in the
home be disassembled or bound by a trigger lock makes it impossible
for citizens to use arms for the core lawful purpose of self-defense and
is hence unconstitutional. Because Heller conceded at oral argument
that the D. C. licensing law is permissible if it is not enforced arbitrarily
and capriciously, the Court assumes that a license will satisfy
his prayer for relief and does not address the licensing requirement.
Assuming he is not disqualified from exercising Second Amendment
rights, the District must permit Heller to register his handgun and
must issue him a license to carry it in the home. Pp. 56–64.
478 F. 3d 370, affirmed.
SCALIA, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which ROBERTS,
C. J., and KENNEDY, THOMAS, and ALITO, JJ., joined. STEVENS, J., filed a
dissenting opinion, in which SOUTER, GINSBURG, and BREYER, JJ.,
joined. BREYER, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which STEVENS,
SOUTER, and GINSBURG, JJ., joined.
byw, I'm not a big gun person. I don't care for the NRA and I strongly agree with #2 above. But the constitution is very clear. The 'militia' argument was always weak, and I'm happy to see the SC uphold the constitution.
With that said, if you don't agree with the 2nd amendment, work to have it changed or eliminated. Intentionally distorting the meaning of the constitution because you don't like a particular provision, or because it is inconvenient, is ... well, it's the kind of thing the Bush administration does.