Automotive Deals Best Books of the Month Shop Women's Clothing Learn more nav_sap_plcc_ascpsc $5 Albums Fire TV Stick Health, Household and Grocery Back to School Handmade school supplies Shop-by-Room Amazon Cash Back Offer harmonquest_s1 harmonquest_s1 harmonquest_s1  Amazon Echo  Echo Dot  Amazon Tap  Echo Dot  Amazon Tap  Amazon Echo Introducing new colors All-New Kindle Oasis Enter for the chance to win front row seats to Barbra Streisand Water Sports
Customer Discussions > Politics forum

The 2nd amendment says people have the right to weapons


Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 1-25 of 215 posts in this discussion
Initial post: May 28, 2012 5:57:57 PM PDT
[Deleted by Amazon on Jan 1, 2013 7:05:50 PM PST]

Posted on May 28, 2012 5:59:31 PM PDT
<<It does not refer to militias of any kind.>>

Except its reference to "a well-regulated militia."

In reply to an earlier post on May 28, 2012 6:03:09 PM PDT
John M. Lane says:
"Well regulated" is a term they borrowed from Freemasons. It means an organization which meets on schedule and in which the elected officers and members are proficient in their duties.

Local militia companies elected their own officers, usually up to the rank of Captain. They operated like rural fire companies and provided most of their own equipment. Powder, ball, artillery pieces, and the like sometimes were provided by the State or US government.

In reply to an earlier post on May 28, 2012 6:04:33 PM PDT
[Deleted by Amazon on Jan 1, 2013 7:05:52 PM PST]

Posted on May 28, 2012 6:04:51 PM PDT
freedom4all says:
"I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
- George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788

In reply to an earlier post on May 28, 2012 6:06:56 PM PDT
[Deleted by Amazon on Jan 1, 2013 7:05:53 PM PST]

In reply to an earlier post on May 28, 2012 6:08:02 PM PDT
Wow, I guess you're right.

If you completely ignore the bit about militias, the amendment says nothing about militias.

In reply to an earlier post on May 28, 2012 6:12:28 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on May 28, 2012 6:13:51 PM PDT
freedom4all says:
Del, the way I read it is: because militias are necessary, citizens should be armed with the rifle of the day and know how to use it. Therefore Congress shall not prohibit arms.

In reply to an earlier post on May 28, 2012 6:16:03 PM PDT
[Deleted by Amazon on Jan 1, 2013 7:05:58 PM PST]

In reply to an earlier post on May 28, 2012 6:21:37 PM PDT
T. Paine,
Where is the part that refers to militias of any kind?>>>>>

The amendment reads:
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.

So to answer the question it is at the beginning of the sentence. It is the explanation of why the right is important. It took a Supreme Court decision Columbia vs Heller to definitively state that this included all "individuals" and that it is unconnected to being in a militia.

However, if you are part of the group that believes the Supreme Court should not be "interpreting" the constitution that it is and always will be precise and clear. Then I would submit to you that the SCOTUS wasted their time, and that the sole reason for arms are as stated in order for the security of a free state a well regulated militia is necessary and that is the reason for one to keep and bear arms.

In reply to an earlier post on May 28, 2012 6:42:16 PM PDT
[Deleted by Amazon on Jan 1, 2013 7:06:03 PM PST]

Posted on May 28, 2012 6:43:50 PM PDT
Chuckles says:
"the Supreme Court has now definitively held that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that weapon for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Moreover, this right applies not just to the federal government, but to states and municipalities as well."

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment02/

Traditionally lawful purposes...This does not include armor piercing ammunition or military grade armaments. One does not need a missile launcher in order to protect one's home or to hunt for deer. According to a "strict" interpretation, ANY individual, including the certifiably insane or mentally challenged or convicted felon also have a right to arms. So where does common sense kick in? What weapons are usable for traditionally lawful purposes? And should the right be applied equally to all persons regardless of qualifications?

In reply to an earlier post on May 28, 2012 6:47:41 PM PDT
T. Paine,

You asked where it said militia, I showed you. The amendment states that the arms are in order to maintain a militia. It was the SCOTUS that clarified that the "intent" was to include more than just those serving in the militia.

If you think that the SCOTUS should be free to interpret the constitution, then yes it includes everyone, otherwise it appears to state that it says that the reason for the right is for a well regulated militia that is necessary for a free state.

In reply to an earlier post on May 28, 2012 6:49:11 PM PDT
[Deleted by Amazon on Jan 1, 2013 7:06:04 PM PST]

In reply to an earlier post on May 28, 2012 6:52:21 PM PDT
Chaz,

The problem is that some of the teaparty has been arguing that the supreme court should not be "interpreting" the laws. And, that they are perfectly clear. If that's true, the construction of the amendments would seem to require a militia.

As for who the SCOTUS included when the court case was decided, as you point out, they seem to have included more than what most people would deem desirable.

In reply to an earlier post on May 28, 2012 6:53:24 PM PDT
[Deleted by Amazon on Jan 1, 2013 7:06:05 PM PST]

In reply to an earlier post on May 28, 2012 7:00:48 PM PDT
[Deleted by Amazon on Jan 1, 2013 7:06:06 PM PST]

In reply to an earlier post on May 28, 2012 7:02:13 PM PDT
T. Paine,

The sentence begins "A well regulated militia, being necessary .... " That sound to me like that's the requirement of the rest of the sentence.

Posted on May 28, 2012 7:02:32 PM PDT
Pain...I guess you sleep with your gun every night!! It's like the soft teddy bear you didn't have to sleep with when you were a Child!?

In reply to an earlier post on May 28, 2012 7:06:54 PM PDT
[Deleted by Amazon on Jan 1, 2013 7:06:07 PM PST]

In reply to an earlier post on May 28, 2012 7:09:20 PM PDT
T. Paine,

I'm actually not arguing that you don't have the right to bear arms. That is, in part, because I believe that the SCOTUS needs to interpret the constitution --- whether or not I agree with their decisions or not.

Nor am I trying to state that the states should not regulate the sale of these firearms. I certainly don't want "everyone" to possess firearms.

If you are suggesting that even if the 2nd Amendment only pertains to the militia that the 9th Amendment would give the states the right to allow its citizens to own them ... I'd be interested. But I'm looking at the construction of the original sentence and it was apparently unclear enough that the SCOTUS thought they needed to further "interpret" it.

In reply to an earlier post on May 28, 2012 7:09:58 PM PDT
[Deleted by Amazon on Jan 1, 2013 7:06:08 PM PST]

In reply to an earlier post on May 28, 2012 7:11:11 PM PDT
Chuckles says:
So an anti-tank missile launcher with uranium tipped, armor piercing ammunition is OK by you as long as it is used to defend your home. But not to threaten someone. If my neighbor had such military grade weapons, I would feel threatened and would sue the heck out of them to get them removed from my neighborhood.

Posted on May 28, 2012 7:11:36 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on May 28, 2012 7:13:19 PM PDT
seajaw says:
I believe it is tied in great part to the status of the country at the time it was written (1791).

We were a frontier nation. Not every town had a fort nearby. It could be days, maybe longer, before any response.

Under those circumstances, each town or hamlet had to be able to organize and defend itself. It was the responsibility of that community's leaders to make sure everything was accounted for.

Thus, "A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state..."

In reply to an earlier post on May 28, 2012 7:15:06 PM PDT
T. Paine,

I can't answer whether the authors of the 2nd Amendment even thought about the difference between a military and a militia. My guess is that they would have distinguished between an army and a militia not the military and a militia.

Common logical construction implies that the beginning of the sentence is what they intended. Whether that was meant to include "all men", "all free men", "all citizen", etc they certainly felt was clear at the time. I'm just not clear, without SCOTUS clarification, that that is what the word militia was meant to convey. And I do not happen to agree that it is clear without the SCOTUS clarification.
‹ Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next ›
[Add comment]
Add your own message to the discussion
To insert a product link use the format: [[ASIN:ASIN product-title]] (What's this?)
Prompts for sign-in
 


Recent discussions in the Politics forum

  Discussion Replies Latest Post
Announcement
Amazon Discussions Feedback Forum
3775 8 hours ago
Washington Post: Donald Trump is a unique threat to American democracy 178 5 seconds ago
Opening July 22: "Hillary's America: The Secret History of The Democratic Party!" 238 1 minute ago
Why are terrorist atrocities fomented by Islam? 885 3 minutes ago
Bernie now has an Interest in Emails... 22 3 minutes ago
Why Would Anyone Believe Trump over Kasich? 16 7 minutes ago
Don't like Mrs.Clinton or Trump? 0 7 minutes ago
Sandy Hook was a gun free zone. Cinemark theater in Aurora Colorado was a gun free zone. Pulse nightclub in Orlando was a gun free zone. 246 7 minutes ago
Save the Whales, No Fracking, Occupy Wall Street, White Privilege, GayBLTs, Free Stuff, Black Lives Matter, Bernie or Bust, $15 Minimum, Which Bathroom Should I Use... 124 11 minutes ago
All the News Anti-Israel Posters do not care to read or discuss 2667 11 minutes ago
FBI investigating Russian involvement in DNC email release. 37 13 minutes ago
Republican party platform calls for defunding public transportation. 107 14 minutes ago
 

This discussion

Discussion in:  Politics forum
Participants:  24
Total posts:  215
Initial post:  May 28, 2012
Latest post:  May 31, 2012

New! Receive e-mail when new posts are made.
Tracked by 1 customer

Search Customer Discussions