Second Amendment

[USAFXJ]

Obama's new Attorney General, Eric Holder, has already said this is one of his major issues. He does not believe the 2ndAmendment gives individuals the right to bear arms. This takes literally 2 clicks to complete. Please vote on this gun issue question with USA Today. It will only take a few seconds of your time. Then pass the link on to all the pro gun folks you know. Hopefully these results will be published later this month. This upcoming year will become critical for gun owners with the Supreme Court's accepting the District of Columbia case against the right for individuals to bear arms.
Here's what you need to do:
First - vote on this one.
Second - launch it to other folks and have THEM vote - then we will see if the results get published.
The Question is:

"Does the Second Amendment give individuals the right to bear arms?"

Click on the link below and PLEASE vote Yes!
USATODAY.com - Quick Question

 

[iluv83vettes]

almost six million votes and 97% say yes ... nice

 

[MischiefMan]

I did vote yes because I believe that individuals SHOULD have the right to keep and bear arms, but I don't believe that is what the 2nd Amendment says. Sure, you can take part of the Amendment out and read the letter of the law that way, but that destroys the spirit of the of the law the way I read it. Of course that's one of the nifty things about being a human, we all see things from a different perspective based on our personal experiences.

What amuses me the most about this debate is that somehow it has been reduced to "a gun thing." Do all of you who vote yes also believe that I should be allowed to keep and bear my 2-handed broad sword? Perhaps a should mounted grenade launcher? How about a Panzer in the back yard? Scuds? Maybe my German paratrooper's knife that the local Sheriff's Department decided is illegal because they have never seen one before, but could not explain to me or the Court exactly what made it illegal? What makes one form of self-defense and protection more acceptable than another? Where do you draw the line and why?

 

[srimes]

Oh come on, really? I suppose when the first amendment talks about freedom of the press you think that only applies to newspaper corporations? :twak:

 

[MischiefMan]

Why yes, really.

Your rhetoric fails. The two Amendments contain distinctly different language and therefore cannot be compared. The 2nd Amendment was added because Congress knew that it was important to maintain a well-supplied militia. The Amendment expressly states that fact: "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state..." There is nothing in the First Amendment that even comes close. In the United States v. Miller (307 US 174) the US Supreme Court even addressed the Amendment being about maintaining a well-supplied militia. No where in your comparison do you draw any sort of logical correlation between the 1st or 2nd Amendments and why anyone would think that freedom of the press only applies to newspaper corporations and militias. So, as I said, you comparison fails. Ya got anything else?

If my response is a bit too long-hair for your tastes, perhaps you'll like this one better:

:moon:

 

[XJ Eric]

C'mon, militias were comprised of individuals. Just because we don't need militias anymore doesn't mean the right to bear arms has gone away. As we here in America don't have the fear of our government colapsing anytime soon, it doesn't mean that it can't happen in the future. Look at Mexico, the people in El Paso, Tx have an all out war going on just across the border, if anyone in the country need the right to bear arms they do. What if the same happens in Canada (unlikely, i know) however just because we are safe (at the moment) doesn't mean it can't change.

 

[x2elite]

Who said we do not need militia's now? Militia's were not only to protect our country, they were formed to protect out citizens from our government's tyranny. I would argue that we need militias more than ever with the ultraliberal idiots usurping power more and more on a daily basis here lately.

 

[x2elite]

All I can say it is going to be a sad day for a lot of families the day they make firearms illegal and send out the poor souls who are supposed to go collect them. I used to be a cop, and I can honestly tell you there is no way in hell I would go to someone's house, and demand that they turn all of their firearms over to me.

The second amendment does give individuals the right to keep and bear arms. See the problem with America now days is that people think we are supposed to be a Democracy, and that is not the case. Democracy is merely majority rule, and if the majority of our country is made up of complete idiots (it is), then the idiots always get their way. That is not what America was founded to be. America was founded as a Republic, which means to be governed by LAW, not the majority. The founding father's set forth the constition to set ground rules (LAWS) that our government must follow in governing us. They didn't believe that the Government should do whatever it could get away with, merely because the majority of the country was blissfully ignorant, and would let them.

 

[x2elite]

Here this is a good little video about types of governments. May sound boring, but it is actually pretty interesting.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GGk6LG0GA4A

 

[MischiefMan]

I agree with everything that you said Justin except the comment about what he 2nd Amendment grants. There has been conclusion to the debate, and it has not been decided.

Texas has an active militia right now btw. I think that 16 other states do to, but don't quote me on that.

 

[msrorysddad]

what constitutes a "militia". I think with the weapons and ammo some people I know have they constitute a militia. I on the other hand am totally anti gun. I'm all about the stick with a nail stuck through it.

 

[5-90]

what constitutes a "militia". I think with the weapons and ammo some people I know have they constitute a militia. I on the other hand am totally anti gun. I'm all about the stick with a nail stuck through it.

Under 10USC (Title 10, United States Code, "Uniform Code of Military Justice") the "militia" consists of essentially all adult citizens (I believe they restrict it slightly to 18-65) not currently serving in an active, reserve, or national guard capacity (read: not part of a current organised military force.)

However, the idea of "militia" is separate from "people" in the Second Amendment - the idea of RKBA actually predates the idea of a standing military - since the idea of a standing military was a part of what caused the American Revolution in the first place (the Quartering Act imposed by the King.) Therefore, ownership of personal armaments was not intended (I am sure) to be limited to persons of military age and able of body. Besides, nearly anyone can serve a militarily necessary function, given time and training (and sufficient fighting spirit.)

So the militia argument won't wash.

And, I have no trouble with you being anti-gun, as long as you don't feel a need to impose that belief upon others. Fair enough? We get HCI and the like fighting to take firearms away from everyone because they don't believe they're necessary (which is bogon emissions, anymore. Note the trends in firearms bans WRT crime trends, and you'll note an interesting and direct correlation between the two...) and you can easily spot the flaw in the logic.

Given a choice, I'd rather have a pistol or shotgun in the house. No contest.

 

[srimes]

1) The Bill of Rights addresses rights of the people. Not rights of the government. Would the constitution say "the government has a right to have an army with weapons," in the part talking about people's rights? Why would a statement like that be necessary? What independent nation passes a law that they can't have an armed forces? :conceited

2) An important fact that's often lost: the Bill of Rights does not "grant" rights to the people! The people where understood to posses these and other natural rights. The Bill of Right limits the ability of the federal government to limit these rights.

 

[Jeepnube]

:clap: Unfortunately, most people in goverment seem to think the Constitution is optional.atriot::wstupid:

 

[Art101]

liberals annoy me

that is all