Exactly what does the 2nd Amendment mean?

[Fast Twitch Fiber]

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.

Is this an absolute right? Does this right apply to the military only? Is this what they meant by a well regulated militia? It doesn't seem to me that this refers to individual rights. If that were the case we would all be able to own grenades, tanks, rocket launchers and flame throwers.

 

[WODIN]

Define well regulated Militia.

 

[DcupSheepNipples]

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.

Is this an absolute right? Does this right apply to the military only? Is this what they meant by a well regulated militia? It doesn't seem to me that this refers to individual rights. If that were the case we would all be able to own grenades, tanks, rocket launchers and flame throwers.

Its all for interpretation! Because of this, eventually it will be whittled down over "Time" to mean nothing!

 

[Fast Twitch Fiber]

Define well regulated Militia.

I would say that a well regulated militia would mean the official branches of the military. I hardly think the NRA constitutes a well regulated militia.

 

[Fast Twitch Fiber]

Where's Poink?

 

[ariolanine]

Taken literally it means that citizens have the right to own the same weapons the military posses. And that as armed citizens we also have the right to form militias. Obviously this would only work with black powder muzzleloaders, hence the inumerable interpretations by gov't to protect itself from what the founding fathers intended.

 

[Fast Twitch Fiber]

I wonder why the NRA isn't pushing to allow the sale of flame throwers?

"Spaceballs the flamethrower, da kids love it"

 

[***]

the writers of this amendment meant for citizens to be able to form militias and be able to bear arms, but these writers didn't foresee the weapons of present day.

 

[atlantabiolab]

Where's Poink?

Silent Method wrote an excellent post referencing the writings of the Framers. The 2nd Amendment is a restriction on government protecting the right of the "people" to own arms.

It is my understanding that there are people who own flame throwers, hand grenades, etc. Whether it is specifically illegal I am uncertain. The question is have these weapons, whether legally or illegally possessed, been used to any significant degree in criminal activities.

 

[SV2]

too late, no one could take my guns away from me with out getting shot.

 

[***]

It is my understanding that there are people who own flame throwers, hand grenades, etc. Whether it is specifically illegal I am uncertain. The question is have these weapons, whether legally or illegally possessed, been used to any significant degree in criminal activities.

didn't you see lethal weapon 4

 

[ariolanine]

Silent Method wrote an excellent post referencing the writings of the Framers. The 2nd Amendment is a restriction on government protecting the right of the "people" to own arms.

It is my understanding that there are people who own flame throwers, hand grenades, etc. Whether it is specifically illegal I am uncertain. The question is have these weapons, whether legally or illegally possessed, been used to any significant degree in criminal activities.

Actually most hand held non explosive military weapons manufactured before 1986 are owned legally. All of these types of weapons (machine guns, flamethrowers, etc) are registered with the BATF. To my knowledge, not a single registered class three weapon has been used by its registered owner in a crime.

 

[Hangfire]

I would say that a well regulated militia would mean the official branches of the military. I hardly think the NRA constitutes a well regulated militia.

Wrong.
And the NRA is not a militia group. It is an organization of dues-paying members; its purpose is to lobby the government in support of its members' interests.

 

[Hangfire]

Taken literally it means that citizens have the right to own the same weapons the military posses. And that as armed citizens we also have the right to form militias. Obviously this would only work with black powder muzzleloaders, hence the inumerable interpretations by gov't to protect itself from what the founding fathers intended.

Excellent.

 

[atlantabiolab]

Actually most hand held non explosive military weapons manufactured before 1986 are owned legally. All of these types of weapons (machine guns, flamethrowers, etc) are registered with the BATF. To my knowledge, not a single registered class three weapon has been used by its registered owner in a crime.

That was my point. There are no significant cases of these weapons being used for criminal activities and therefore the fear associated with their existence is irrational and baseless. How much more damage could a handgrenade do if exploded in someone's house, then if their gas furnace exploded?

 

[Hangfire]

......but these writers didn't foresee the weapons of present day.

Irrelevant.

 

[***]

That was my point. There are no significant cases of these weapons being used for criminal activities and therefore the fear associated with their existence is irrational and baseless. How much more damage could a handgrenade do if exploded in someone's house, then if their gas furnace exploded?

but it's much easier to throw a hand grenade into a crowd than a gas furnace

 

[Hangfire]

Actually most hand held non explosive military weapons manufactured before 1986 are owned legally. All of these types of weapons (machine guns, flamethrowers, etc) are registered with the BATF. To my knowledge, not a single registered class three weapon has been used by its registered owner in a crime.

Actually, there is a case on record of a police officer using a privately-owned machine gun to commit murder.

 

[***]

Irrelevant.

perhaps citizens of today should have the right to have a nuclear missile in his/her posession as well?

 

[bwood]

you dont need weapons capable of giving an overly oppressive
regime second thoughts...

trust the government...trust the government...trust the government...

 

[Hangfire]

perhaps citizens of today should have the right to have a nuclear missile in his/her posession as well?

Nobody said that. A private citizen should not have, and does not need to have, access to a weapon of mass destruction. That is a tired old argument from the Left.

A law-abiding citizen should (and does) have the right to arm himself with weapons of his choosing that he deems suitable for his defense. The entire argument for regulation of privately-owned firearms is based on the government's presumption that all citizens are potential criminals and cannot be trusted with guns. All they give you is alot of what-ifs.

 

[ariolanine]

Nobody said that. A private citizen should not have, and does not need to have, access to a weapon of mass destruction. That is a tired old argument from the Left.

A law-abiding citizen should (and does) have the right to arm himself with weapons of his choosing that he deems suitable for his defense. The entire argument for regulation of privately-owned firearms is based on the government's presumption that all citizens are potential criminals and cannot be trusted with guns. All they give you is alot of what-ifs.

True dat my bruva. A nuclear weapon isn't any good for self defense. A roof mounted 20mm Vulcan cannon with depleted uranium rounds is a good defensive weapon.

 

[HULKSTER]

I would say that a well regulated militia would mean the official branches of the military. I hardly think the NRA constitutes a well regulated militia.

No! A militia is made up of the people/citizens, of which the federal government's financially supported and controlled military is not----as dictated by American citizens being REQUIRED TO RESCIND THEIR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS WHEN THEY SWEAR AN OATH TO JOIN THE MILITARY, SO THAT THEY WILL INSTEAD BE SUBJECT TO THE UNIFORM CODE OF MILITARY JUSTICE (UCMJ). Thus, the US military is not truly made up of American citizens, as the definition of a militia requires. For if they were true American citizens, then they would still retain their Constitutional rights. Ask Chesty or TxArmy guy about this.....and I know personally, because I served in the Army on active duty for 7 months. I have my DD214 form to show anyone as proof.

After I graduated from Army Basic Combat Training at Fort Sill, Oklahoma on February 3, 1999, I went on to AIT at Ford Hood, TX to train to become an aeronutical medivac assistant, which is similar to a nurse/LPN. However, I broke my left collarbone on a training exercise. Subsequently, the Commander of the battery that I was in determined, through medical reports from the base military hospital, that it would take many months before I could even think of resuming my training. So I was given an Honorable Discharge; however, my re-entry code is listed as 3, due to my injury. A re-enlistment code of 1 means you can automatically rejoin, a 3 means you have little chance, and a 4 means you have no chance in hell. I wanted to get this out in the open, since so many people have flamed me for being unpatriotic towards America in my rants against why people shouldn't join the military, as well as the military's sinistar role in world affairs---such as nation building and stealing other countries wealth (like Iraq's oil). After seeing the bullshit I went through, as well as being awakened to the truth of the military's role in domestic and foreign affairs, I became disgusted with the US military.

I then took the 60 college credits I had at the time I enlisted, and used them when I transferred to the college I attended. Two years later, I received my bachelor's degree, and became an LPN.

 

[Hangfire]

True dat my bruva. A nuclear weapon isn't any good for self defense. A roof mounted 20mm Vulcan cannon with depleted uranium rounds is a good defensive weapon.

Or even just a plain 'ole Minigun.

 

[MattTheSkywalker]

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.

If you read any of the Founder's commentaries or diaries, it is clear that they were well aware that the government was the greatest threat to its people's freedom and safety.

Look at the first part: A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State

This means, simply stated, "freedom isn't free". it must be defended, from external and internal enemies.

And the second part the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed. /

You need guns to defend yourself, and the government will not prevent you from defending yourself.


Here is another piece of evidencefrom teh COnstitution, regarding raising an Army:

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years

We were not suposed to have a standing Army either. A standing Navy was authorized.

 

[Frackal]

the writers of this amendment meant for citizens to be able to form militias and be able to bear arms, but these writers didn't foresee the weapons of present day.

How can you be sure.



Ok look people.


Reason for bearing arms is a dissuasion against a TYRANNICAL GOVERNMENT


Obviously any Nation is going to have an army!



An army is not what the forefathers were referring to!



And you can't say the militia has to be ok'd by the Govt because that defeats the purpose entirely!


Citizens have a righ to bear arms! It's been this way since the beginning of this country!


Historically a disarmed population is an easy victim for tyranny

 

[Rockafella Skank]

Not only is the cntent of the Constitution important to note, but it is also important to understand the context. The Colonies were living under the thumb of a tyrant king, so the Bill of Rights reflects, quite accurately, what the framers had in mind. The First Amendment is first for a reason. The Second, therefore, can easily be reasoned to be of grave concern to them. The order of the Bill of Rights is by no means arbitrary.

 

[Fast Twitch Fiber]

Nobody said that. A private citizen should not have, and does not need to have, access to a weapon of mass destruction. That is a tired old argument from the Left.

But if you go by the gun lobby's explanation of the second amendment then it should be legal to own a nuke. The 2nd doesn't say anything specifically about guns, it says "arms" which could be a nuke or grenade etc.

 

[atlantabiolab]

But if you go by the gun lobby's explanation of the second amendment then it should be legal to own a nuke. The 2nd doesn't say anything specifically about guns, it says "arms" which could be a nuke or grenade etc.

Ridiculous logic. The military of the Framers time had cannons and battleships, the 2nd Amendment specifies arms that are necessary for the "militia", which are not the same as that of the military. No one would expect that the common person would house a submarine with nuclear capabilities. Guns are the primary weapons of any militia, not nuclear warheads, f-15's, or anything else the left can construe as irresponsible.

This is the irrationality of the left. Take the logical idea, extrapolate it to the illogical conclusion in the attempt to discredit the concept.

 

[atlantabiolab]

but it's much easier to throw a hand grenade into a crowd than a gas furnace

Timothy McVeigh used common ingredients to create a massive explosive device. See how ridiculous your idea becomes when you don't think in big pictures.

 

[[email protected]]

Weapons are also kept if there is a need to overthrow a standing government. While our government it “acceptable” now it does not mean in 10 years someone in the White House will not declare a dictatorship. You say never? Well, never say never. As the commander in chief of the military who will go against them?

Additionally, while the idea of an “invasion” is not feasible at this time you never know what will happen. If the states fall apart and civil war starts again for whatever reason. NEVER? You would be surprised how fragile something is when it appears to be strong!

As far as keeping a nuke? Well, they take tons of resources to maintain. Far beyond any normal persons means. That in itself should be reason enough not to own one. No one can properly maintain it and safeguard it.

Flamethrowers? You can make them pretty easily but what the hell would you do with one? The only use I can think of is de-icing my driveway.

Improvised explosives like Nitrogen or chemical based are easy to obtain. These are items used in war and not for defense. I have assault weapons and they sit idle in a big safe. I have them because I like them.

 

[HULKSTER]

I have assault weapons and they sit idle in a big safe. I have them because I like them. [/B]

 

[Fast Twitch Fiber]

Ridiculous logic. The military of the Framers time had cannons and battleships, the 2nd Amendment specifies arms that are necessary for the "militia", which are not the same as that of the military. No one would expect that the common person would house a submarine with nuclear capabilities. Guns are the primary weapons of any militia, not nuclear warheads, f-15's, or anything else the left can construe as irresponsible.

This is the irrationality of the left. Take the logical idea, extrapolate it to the illogical conclusion in the attempt to discredit the concept.

But part of the right wing's justification of the 2nd is that it's necessary to keep weapons in case the government needs to be overthrown. What good are rifles when our government's army has smart bombs? Now explain which side extrapolates things to an illogical conclusion

 

[atlantabiolab]

But part of the right wing's justification of the 2nd is that it's necessary to keep weapons in case the government needs to be overthrown. What good are rifles when our government's army has smart bombs? Now explain which side extrapolates things to an illogical conclusion

Still not clear thinking. Just because one has greater weapons, does not mean that they win. Afghanistans showed this with their war with Russia. Men who fight for their life and liberty fight with great vigor.

The main idea is: what chance does one have to protect himself and his property, with no weapons? No chance.

 

[Frackal]

Right, also it's preventative against gestapo-ish police forces....though the police seem to become increasingly militaristic with SWAT and more

 

[VeggieLifterChick]

I used to think that the only people who would support the right for citizens to own guns were people who wanted to hunt for sport or who were worried about defending themselves against intruders. It was easy to be for gun control, especially after Columbine. Now I realize that I only thought of gun control arguments in those terms because that's where they steered our heads in school.

But, consider the way the U.S. came into being - that is, as the result of a violent revolution by the people against a tyrranical government. Its pretty obvious and reasonable to understand that the 2nd ammendment was written to protect the people so that they could take up arms against a tryrannical or unjust government. Now I think about efforts for gun control in terms of trying to quash our right to rebel.

 

[Frackal]

You're on the right track!


Next step to enlightenment:

Send me a nude

[email protected]