Your interpretation of the 2nd Amendment..?

ki1022 · 10-01-2007, 02:27 PM

Quote:

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.

I was curious as to what the opinions of our 2nd amendment are on this forum. What are your definitions of "arms" and "shall not be infringed". Do you feel that "being necessary to the security of a free State" implies a revolutionary right, or does it refer to foreign enemies?

**walter_da_jpr** · 10-01-2007, 02:35 PM

Its a right to respond to overwhelming control with weapons, whether its from a government that goes way out of line, or a foreign source of control. These rights should not be taken away.

I do feel some restricition is necessary though. (i.e. waiting periods, background checks, no bazookas). I do think Assualt rifles should be legal though.

LandRover · 10-01-2007, 02:59 PM

Written before we had a solid armed forces to protect us from the pesky British, and as a token to make people feel that our constitution/government wasn't going to become another monarchy. I wouldn't, but you could argue that it became at least partially obsolete once we had a legitimate Army.

commodore_dude · 10-01-2007, 03:02 PM

We don't ban free speech from the internet just because it wasn't around when the First Amendment was conceived, why should we place limits on the Second? Without it, the other 9 are just empty promises.

I don't have any particular problem with background checks, I'm not so sure about banning felons from posessing guns across the board, once they've served their time I don't see why they can't protect their homes and families too, unless it was a violent crime committed with a firearm. Maybe don't allow them carry permits.

Wamp · 10-01-2007, 03:02 PM

I think it means that the people of the US are the militia and should the need arise, the people should take up arms to defend this country and Constitution from all enemies foreign or domestic.
I don't think there should be any restrictions or waiting periods. If the police/army has a weapon, the people should be able to have the same weapons.
Personally, I think gun ownership/training should me mandatory like in Switzerland.
From Wikipedia:
The Swiss army has long been a militia trained and structured to rapidly respond against foreign aggression. Swiss males grow up expecting to undergo basic military training, usually at age 20 in the Rekrutenschule (German for "recruit school"), the initial boot camp, after which Swiss men remain part of the "militia" in reserve capacity until age 30 (age 34 for officers). Each such individual keeps his army-issued personal weapon (the Sig 550 5.56x45 mm assault rifle for enlisted personnel, the SIG 510 battle rifle and/or the SIG-Sauer P220 9 mm semi-automatic pistol for officers, medical and postal personnel) at home with a specified personal retention quantity of government-issued ammunition (50 rounds 5.56 mm / 48 rounds 9mm), which is sealed and inspected regularly to ensure that no unauthorized use takes place.

LandRover · 10-01-2007, 03:04 PM

Yeah, those Swiss are always involved in a war of some kind

**jneal** · 10-01-2007, 03:05 PM

A token......did I actually just read that? Its a TOKEN?!?!?! I actually lol'd at that.

To the OP, this is all MHO...
First, no god gave us any rights. If you think that go explain it to the monks getting blown away in a country formerly known as Burma.
Our rights were won by the bloodshed of our forefathers.
Our forefathers were not idiots as some would have you think. They thought long and hard about the wording in our Constitution.
They kept their ideas vague on purpose in an effort to avert loopholes. The more specific any thought/idea is the more chance to circumvent it with legaleze.

I feel the Bill Of Rights as well as the Constitution was written in such a way to allow for any overbearing govt to be overthrown by the people (militia) and replaced with the Democratic Republic it was written for. The atmosphere in which they were righting it and the way it is worded tells me that.

again, just MHO

LandRover · 10-01-2007, 03:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jneal

A token......did I actually just read that? Its a TOKEN?!?!?! I actually lol'd at that.

The entire bill of rights was a token....without it the states wouldn't approve the Constitution. Not that it wasn't needed, don't get me wrong. But yes, it was a token.

**jneal** · 10-01-2007, 03:37 PM

Well we will have to agree to disagree on that I guess. I feel they Knew they were going to create the BOR and those articles in it were going to be debated hard so they felt the need to seperate the two.

**HighLonesome** · 10-01-2007, 03:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ki1022

I was curious as to what the opinions of our 2nd amendment are on this forum. What are your definitions of "arms" and "shall not be infringed". Do you feel that "being necessary to the security of a free State" implies a revolutionary right, or does it refer to foreign enemies?

To me, it means the USA shall not become a nanny state and rely on government for protection. The average citizen shall bear arms to protect himself from others, enemies, and his own government if necessary.

It was and is all about liberty.

**sparkchaser** · 10-01-2007, 03:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LandRover

Written before we had a solid armed forces to protect us from the pesky British, and as a token to make people feel that our constitution/government wasn't going to become another monarchy. I wouldn't, but you could argue that it became at least partially obsolete once we had a legitimate Army.

It was as much that as it was to prevent a tyrannical government from oppressing its citizens.

You know what Thomas Jefferson and George Washington would say if they were alive today?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Founding Fathers

You fools! You did what? You FEDERALIZED the state militias?

Tj_Justin · 10-01-2007, 03:50 PM

It means what it says people....

I dont know why people cant interpret the constitution literally the way it should be

ftdranger · 10-01-2007, 04:02 PM

Modern legal theorists generally identify three models in United States to interpret the right to bear arms. Founded on a reading of the Second Amendment, "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."

The first two models focus on the preamble, or "purpose" clause, of the Amendment — the words "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State." The first model, the collective model, holds that the right to bear arms belongs to the people collectively rather than to individuals, because the right's only purpose is to enable states to maintain a militia. The second model, the modified collective model, is similar to the first. It holds that the right to keep and bear arms exists only for individuals actively serving in the militia, and then only pursuant to such regulations as may be prescribed.[32]

The third model, the Individual Rights Model, holds that a right of individuals is to own and possess firearms, much as the First Amendment protects a right of individuals to engage in free speech.[33] Though this Individual Rights model must yield to reasonable regulation.[34]

United States federal courts have consistently interpreted the federal right to bear arms in United States as the modified collective right, not an individual right[35] with two recent exceptions in the circuit courts: The 2001 Fifth Circuit court ruling United States v. Emerson and the 2007 D.C. Circuit court ruling Parker v. District of Columbia, both of which introduce principles of an individual right to firearms. Presently, nine of the federal circuit courts support a modified collective rights view, two of the federal circuit courts an individual rights view, and the Supreme Court and one federal circuit court have not addressed the question.[36]

At the state level, each of the fifty United States state constitutions, state laws and state courts address the state based right to bear arms distinctly within their respective jurisdictions.[37] The degree and the nature of the protection, prohibition and regulation at the state level varies from state to state. The District of Columbia, not being a state, falls within the federal jurisdiction.

These are not my words , just thought it was good reading on this issue

Dcomf · 10-01-2007, 05:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jneal

......... and replaced with the Democratic Republic it was written for.

We're a Constitutional Republic, not a Democratic Republic whatever that is.

**War Eagle** · 10-01-2007, 05:42 PM

My own interpretation is that it is referring to a state militia, not an armed individual. However I believe that private gun ownership is an argument of the 14th Amendment, which declares that no state can pass a law limiting rights already granted to the individual by the Bill of Rights. Challenging state gun laws by arguing tha they violate the 14th Amendment would require the Supreme Court to make a decision on what the 2nd Amendment really means, and no politician is going to rule that the 2nd Amendment only applies to state militias as that would be the end of their political career.