Your Second Amendment Rights

[one...two...tree 2,762]

2nd Amendment to U.S. Constitution:

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.

[natty bumppo 297]

What a fvcked poll ... you still don't get it do you?

[one...two...tree 2,762]

What a fvcked poll ... you still don't get it do you?

It's a perfectly legitimate question given the amount of Second Amendment experts here on VJ who claim that any regulations or restrictions of guns is an infringement of their rights. Where in the Second Amendment does it specify arms as pertaining exclusively to guns?

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

Man walks into a bar, and sees a beautiful woman, sitting all alone. He walks up to her and asks, "Would you have sex with me for a million dollars?"

She looks at him for a few seconds, and then says, "For a million dollars? Sure. I would do that."

The man takes out his wallet, and looks inside, then asks her, "How about twenty dollars?"

She stands up, looks him straight in the eyes, and says, "Just what kind of girl do you think I am!"

He shrugs his shoulders, and says, "We have already established that! Now we are just haggling over the price."

Edited March 28, 2009 by Mister_Bill

[Bobby+Umit 161]

The way it is written now, yes - you can own nuclear weapons. I voted as such.

However, you would have to overcome other laws that would prevent you from owning one. Yes, that "infringes" on your rights, but it's the law. If you don't like the law, you will have to change it.

Since the US Constitution is a living document, and you can make changes (well the government can), they can change it to limit this amendment.

I would suggest you take it up with your Congress/Senate members and have them introduce a new amendment to change the existing one instead of comparing nukes to guns.

Article Five of the Constitution: "The Congress, whenever two-thirds of both Houses [the House and the Senate] shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution . . ." States were also given a chance to propose changes, or amendments. Three-fourths of the states have to approve the amendment for it to become law

[Nagishkaw 510]

0k.

[Caladan 19]

There's a school of thought that says if the Second Amendment is an individual right, 'arms' most properly refers to the kind of weapon proper to an individual soldier. (That is, the sort of thing that could be 'borne' by an individual.) Thus, guns, but not tanks, artillery, or bombs.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

There's a school of thought that says if the Second Amendment is an individual right, 'arms' most properly refers to the kind of weapon proper to an individual soldier. (That is, the sort of thing that could be 'borne' by an individual.) Thus, guns, but not tanks, artillery, or bombs.

Ok, so are we going to look into the intent of the Second Amendment or a literal interpretation of it? And if we are going to look at the intent in its historical context - how can one make the argument that the authors of Second Amendment intended to protect citizens the right to own any and all hand held weapons beyond the firepower and capacity of the existing weapons at that time?

[Ban Hammer 13,364]

There's a school of thought that says if the Second Amendment is an individual right, 'arms' most properly refers to the kind of weapon proper to an individual soldier. (That is, the sort of thing that could be 'borne' by an individual.) Thus, guns, but not tanks, artillery, or bombs.

i still wanna see steven haul his own fat man or little boy around.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

There's a school of thought that says if the Second Amendment is an individual right, 'arms' most properly refers to the kind of weapon proper to an individual soldier. (That is, the sort of thing that could be 'borne' by an individual.) Thus, guns, but not tanks, artillery, or bombs.

i still wanna see steven haul his own fat man or little boy around.

So Charles, you are then in favor of interpreting the contextual meaning of the Second Amendment, rather than a literal interpretation that Bobby expressed in post #5, yes?

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

A suitcase nuke, yes. Anything I can carry.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Waiting for Charles to answer....

[MrsCat 6]

Perhaps read DC v Heller. http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/wp-content/up.../06/07-2901.pdf

The most recent contextual understanding of the right to bear arms in modern society. Will no doubt serve as the foundation for all future 2nd Amendment laws.

Edit: Yes, I am an NRA member. And no I do not think the 2nd Amendment affords to right to bear a nuclear weapon.

Clearly, the right as written contemplated an weapon which can be used and carried by a single individual. The constitution should be looked at in a historical context, but afforded an opportunity to grow and adjust its meaning to current times. To hold otherwise would make the constitution meaningless. So does that mean 2nd Amendment covers automatic rifles. Sure. That's a reasonable interpretation of an armament in regards to an individual. A nuclear weapon as an armament is not a logical interpretation of the 2nd Amendment because while its a current armament, its not something utilized by single individuals in society.

Edited March 28, 2009 by MrsCat

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Perhaps read DC v Heller. http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/wp-content/up.../06/07-2901.pdf

The most recent contextual understanding of the right to bear arms in modern society. Will no doubt serve as the foundation for all future 2nd Amendment laws.

Edit: Yes, I am an NRA member. And no I do not think the 2nd Amendment affords to right to bear a nuclear weapon.

Clearly, the right as written contemplated an weapon which can be used and carried by a single individual. The constitution should be looked at in a historical context, but afforded an opportunity to grow and adjust its meaning to current times. To hold otherwise would make the constitution meaningless. So does that mean 2nd Amendment covers automatic rifles. Sure. That's a reasonable interpretation of an armament in regards to an individual. A nuclear weapon as an armament is not a logical interpretation of the 2nd Amendment because while its a current armament, its not something utilized by single individuals in society.

Thanks, Cat, for the well thought out response.

I don't follow though how it is reasonable to interpret that the 2nd Amendment guarantees an individual the right to own automatic weapons, simply because you can carry one on your person? How about rocket launchers then? How about a dirty bomb that's small enough to fit in a briefcase? If you are interpreting the 2nd Amendment in the context of history, how can you reasonably determine that the authors would approve of the type of arsenal someone can carry on their person today vs. what an individual could carry over 200years ago?

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

I don't follow though how it is reasonable to interpret that the 2nd Amendment guarantees an individual the right to own automatic weapons, simply because you can carry one on your person?

If automatic weapons are "in common use" today, then SCOTUS says they're ok.

See page 2 of Cat's PDF.