2nd amendment

[Jagalonia]

....The colbert report....?

Are you even human...?

To be fair, I've never seen it either.

Gallo....I...But...You...I am deeply ashamed....

[Neo Arcad]

....The colbert report....?

Are you even human...?

To be fair, I've never seen it either.

Nor do I, yet you and I both know what it is.

[Safed]

My point is that the original reason was to allow the forming of militias, it may have been badly worded but that is what was meant, is has been taken from that and in a sense abused by others who have tried, successfully, to twist it to their own means to the point that most believe it is just an American right to let any adult carry a deadly weapon if they choose.

[Raeyh]

Supreme Court justices can make mistakes, too.

Right, but see, when they make "mistakes", the "mistakes" are codified as laws. Unfair? Possibly. Best system yet found? Definitely.

They don't make laws, they interpret laws. They can go back and reinterpret them later, nothing is set in stone with judges. At the most, they just set precedent.

[Galloism]

My point is that the original reason was to allow the forming of militias, it may have been badly worded but that is what was meant, is has been taken from that and in a sense abused by others who have tried, successfully, to twist it to their own means to the point that most believe it is just an American right to let any adult carry a deadly weapon if they choose.

I suggest you read DC v. Heller.

The majority went into great detail on the history, drafting, and ruling on and surrounding the second amendment, from drafting until now.

It's a very good reading, if dry. Supreme court rulings are always dry.

[Safed]

To be fair, I've never seen it either.

Nor do I, yet you and I both know what it is.

Ahh I've looked it up, I guess you just assumed I was American. I'm not and have never watched any US channels, which is why I wasn't familiar with it. I could ask if you'd heard of, for example, mock the week, and be surprised you hadn't.

[Galloism]

To be fair, I've never seen it either.

Nor do I, yet you and I both know what it is.

True.

[Ratateague]

My opinion?
It's an outdated amendment with the intent of allowing defense from the british. The idea that small arms can somehow protect us from an organized, tyrannical government is silly and naive. Never mind that our current one has checks and balances and enough incompetence and disloyalty to prevent it from occurring in the first place.

[Gun Manufacturers]

Before you reply, I want to point out that this is not trolling/flamebait or w/e but an honest question.

Why do some citizens of the USA believe they have a "God-given right to bear arms" when the actual second amendment was not written in such a way as to condone the carrying of firearms by civilians.

The second amendment goes as follows:
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.
(from http://www.usconstitution.net/)

The key bit here is the Well regulated Militia. This amendment was made because when it was written, in the 1790s, the USA did not want a standing army, although they lived in a hostile country whereby a standing armed force was necessary. This amendment was a way round the problem, a way to get a properly trained and armed militia to use in times of conflict or defence, in part due to the contribution made by militias, or minutemen in the war of independence.

I think a lot of the confusion comes down to people just quoting the second half of this amendment, nicely ignoring the militia part. Another ( admittedly forced) example of this is just quoting half a famous line from Shakespear, when Romeo says "Yonder window breaks," now, he is a vandal rather than someone who claims to be in love, although considering the romance lasted 3 days and was between a 17 and 13 year old. That is beside the point.

Anyway, back to the 2nd amendment, I'm genuinely interested as to what others, mainly Americans, think about this, I'm sure my post isn't original in its nature but I'm wondering, I'm also aware that the right to carry is far too a contentious issue for anything to ever actually be done about it.

tl;dr basically, the right to carry results from misreading the 2nd amendment of the US constitution, is this purposeful or do people just genuinely not take an interest in a feature that is supposed to be a major part of their history?

The Second Amendment allows for civilians to keep and bear arms. The US Department of Justice agrees with this interpretation, as does the US Supreme Court. Why else does it say, "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."

[Safed]

My opinion?
It's an outdated amendment with the intent of allowing defense from the british. The idea that small arms can somehow protect us from an organized, tyrannical government is silly and naive. Never mind that our current one has checks and balances and enough incompetence and disloyalty to prevent it from occurring in the first place.

I'm not sure about tyrannical, the original declaration was just a huge gamble to try to get the aid of the French, as they were unlikely to help a group of English patriots who wanted slightly fairer taxes, however, a bunch of men who wanted to be free of "oppressive rule" that would weaken the greatest enemy, of the time, of the French

[Galloism]

Before you reply, I want to point out that this is not trolling/flamebait or w/e but an honest question.

Why do some citizens of the USA believe they have a "God-given right to bear arms" when the actual second amendment was not written in such a way as to condone the carrying of firearms by civilians.

The second amendment goes as follows:
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.
(from http://www.usconstitution.net/)

The key bit here is the Well regulated Militia. This amendment was made because when it was written, in the 1790s, the USA did not want a standing army, although they lived in a hostile country whereby a standing armed force was necessary. This amendment was a way round the problem, a way to get a properly trained and armed militia to use in times of conflict or defence, in part due to the contribution made by militias, or minutemen in the war of independence.

I think a lot of the confusion comes down to people just quoting the second half of this amendment, nicely ignoring the militia part. Another ( admittedly forced) example of this is just quoting half a famous line from Shakespear, when Romeo says "Yonder window breaks," now, he is a vandal rather than someone who claims to be in love, although considering the romance lasted 3 days and was between a 17 and 13 year old. That is beside the point.

Anyway, back to the 2nd amendment, I'm genuinely interested as to what others, mainly Americans, think about this, I'm sure my post isn't original in its nature but I'm wondering, I'm also aware that the right to carry is far too a contentious issue for anything to ever actually be done about it.

tl;dr basically, the right to carry results from misreading the 2nd amendment of the US constitution, is this purposeful or do people just genuinely not take an interest in a feature that is supposed to be a major part of their history?

The Second Amendment allows for civilians to keep and bear arms. The US Department of Justice agrees with this interpretation, as does the US Supreme Court. Why else does it say, "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."

You forgot those "people" only refer to the military and national guard, just like the "people" mentioned in the first amendment.

Where is your head?

[Safed]

Before you reply, I want to point out that this is not trolling/flamebait or w/e but an honest question.

Why do some citizens of the USA believe they have a "God-given right to bear arms" when the actual second amendment was not written in such a way as to condone the carrying of firearms by civilians.

The second amendment goes as follows:
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.
(from http://www.usconstitution.net/)

The key bit here is the Well regulated Militia. This amendment was made because when it was written, in the 1790s, the USA did not want a standing army, although they lived in a hostile country whereby a standing armed force was necessary. This amendment was a way round the problem, a way to get a properly trained and armed militia to use in times of conflict or defence, in part due to the contribution made by militias, or minutemen in the war of independence.

I think a lot of the confusion comes down to people just quoting the second half of this amendment, nicely ignoring the militia part. Another ( admittedly forced) example of this is just quoting half a famous line from Shakespear, when Romeo says "Yonder window breaks," now, he is a vandal rather than someone who claims to be in love, although considering the romance lasted 3 days and was between a 17 and 13 year old. That is beside the point.

Anyway, back to the 2nd amendment, I'm genuinely interested as to what others, mainly Americans, think about this, I'm sure my post isn't original in its nature but I'm wondering, I'm also aware that the right to carry is far too a contentious issue for anything to ever actually be done about it.

tl;dr basically, the right to carry results from misreading the 2nd amendment of the US constitution, is this purposeful or do people just genuinely not take an interest in a feature that is supposed to be a major part of their history?

The Second Amendment allows for civilians to keep and bear arms. The US Department of Justice agrees with this interpretation, as does the US Supreme Court. Why else does it say, "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."

Because it is in terms of the aforementioned militia, it was an unfortunate oversight on the behalf of the writers that has led to too many deaths over the past 200 or so years

[Galloism]

The Second Amendment allows for civilians to keep and bear arms. The US Department of Justice agrees with this interpretation, as does the US Supreme Court. Why else does it say, "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."

Because it is in terms of the aforementioned militia, it was an unfortunate oversight on the behalf of the writers that has led to too many deaths over the past 200 or so years

Have you read DC v. Heller yet?

[Ecans]

I think the first comma leads to confusion. The version ratified only has one comma:

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 reasoning may have been militias, but the operative portion does not include such a limit.

The phrase "well regulated" should indicate a need for control. They could not have imagined weapons that can kill multiple people in a matter of seconds. Except for slow-loading cannon firing grapeshot. Somehow I doubt if they would have approved of people owning several cannons that could be carried around on a shopping trip. That's what a modern submachinegun is in 18th. century terms. Would they have approved of personal ownership of a weapon that can kill a person over a mile away? Some states allow private ownership of a Barrett .50 sniper rifle. What the hell for? One shot would blow a huge hunk out of a deer. Assault rifles are lousy hunting weapons too. Not so good as a home defence weapon either. A slug will go through walls and kill anyone on the other side. Piss-poor on the range too. Single shot or bolt action weapons are far, far more accurate. They probably had no issue with carrying a concealed pistol. Single shot muzzle loaders are of little use in threatening 30 or 40 people in a bank, for instance. Not so much if concealing a 15 shot 9mm weapon. But many Americans are fascinated by guns with no civilian application. Who knows why.

[Safed]

Because it is in terms of the aforementioned militia, it was an unfortunate oversight on the behalf of the writers that has led to too many deaths over the past 200 or so years

Have you read DC v. Heller yet?

Some of it, I'm also in the process of writing a paper on the reaction pathways of biologically important molecules, it's a barrel of laughs

[Galloism]

I think the first comma leads to confusion. The version ratified only has one comma:

The reasoning may have been militias, but the operative portion does not include such a limit.

The phrase "well regulated" should indicate a need for control. They could not have imagined weapons that can kill multiple people in a matter of seconds. Except for slow-loading cannon firing grapeshot. Somehow I doubt if they would have approved of people owning several cannons that could be carried around on a shopping trip. That's what a modern submachinegun is in 18th. century terms. Would they have approved of personal ownership of a weapon that can kill a person over a mile away? Some states allow private ownership of a Barrett .50 sniper rifle. What the hell for? Assault rifles are lousy hunting weapons. Not too good as home defence either. A slug will go through walls and kill anyone on the other side. Piss-poor on the range too. Single shot or bolt action weapons are far, far more accurate. They probably had no issue with carrying a concealed pistol. Single shot muzzle loaders are of little use in threatening 30 or 40 people in a bank, for instance. Not so much if concealing a 15 shot 9mm weapon. But many Americans are fascinated by guns with no civilian application. Who knows why.

Actually, if you read DC v. Heller, they said that reasonable restrictions are within the scope of the second amendment, just like reasonable restrictions on speech are within the scope of the first - (yelling "FIRE!" in a crowded theatre, and all that).

They just can't take away the right to keep and bear arms entirely... because it's an individual right.

[Galloism]

Have you read DC v. Heller yet?

Some of it, I'm also in the process of writing a paper on the reaction pathways of biologically important molecules, it's a barrel of laughs

Read the majority and dissent opinions of DC v. Heller. Even Cat Tribes (a notorious liberal, not that I'm saying that's a bad thing) even said that the majority opinion was far more convincing than the dissent.

[Grave_n_idle]

Before you reply, I want to point out that this is not trolling/flamebait or w/e but an honest question.

Why do some citizens of the USA believe they have a "God-given right to bear arms" when the actual second amendment was not written in such a way as to condone the carrying of firearms by civilians.

The second amendment goes as follows:
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.
(from http://www.usconstitution.net/)

The key bit here is the Well regulated Militia. This amendment was made because when it was written, in the 1790s, the USA did not want a standing army, although they lived in a hostile country whereby a standing armed force was necessary. This amendment was a way round the problem, a way to get a properly trained and armed militia to use in times of conflict or defence, in part due to the contribution made by militias, or minutemen in the war of independence.

I think a lot of the confusion comes down to people just quoting the second half of this amendment, nicely ignoring the militia part. Another ( admittedly forced) example of this is just quoting half a famous line from Shakespear, when Romeo says "Yonder window breaks," now, he is a vandal rather than someone who claims to be in love, although considering the romance lasted 3 days and was between a 17 and 13 year old. That is beside the point.

Anyway, back to the 2nd amendment, I'm genuinely interested as to what others, mainly Americans, think about this, I'm sure my post isn't original in its nature but I'm wondering, I'm also aware that the right to carry is far too a contentious issue for anything to ever actually be done about it.

tl;dr basically, the right to carry results from misreading the 2nd amendment of the US constitution, is this purposeful or do people just genuinely not take an interest in a feature that is supposed to be a major part of their history?

The Second Amendment allows for civilians to keep and bear arms...

...for the purpose of forming a well regulated militia to safeguard the security of a free state.

Absent a well-regulated militia necessary for the security of the free state, all bets are arguably off.

[Safed]

Some of it, I'm also in the process of writing a paper on the reaction pathways of biologically important molecules, it's a barrel of laughs

Read the majority and dissent opinions of DC v. Heller. Even Cat Tribes (a notorious liberal, not that I'm saying that's a bad thing) even said that the majority opinion was far more convincing than the dissent.

Actually, do you have a decent link?

[Olivaero]

I think a more important issue is that a 200 year old document is being used as a guide line in a 21st century country... the men who wrote the constitution may have been great men but they are still just that, men. Who lived in an entirely different world to the one we do today. Philosophically they may have had the right idea but they had no way of knowing what the future would bring.

[Galloism]

Read the majority and dissent opinions of DC v. Heller. Even Cat Tribes (a notorious liberal, not that I'm saying that's a bad thing) even said that the majority opinion was far more convincing than the dissent.

Actually, do you have a decent link?

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZS.html

Look at the opinions. There's majority opinion and two dissenting opinions.

[Gun Manufacturers]

The Second Amendment allows for civilians to keep and bear arms. The US Department of Justice agrees with this interpretation, as does the US Supreme Court. Why else does it say, "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."

You forgot those "people" only refer to the military and national guard, just like the "people" mentioned in the first amendment.

Where is your head?

Silly me, what was I thinking?

[Galloism]

The Second Amendment allows for civilians to keep and bear arms...

...for the purpose of forming a well regulated militia to safeguard the security of a free state.

Absent a well-regulated militia necessary for the security of the free state, all bets are arguably off.

Arguably not, given the operative clause is not limited by the prefatory clause.

[Serrland]

Nor do I, yet you and I both know what it is.

Ahh I've looked it up, I guess you just assumed I was American. I'm not and have never watched any US channels, which is why I wasn't familiar with it. I could ask if you'd heard of, for example, mock the week, and be surprised you hadn't.

That has nothing to do with being American. We don't like Mock the Week because frankly it's not the best, even as far as panel games go. Dara Ó Briain...not a fan.

[Ecans]

The phrase "well regulated" should indicate a need for control. They could not have imagined weapons that can kill multiple people in a matter of seconds. Except for slow-loading cannon firing grapeshot. Somehow I doubt if they would have approved of people owning several cannons that could be carried around on a shopping trip. That's what a modern submachinegun is in 18th. century terms. Would they have approved of personal ownership of a weapon that can kill a person over a mile away? Some states allow private ownership of a Barrett .50 sniper rifle. What the hell for? Assault rifles are lousy hunting weapons. Not too good as home defence either. A slug will go through walls and kill anyone on the other side. Piss-poor on the range too. Single shot or bolt action weapons are far, far more accurate. They probably had no issue with carrying a concealed pistol. Single shot muzzle loaders are of little use in threatening 30 or 40 people in a bank, for instance. Not so much if concealing a 15 shot 9mm weapon. But many Americans are fascinated by guns with no civilian application. Who knows why.

Actually, if you read DC v. Heller, they said that reasonable restrictions are within the scope of the second amendment, just like reasonable restrictions on speech are within the scope of the first - (yelling "FIRE!" in a crowded theatre, and all that).

They just can't take away the right to keep and bear arms entirely... because it's an individual right.

As I said, Barrett .50 sniper rifles are permitted in some states. Many more allow assault rifles. Some permit concealed carry. Not to mention "castle" laws.