2nd amendment

[Safed]

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.

My point is that you've heard of it, I've not heard of the Colbert Report because I've never had any chance to come across it

[Galloism]

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.

But what does that have to do with the second amendment?

[Jagalonia]

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.

I'm not so sure....

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.

It almost looks like 2 seperate thoughts.
"We need a well regulated militia....Oh, and everyone can have guns."

[Grave_n_idle]

...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.

I disagree. Further, as presented in the dissenting opinions you mentioned several times already - so has almost all the history of American jurisprudence.

[Safed]

...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.

I'm not so sure....

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.

It almost looks like 2 seperate thoughts.
"We need a well regulated militia....Oh, and everyone can have guns."

It's one thought, we need well regulated militias, but in order to have militias, people must be allowed to carry guns, as if a civilian cannot have a gun they can't be part of a militia

[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."

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

Was it also an oversight by the Congress and State Governments of the time? Personally, I don't think so. It's doubtful that many people would have missed such a mistake. More likely, the Amendment is as it was meant to be.

[Ecans]

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.

But what does that have to do with the second amendment?

Some people interpret the 2nd. ammendment as meaning that there should be NO restrictions on gun ownership. That means that weapons having no purpose other than military (killing people in large numbers) are allowed in civilian hands.

[Jagalonia]

I'm not so sure....

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.

It almost looks like 2 seperate thoughts.
"We need a well regulated militia....Oh, and everyone can have guns."

It's one thought, we need well regulated militias, but in order to have militias, people must be allowed to carry guns, as if a civilian cannot have a gun they can't be part of a militia

For somone with a giant anarchy sign on their flag....you're rather quick to come to that conclusion.....

[Ecans]

I'm not so sure....

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.

It almost looks like 2 seperate thoughts.
"We need a well regulated militia....Oh, and everyone can have guns."

It's one thought, we need well regulated militias, but in order to have militias, people must be allowed to carry guns, as if a civilian cannot have a gun they can't be part of a militia

In many countries that have a milita (reserve) weapons are kept in an armory and issued as needed.

[Grave_n_idle]

...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.

I'm not so sure....

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.

It almost looks like 2 seperate thoughts.
"We need a well regulated militia....Oh, and everyone can have guns."

It doesn't look like two separate thoughts, at all. It looks like someone is saying "hey, since we need x, how about y".

A well regulated militia is arguably necessary to the security of a free state.

Given that, the right to keep and bear arms should not be infringed (more than necessary, at least - as with free speech, for example, it's pretty obvious that it's not supposed to be taken as an absolute).

If a well regulated militia is not needed for the security of the state, or if the 'militia' is not well regulated, the justification for keeping and bearing arms is compromised.

[Jagalonia]

But what does that have to do with the second amendment?

Some people interpret the 2nd. ammendment as meaning that there should be NO restrictions on gun ownership. That means that weapons having no purpose other than military (killing people in large numbers) are allowed in civilian hands.

Oh come on, who wouldn't want to blow a common burgular away with a .50 cal?

[Cruciland]

A militia and a civilian's right to bear arms are two seperate freedoms. Yes, we may have militias. Yes, we may have armaments. If you're saying that we have to join a militia to bear arms, then fine. I nominate the NRA as a militia.

[Korintar]

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?

I think you are on to something. Indeed, iirc, there were some that wanted to (permanently) limit any standing, peacetime army to 3,000 soldiers. The Founding Fathers (man do I hate making generalizations about that hornets' nest/festering snake pit) considered a standing army to be a major threat to liberty, thus they stated that people have the right to own firearms as members of local militia forces. The second and third amendments were products of their time, as the Revolution was still quite fresh in people's minds and battles with the First Nations for land were frequent at the time the constitution was written. I truly believe they (the Founders) would be shocked to find that we are, more or less, operating under the same constitution and would be surprised, to some extent, what we were able to justify with it. I am not sure what they might say, although I can imagine Thomas Jefferson advising we replace the document with a more modern model to meet our current needs- and I think many of the Founders would concur with him.

[Safed]

It's one thought, we need well regulated militias, but in order to have militias, people must be allowed to carry guns, as if a civilian cannot have a gun they can't be part of a militia

For somone with a giant anarchy sign on their flag....you're rather quick to come to that conclusion.....

My flag is part of the nation, which does not follow my own opinions, I'm essentially RPing, as my nation was founded as an anarchist state that was brutally taken over by the leader of the country. It doesn't have any bearings on what I think to be the case, I'm sorry I caused you any confusion.

[Grave_n_idle]

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

Was it also an oversight by the Congress and State Governments of the time? Personally, I don't think so. It's doubtful that many people would have missed such a mistake. More likely, the Amendment is as it was meant to be.

It might be "doubtful that many people would have missed such a mistake", but that's not the only option. People have a habit of interpreting things in a way that pleases them. You assume people would have had to have "missed such a mistake". I think it's far more likely that people have been knowingly gaining advantage from bad wording for decades.

[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?

I think you are on to something. Indeed, iirc, there were some that wanted to (permanently) limit any standing, peacetime army to 3,000 soldiers. The Founding Fathers (man do I hate making generalizations about that hornets' nest/festering snake pit) considered a standing army to be a major threat to liberty, thus they stated that people have the right to own firearms as members of local militia forces. The second and third amendments were products of their time, as the Revolution was still quite fresh in people's minds and battles with the First Nations for land were frequent at the time the constitution was written. I truly believe they (the Founders) would be shocked to find that we are, more or less, operating under the same constitution and would be surprised, to some extent, what we were able to justify with it. I am not sure what they might say, although I can imagine Thomas Jefferson advising we replace the document with a more modern model to meet our current needs- and I think many of the Founders would concur with him.

That's exactly what I was going for, but you've put it much better than I.

[Grave_n_idle]

A militia and a civilian's right to bear arms are two seperate freedoms.

That's certainly one argument.

Personally, I think it's a shaky one.

Yes, we may have militias. Yes, we may have armaments. If you're saying that we have to join a militia to bear arms, then fine. I nominate the NRA as a militia.

Seems unlikely they meet the criteria, really.

[Ecans]

Some people interpret the 2nd. ammendment as meaning that there should be NO restrictions on gun ownership. That means that weapons having no purpose other than military (killing people in large numbers) are allowed in civilian hands.

Oh come on, who wouldn't want to blow a common burgular away with a .50 cal?

Hell ya! And blast through the engine block (and driver) of the car next door, the couple having stand-up sex in a house on the next block, their neighbours Golden Retriever, 2 kids in the community pool, bounces off the water and busts a church bell, kills a duck flying by and winds up in the left engine of a 777 making a downwind leg of the landing pattern at the airport. FUN? Yeah!

[Hiltonstan]

We all have the right to carry Kentucky long rifles. This would allow us to defend ourselves against indians, French, english , and outrageous neighbors. Naturally they too will be carrying the same one shot weapon. I have one and its heavy , obvious and really hard to conceal.

[Mike the Progressive]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller

I suggest some reading.

This.

But not only that, OP, but you are looking at this amendment in a very narrow context. While one must appreciate and understand the events that surrounded the framers of the constitution when the amendments were written, the document has evolved over time to mean very different things. The problem is that you cannot read the constitution and interpret it literally today, since the world has changed so much. And this goes both ways, the amendment serves to protect the individual and his/her right to have a weapon, but it does not mean that the weapons he/she can have are unlimited and without restriction. The same goes for all the other amendments, from the first to the twenty-seventh.

[Hiltonstan]

Suggest we relieve the NRA of any nonprofit tax exemptions that it may have since its purpose clearly is not elymosinary and tax it and it's members with a special tax on guns. You can have em and we will tax them. O yes ammunition is expensive and heavily taxed as well

We could of course simply ban bullets!

[Gun Manufacturers]

Suggest we relieve the NRA of any nonprofit tax exemptions that it may have since its purpose clearly is not elymosinary and tax it and it's members with a special tax on guns. You can have em and we will tax them. O yes ammunition is expensive and heavily taxed as well

We could of course simply ban bullets!

Um, no.

[Linux and the X]

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.

They could not have imagined weapons that can kill multiple people in a matter of seconds.

Nor could they have imagined a technology that allows anyone to, from their own home, send a message to the entire world, but free speech still applies to the internet.

[Linux and the X]

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.

Why would being liberal mean TCT would be biased in favour of the dissent? Liberals, after all, support personal rights.

[Yes Im Biop]

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.

Only Barrett? What about Chy Tac, AR... XD Thats all i can think of now