The Heart of the 2nd Amendment

True - that's where the SCOTUS drew the line - but I'm curious where the Founders and Framers would have drawn the line given the vagueness of the 2A (unfortunately, I haven't had the opportunity to read the Federalist Papers in their entirety and everything else they said and wrote on the subject). I'm also curious where steveo thinks we should draw the line since he disagrees with restrictions he mentioned in the OP.

 

Very nice map, but do the stats it displays discount for suicide, which is near 60% of gun deaths?

 

Whatever personal weapons the people needed to exercise their right to arms, with a focus on those suitable for service in the militia.

 

My ONE gun (.22 handgun) remains locked in a gun safe when I'm not using it for target practice. So there's that.

I actually agree the 2nd amendment is outdated. But until it's repealed, it affords people the right to own a firearm.

It's unfortunate there are bad people who exist in this world and have so from the beginning of time.

 

It grants PROTECTIONS of rights to the people and powers to the government.

In the case of guns it grants protections for gun rights within the framework of the militia

 

It's outdated in that it simply doesn't apply. It doesn't need to be repealed except to end this stupid argument.

In Heller, Scalia decoupled gun rights FROM the Militia clause because he knew how untenable that argument was and even there he noted that gun rights ARE subject to regulation

 

No... the court did. 5-4.
It did so because there is no sound argument that the right to keep and bear arms, in it its entirety, is attached to the militia.
Duh.

 

Nonsense. You say this because you understand neither freedom nor liberty.

 

It's just amazing to me how people who claims to be American citizens are completely ignorant on the purpose and history of the BOR.

First of all, the BOR does not grant rights, it enumerated a few of our inumerable rights that were most historically infringed upon (mainly by the British when we were colonies) by government and that they viewed as being vital for the country's continued existence. This is evidenced in the DoI:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the goverened..."

So no, these rights always apply directly to citizens and has nothing to do with militia.

I also find it laughable that some arguing against the second amendment do so based on the opinion that is it out dated, yet others refuse to aknowlegde the meaning of "well regulated" in the context of 18th century language.

 

As of now the 2nd amendment affords people the right to own a firearm. However much you hate guns and the 2nd amendment has no bearing on this.

 

No it does not. If grants specific powers to the federal govt. That's all.

 

Reducing the number of suicides is certainly a creditable goal.

The permissiveness that results in the availability of firearms is clearly a contributing factor:

​

Though firearms are the third-most common method for attempting suicide, they are responsible for the largest share of suicide deaths because they are so lethal. Nationally, nearly two-thirds of all deaths by firearm are due to suicide... Studies have linked higher rates of gun ownership with increased risk of suicide death

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/suicide-in-wyoming/​

 

Its not an issue of liking or not liking, its simply a redundant left over from the past and has no relevance today. Armed Militias are a thing of the distant past along with flintlock muzzle loaders and why the Founding Fathers are held in such regard by present day Americans is perplexing to most Europeans.
The majority were rich slave owners who bought and sold human beings and judged their worth by inspecting their teeth. So much for the sound bite of, All men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness. Observe there is no mention of females because they had little if ever rights in the 1770s.

 

Your complaints are meaningless.
Until you repeal it, it remains in place, and you don't get to ignore it.

 

More to the point, anyone who looks at 2A and sees any permissions at all has a reading comprehension problem.

You don't know what the hell you're talking about.

Actually it's pretty obvious 2A doesn't provide for any regulation of anything at all, much less the RKBA.

Be that as it may, any connection to 2A is a mystery.

Actually I think you people have every chance of succeeding - though your sense of triumph won't last long.

So the way you figure it, the free speech clause is null and void. Right?

It doesn't matter whether they would or not. What matters is what the provision they left us meant when ratified, and where it draws the line; and if We the People decide it should be drawn elsewhere, Our recourse is obvious.

As for WMDs, I suggest you zoom in on "security of a free state" and consider how a private citizen with a nuke in his garage affects that.

 

What do you believe the Founding Fathers meant when they found it necessary to specify "well-regulated" in the Amendment?

Isn't the nature of that regulation decided by the American People, and not by a political lobby?

Permissiveness does not strengthen the right, quite the contrary.

 

I have been very direct in my assertion that the Second Amendment simply doesn't apply to gun ownership other than in the framework of a "Well Regulated Militia"

That doesn't mean I hate guns, In fact I have owned guns since I was a kid. Bought my first gun a .410 bolt action out of saved allowance money when I was ten(my father purchased it) and I've owned various long guns since then.

I also don't think that we will or should be "taking guns away from anyone other than felons and people with mental issues that can be documented or those that have restraining orders on them.

I DO think that we need sensible gun regulations, We absolutely need to have back ground checks on EVERY gun purchase. Kids under 21 should not be able to buy guns on their own. And we need to ban the SALE of assault rifles.People on no fly lists should not have access to gun.That's the basics.

I personally believe that all semi-auto guns should be banned for SALE, There is nothing those guns can do that other (lever/bolt/revolver) guns can't do...other than produce mass casualties.

And take note,,,,none of that involves gun confiscation. NONE.

 

They were referring to a militia in good working order, which would be impossible absent an armed populace. Nothing in the amendment gives leave to any government entity to regulate any individual rights.

Of course it is, as I said to begin with; but again, 2A doesn't have a damn thing to do with that.

 

In the context of GOVERNMENT the term REGULATED means REGULATION.

No amount of semantic quibbling is going to alter that fact.

Even your example that specifically referred to the government regulation of the courts supports that "well regulated" refers to the courts upholding government regulations. The same applies to the FAILURE of government regulations being blamed on the person in charge, i.e. the mayor.

 

Personally speaking my ruger mark iv is much more fun to shoot than the revolvers I have owned in the past. BTW...a revolver can produce mass casualties. Two S&W 686 Plus revolvers can be used to kill 14 people. That's 3 less than the 'assault' weapon used in FL. Oh and that revolver would also kill much more than my semi-auto mark iv.
That all said, I'm with you on universal background checks. Not that I think that is going to have any effect on cutting down on mass shootings, but at least if we do the background checks that's one less thing the anti-gun crowd can try to blame.

 

So, the Founding Fathers specified that private ownership of gun ownership be within the context of an organization that be maintained "in good working order" or, to use their phrase, that it be "well-regulated." Did they believe such referenced regulation was by some mysterious, invisible force, or does such regulation demand an actual agent?

Surely, if they intended unbridled permissiveness, they would have omitted their "well-regulated' requirement, and stated, unambiguously, that anyone can has as many of any type of firearm as he desires and take them anywhere he fancies?

Without sensible regulation, a known homicidal maniac would be entitled to amass an arsenal of firearms of any sort and take them anywhere, the People having no say in the matter.

Of course, the entire US Constitution has everything to do with the American People. Every statute that is enacted by the elected representatives of the People to insure that its provisions are observed - including private ownership of firearms being "well-regulated" - is a matter for the People.

Bear in mind that "We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

No right is absolute. All rights are circumscribed by and must be balanced with other rights. Insuring domestic tranquility and promoting the general welfare are within the purview of the People.

 

LMFAO!

No it does not mean "government regulations".

"well-regulated" means "well-functioning" or working in proper order.

https://www.lectlaw.com/files/gun01.htm

 

Your source is OPENLY BIASED and therefore has no credibility.

 

Your interpretation what the definition of "well regulated" means is strictly your opinion and is wrong and has no credibility.

 

Oh, the IRONY!