The second amendment whats it mean to you

It says well regulated.

 

You fail to mention why the police were there and the boyfriend firing a shot , do you not think that was a important fact ?

 

No such requirement ever existed, so.... no.

The 2A does not contain any requirement to be part of any militia to have a gun in the home so... no.

Those who wrote the 2A specified the "right to keep and bear arms".
Nowhere in there in an exclusion for self-protection - so... no.

The 2A does not have any of the requirements you claim, so... no

 

This a false statement willfully made.
Why do you willfully make false statements?

 

Pixie has opnions and no clue

 

I just discussed this.
The FACT was that keeping a gun is justified as a proper deterrent for a housebreaker/burglar.
So the one whose house was broken into had, by your reckoning, every right to use it.
Especially as it was dark.

 

However I don't have a problem reading what is there in front of me.
and since this is strictly an OPINION POLL it doesn't strictly NEED a clue.

 

True.
You may post all the unsupportable nonsense you want.
And boy, have you.

 

Second Amendment
In the 2008 case District of Columbia v. Heller, the Supreme Court held that the "Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home."


Learn more...

Primary tabs
Amendment II
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.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/second_amendment

...
Where is 'well ordered'?

 

You are correct, no mention was ever made in 2A for individual protection. But to have a populace well prepared for a 'well regulated militia'. 'Shall not be infringed'.

 

Well ordered and well regulated are synonyms.
But that is beside the point I made in my quote you used.
That part of 2A was eliminated by the SC in 2008.
Any defense of bearing arms based on being part of a militia was erased. It doesn't exist in law anymore.

 

But not equal in meaning.
I am quite certain the founders knew what could happen in the future and every word they recorded was discussed in detail to the exact words they wanted to record.
So one can not change words or interpret meanings of words, but have to take them at face value. Because it's difficult to know exactly the context of their minds.

No, I don't think they eliminated it, they did expand on it, or rather, decided not to make exclusions. But to use the words as written.

Per the 2A, we all have the right to own any arms of a militia. And that is a lot of very dangerous arms that shall not be infringed.

 

The supreme court can rephrase any Constitutional amendment.

Can the Supreme Court overturn a constitutional amendment?
When the Supreme Court rules on a constitutional issue, that judgment is virtually final; its decisions can be altered only by the rarely used procedure of constitutional amendment or by a new ruling of the Court. However, when the Court interprets a statute, new legislative action can be taken.
Is there a part of the Constitution that Cannot be amended?
Article V of the Constitution says how the Constitution can be amended—that is, how provisions can be added to the text of the Constitution. The Constitution is not easy to amend: only twenty-seven amendments have been added to the Constitution since it was adopted.

https://www.pursuantmedia.com/2021/01/23/can-the-supreme-court-overturn-a-constitutional-amendment/


The SC eliminated the part about the militia.
By one vote.
Which meant that they previously had restricted use of private arms to those in a militia.
Now you don't have to belong to one and you can shoot anyone you ant whether you are trained or not.

SO when you use 2A as originally written as some open opportunity to have guns whether in or out of control for the purposes of fending off some enemy, it is incorrect. The right to hold guns is from the 2008 ruling of the SC and its ruling is telling you you were wrong to assign it to the Amendment. If you never had to belong to a militia, the SC would not have had to change the wording.

 

It does not matter how many times you repeat your unsupportable nonsense, it remains unsupportable nonsense.

 

It did not ever exist in law.

 

yes it need a clue. when the police show up in the night its for their own safety, I much preferred to go search a place in the night when the suspect was sleeping instead of hopped up on coke or meth or what ever . much less likey hood of there being a violent encounter. And when you say police and kick in the door and the first thing you hear is a gun shot you do what , wait for them to shoot you . Perhaps you are bullet proof and just hate cops for doing their job I dont know but my main goal at work was to come home to my family ever night not end up in the er or the morgue

 

Yes, they can and they do. Not actually rephrase, but interpret.

For it is illegal to own some arms that our military has. I think claymore mines and LAWs are illegal to own. And an automatic rifle is illegal to own unless one purchases a very expensive stamp.
And many gun advocates have no problem with this infringement. But any and all infringements is against the actual wording of the 2A if one does NOT add interpretations to meanings of words or uses synonyms to written words.
And typically, USSC is representative of society, so, society will put limits on 2A.

They didn't end the part about a militia, for the militia is society. For anyone to be called up to serve at any given time.

 

#1, police are not allowed to just kick in a door unannounced. If they did so, they did NOT do their job. They actually broke the law.

For the very reason that happened. Gun shots ring out.

 

Really but they claim they did is that against the law also were you there and know they didn't .O yes and there's such a thing as a no knock warrant where the police don't have to knock or announce them self . guess you didn't know that did you .Perhaps you need to bone up on the law the real law not the ones that liberal criminals talk about like they have magic pixie dust

 

Did the story in question have a no knock warrant? I don't think they did. Or they would not claim they did announce themselves.

Whether they did or didn't comes down to a court case on who can prove they did or didn't. Isn't that what happened in the case you refer to?

Why are you so angry? Isn't just sticking to the topic enough for you? Or is ad hom attacks your posting style?

 

first I didnt say they had a no knock warrant you said the police cant just kick a door in I was merely showing you they can and you don't know the law, second the police said they did knock before kicking the door in, now unless you have evidence that they did NOT KNOCK knock or didn't have a no knock warrant you don't know what your TALKING ABOUT . i LOVE TO SEE YOU SERVE A WARRANT YOU WOULD PROBABLY END UP ON THE ER OR MORGUE .

 

Second Amendment means exactly what it says.

YES: Bill would reimburse defendants who shoot under self-defense.

They should also receive their costs, compensation for the time lost and emotional distress suffered as a result of prosecution.

 

The topic in play was the one you were posting on. Which is the post I responded to. Not the entire police force in the country.

What I know or do know about the law is irrelevant to the case being discussed.
I don't have evidence on if they did or didn't. I said that was a trial was to decipher.

I see you resort to more ad homs. A sure sign you have no cogent argument.

Can you ever just post on the topic at hand or do you always attack those you respond to? So far, you can only attack.

 

From a distance, it seems rather unfair that the police can break into your home, fully clothed in bullet proof vests etc, don' have to announce themselves past some grunt, and point a weapon at a half asleep hardly clothed couple in bed.
and not expect some response.
It was also rather poor marksmanship if the police hit someone in the next apartment. They need some training ISTM.

 

In my opinion....
what is happening in the Ukraine right now proves that America needs a Second Amendment... and Canada should have a similar law as well......
because our Prime Minister has recently proven that we could be dumb enough to elect a leader who would betray us to China or some other enemy nation???????

I am having trouble fully understanding your poll?????
Sorry.. .maybe this is a Canadian blind spot??????

I do not believe that Second Amendments rights should be given only to somebody who is part of a militia... but should instead be given to all citizens and legal residents who HAVE NOT been convicted of a violent crime....... (or perhaps any serious crime)?????

I went with "your right" meaning... my opinion at this time is relatively correct. Wow... this is one of the first times that I personally polled along with the majority of posters here!


?
whats it mean to you

1. *
   Your right
   19 vote(s)
   73.1%
2. 
   your wrong
   1 vote(s)
   3.8%
3. 
   only if your part of a militia
   3 vote(s)
   11.5%
4. 
   I am not sure what it means
   0 vote(s)
   0.0%
5. 
   No citizen need a gun the goverment will protect you
   3 vote(s)
   11.5%

Change Your Vote