Pages: 1 2 3 … 10

 

2007-12-18 04:04:18
sergeriver
Cowboy from Hell
+1,928|7194|Argentina
I've been bashed several times for blaming guns for the frequent shootings that take place in the US.  In fact I think you guys prefer your country being bashed, than someone questioning your Right to Bear Arms.

Now, I've been reading the 2nd Amendment and I have a serious question I would like you to answer, in a civil way if possible, or as you wish, it doesn't matter.

The 2nd Amendment says:

The Second Amendment, as passed by the House and Senate, reads:
"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 original and copies distributed to the states, and then ratified by them, had different capitalization and punctuation:
"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."

Here we have a matter of punctuation.  What if they meant that the 2nd Amendment protects people against the infringement of their collective right to have an armed militia, instead of protecting them against the infringement of their individual right of having personal firearms?

I know most of you think it's your most valued right, but I'd like to know what you guys think about this interpretation.  Is it possible that the 2nd Amendment refers to your right of having an armed militia, not individuals having firearms?  Again, keep it civil.
2007-12-18 04:22:17
G3|Genius
Pope of BF2s
+355|7063|Sea to globally-cooled sea
i wouldn't know for certain, but when reading the constitution, always look to supreme court cases that point to it.  One of the reasons our constitution is the single longest-lasting in the world is because it is not extremely specific.  For the most part, it has not gone out-of-date because of the insight of our forefathers to write it in that manner.
2007-12-18 04:25:03
Goven
/̵͇̿̿/'̿'̿ ̿
+125|6918|Purdue
No. Back when the constitution was written, a lot of people still hunted for food. There was no "police" so people had to defend themselves and their families. Also, the British would take firearms from Americans. A lot of the amendments in the Bill of Rights are laying out things that the British did to us that we don't want to happen again.
2007-12-18 04:26:06
sergeriver
Cowboy from Hell
+1,928|7194|Argentina

G3|Genius wrote:

i wouldn't know for certain, but when reading the constitution, always look to supreme court cases that point to it.  One of the reasons our constitution is the single longest-lasting in the world is because it is not extremely specific.  For the most part, it has not gone out-of-date because of the insight of our forefathers to write it in that manner.
I don't question your Constitution or the Bill of Rights, I'm just saying the 2nd Amendment is ambiguous to say the least.
2007-12-18 04:36:04
DesertFox-
The very model of a modern major general
+796|7122|United States of America

sergeriver wrote:

What if they meant that the 2nd Amendment protects people against the infringement of their collective right to have an armed militia, instead of protecting them against the infringement of their individual right of having personal firearms?
That is the question at hand. I believe there's an upcoming SC case that may determine that

Searching....

District of Columbia v. Heller, I think.
2007-12-18 04:41:36
jsnipy
...
+3,277|6960|...

Based on the text it is certainly debatable. I think if it would have meant militia meant then what is means now: A citizen army.

Last edited by jsnipy (2007-12-18 04:44:24)

2007-12-18 04:43:36
sergeriver
Cowboy from Hell
+1,928|7194|Argentina

jsnipy wrote:

Based on the text it is certainly debatable. I think if it would have meant militia meant then what is means now: A citizen army.
But back then a militia meant Armed Forces, didn't it?
2007-12-18 04:44:12
jsnipy
...
+3,277|6960|...

sergeriver wrote:

jsnipy wrote:

Based on the text it is certainly debatable. I think if it would have meant militia meant then what is means now: A citizen army.
But back then a militia meant Armed Forces, didn't it?
No it explicitly means a citizen army, not regulars. It meant that then as it does now.

I think it is needed the same way you should have candles even though you have electricity.

Last edited by jsnipy (2007-12-18 04:45:41)

2007-12-18 04:48:39
sergeriver
Cowboy from Hell
+1,928|7194|Argentina

jsnipy wrote:

sergeriver wrote:

jsnipy wrote:

Based on the text it is certainly debatable. I think if it would have meant militia meant then what is means now: A citizen army.
But back then a militia meant Armed Forces, didn't it?
No it explicitly means a citizen army, not regulars. It meant that then as it does now.

I think it is needed the same way you should have candles even though you have electricity.
Ok, the Armed Forces are a citizens Army.
2007-12-18 04:51:02
jsnipy
...
+3,277|6960|...

sergeriver wrote:

jsnipy wrote:

sergeriver wrote:


But back then a militia meant Armed Forces, didn't it?
No it explicitly means a citizen army, not regulars. It meant that then as it does now.

I think it is needed the same way you should have candles even though you have electricity.
Ok, the Armed Forces are a citizens Army.
In the English language it is not the same thing.
2007-12-18 04:55:04
sergeriver
Cowboy from Hell
+1,928|7194|Argentina

jsnipy wrote:

sergeriver wrote:

jsnipy wrote:


No it explicitly means a citizen army, not regulars. It meant that then as it does now.

I think it is needed the same way you should have candles even though you have electricity.
Ok, the Armed Forces are a citizens Army.
In the English language it is not the same thing.
Either way you must concede that the text is open to interpretation, even if for militia they meant a citizen army.
2007-12-18 04:56:50
T.Pike
99 Problems . . .
+187|6720|Pennsyltucky

sergeriver wrote:

I've been bashed several times for blaming guns for the frequent shootings that take place in the US.  In fact I think you guys prefer your country being bashed, than someone questioning your Right to Bear Arms.

Now, I've been reading the 2nd Amendment and I have a serious question I would like you to answer, in a civil way if possible, or as you wish, it doesn't matter.
It's not YOUR job to decide what the Constitution means.  It's not mine either.

In the United States those matters are handled by the Supreme Court.

Thanks for putting your nose in our Constitution now GTFO !
2007-12-18 04:57:37
sergeriver
Cowboy from Hell
+1,928|7194|Argentina

T.Pike wrote:

sergeriver wrote:

I've been bashed several times for blaming guns for the frequent shootings that take place in the US.  In fact I think you guys prefer your country being bashed, than someone questioning your Right to Bear Arms.

Now, I've been reading the 2nd Amendment and I have a serious question I would like you to answer, in a civil way if possible, or as you wish, it doesn't matter.
It's not YOUR job to decide what the Constitution means.  It's not mine either.

In the United States those matters are handled by the Supreme Court.

Thanks for putting your nose in our Constitution now GTFO !
Very civil.
2007-12-18 04:58:32
jsnipy
...
+3,277|6960|...

sergeriver wrote:

jsnipy wrote:

sergeriver wrote:

Ok, the Armed Forces are a citizens Army.
In the English language it is not the same thing.
Either way you must concede that the text is open to interpretation
No additional concessions are required, I stated that in my first post. But you are are correct it is definitely debatable, as is most of the US constitution, but to no avail it will unlikely change anything ...

Last edited by jsnipy (2007-12-18 04:59:58)

2007-12-18 05:00:07
sergeriver
Cowboy from Hell
+1,928|7194|Argentina

jsnipy wrote:

sergeriver wrote:

jsnipy wrote:


In the English language it is not the same thing.
Either way you must concede that the text is open to interpretation
No additional concessions are required, I stated that in my first post. But you are are correct it is definitely debatable, as is most of the US constitution, but to no avail it will unlikely change anything.
I know, I just wanted to know your opinion as Americans.  Thank you for keeping it civil.
2007-12-18 05:09:53
T.Pike
99 Problems . . .
+187|6720|Pennsyltucky

sergeriver wrote:

Now, I've been reading the 2nd Amendment and I have a serious question I would like you to answer, in a civil way if possible, or as you wish, it doesn't matter.
Don't say it doesn't matter then bust my stones.
2007-12-18 05:16:54
sergeriver
Cowboy from Hell
+1,928|7194|Argentina

T.Pike wrote:

sergeriver wrote:

Now, I've been reading the 2nd Amendment and I have a serious question I would like you to answer, in a civil way if possible, or as you wish, it doesn't matter.
Don't say it doesn't matter then bust my stones.
Very civil.
2007-12-18 06:02:50
Spark
liquid fluoride thorium reactor
+874|7112|Canberra, AUS

T.Pike wrote:

sergeriver wrote:

I've been bashed several times for blaming guns for the frequent shootings that take place in the US.  In fact I think you guys prefer your country being bashed, than someone questioning your Right to Bear Arms.

Now, I've been reading the 2nd Amendment and I have a serious question I would like you to answer, in a civil way if possible, or as you wish, it doesn't matter.
It's not YOUR job to decide what the Constitution means.  It's not mine either.

In the United States those matters are handled by the Supreme Court.

Thanks for putting your nose in our Constitution now GTFO !
I thought the country was a democracy, and those institutions are designer to serve and exact the will of the people?
The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
2007-12-18 06:10:16
SenorToenails
Veritas et Scientia
+444|6567|North Tonawanda, NY

Spark wrote:

I thought the country was a democracy, and those institutions are designer to serve and exact the will of the people?
And if enough of the people want to change the constitution, it will get done.  Until then, the courts will continue to interpret it as written.

I don't think that most of the country is ready to give up its right to arms.  I know I'm not.
2007-12-18 06:12:39
Spark
liquid fluoride thorium reactor
+874|7112|Canberra, AUS

SenorToenails wrote:

Spark wrote:

I thought the country was a democracy, and those institutions are designer to serve and exact the will of the people?
And if enough of the people want to change the constitution, it will get done.  Until then, the courts will continue to interpret it as written.

I don't think that most of the country is ready to give up its right to arms.  I know I'm not.
Yeah, fair enough. I think you know what I mean.

It's just the tone of the post made it quite clear he thought that the constitution - and the way in which it is interpreted - is not the business of the people.

But I think we all know it is.
The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
2007-12-18 06:22:12
SenorToenails
Veritas et Scientia
+444|6567|North Tonawanda, NY

Spark wrote:

Yeah, fair enough. I think you know what I mean.

It's just the tone of the post made it quite clear he thought that the constitution - and the way in which it is interpreted - is not the business of the people.

But I think we all know it is.
It is, but it isn't.  Supreme court justices are lifetime appointments because they are not to be swayed by the fickle will of the people.  Their job is to interpret the laws in terms of the constitution, without the worry of public opinion and re-election. 

People need to care what the interpretation of the law is, but they really don't have a direct effect on it's judicial interpretation.

The people can work to change the laws and constitution (through Congress), and the courts interpret those laws in terms of the constitution.
2007-12-18 06:47:55
(T)eflon(S)hadow
R.I.P. Neda
+456|7266|Grapevine, TX

jsnipy wrote:

sergeriver wrote:

jsnipy wrote:


In the English language it is not the same thing.
Either way you must concede that the text is open to interpretation
No additional concessions are required, I stated that in my first post. But you are are correct it is definitely debatable, as is most of the US constitution, but to no avail it will unlikely change anything ...
It might be debatable on forums, but the God given right to sovereignty will never take away my right to bear, own and use firearms.

My question to OP: Why such an interest in Americans Constitutional Rights? Why try to interpret them? Is it to find a foundation to counter those rights, or make a case against them? Just curious.
2007-12-18 06:55:48
ATG
Banned
+5,233|6966|Global Command
There is no other way to see it, it's about the peoples rights.

Militias are made up of individual citizens  having firearms with the duty to defend Freedoms from asshole politicians who would take them by sermon, law or force.

As the Founding Fathers intended us to be able to stand against the government should the need arise it is practical that Americans be allowed shoulder fired anti-aircraft weapons , automatic machine guns, mortars and precision large calibre sniper rifles.


Europeans may be horrified to know that of the above list only the item in bold is illegal in all fifty states. Many states allow their citizens class three weapons permits.

Purchase and possession of any Class 3 destructive device, whether a full-auto weapon, suppressor, or other device IS COMPLETELY LEGAL for any law-abiding American citizen, and DOES NOT require ANY special 'PERMIT' under U.S. law and/or BATFE regulation. All that is required is that the purchaser pass a Federal background check and pay a $200 transfer stamp tax upon delivery of the device.
A Class 3 FFL for businesses dealing with the sales and transfer of devices is handled through the BATFE offices, just like any standard Federal Firearms License.
For correct info, contact the closest Class 3 dealer in your locale. Do NOT bother local authorities, most do not have correct information to begin with.
2007-12-18 07:02:23
sergeriver
Cowboy from Hell
+1,928|7194|Argentina

(T)eflon(S)hadow wrote:

jsnipy wrote:

sergeriver wrote:


Either way you must concede that the text is open to interpretation
No additional concessions are required, I stated that in my first post. But you are are correct it is definitely debatable, as is most of the US constitution, but to no avail it will unlikely change anything ...
It might be debatable on forums, but the God given right to sovereignty will never take away my right to bear, own and use firearms.

My question to OP: Why such an interest in Americans Constitutional Rights? Why try to interpret them? Is it to find a foundation to counter those rights, or make a case against them? Just curious.
Just curious about it, not trying to counter any right.  I wanted to know your opinion, not to take your rights away.
2007-12-18 07:06:50
sergeriver
Cowboy from Hell
+1,928|7194|Argentina

ATG wrote:

There is no other way to see it, it's about the peoples rights.

Militias are made up of individual citizens  having firearms with the duty to defend Freedoms from asshole politicians who would take them by sermon, law or force.

As the Founding Fathers intended us to be able to stand against the government should the need arise it is practical that Americans be allowed shoulder fired anti-aircraft weapons , automatic machine guns, mortars and precision large calibre sniper rifles.


Europeans may be horrified to know that of the above list only the item in bold is illegal in all fifty states. Many states allow their citizens class three weapons permits.

Purchase and possession of any Class 3 destructive device, whether a full-auto weapon, suppressor, or other device IS COMPLETELY LEGAL for any law-abiding American citizen, and DOES NOT require ANY special 'PERMIT' under U.S. law and/or BATFE regulation. All that is required is that the purchaser pass a Federal background check and pay a $200 transfer stamp tax upon delivery of the device.
A Class 3 FFL for businesses dealing with the sales and transfer of devices is handled through the BATFE offices, just like any standard Federal Firearms License.
For correct info, contact the closest Class 3 dealer in your locale. Do NOT bother local authorities, most do not have correct information to begin with.
The issue with the punctuation could lead to several interpretations.

 

Pages: 1 2 3 … 10

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2025 Jeff Minard