Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

The 2nd Amendment

56 posts in this topic

Posted · Report post

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.



Do you guys really believe a "well regulated militia = National Guard?

And what is your opinion on "shall not be infringed"?

Did the founding fathers of the Continental United States foresee the future of modern weaponry? Where there would need to be a line drawn in what weapons citizens can't obtain that the military possesses?

Or are you tired of this subject?. Hence the fact that the gun ban is losing steam.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

You know just because you say it, does not make it so.

A "well regulated militia" is not a bunch of guys who go into the woods on the weekend to drink beer and shoot guns for sure, so what's your point?

Here is the deal:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/stephen-menendian/second-amendment_b_2486477.html

[quote]
A series of high-profile tragedies has raised new concerns over the violent potential of assault weapons and launched a national conversation about the availability of these guns and the need for background checks. Some gun-rights advocates now complain that these reasonable measures are nothing less than an attempt to "disarm" the American public. Can a reasonable person explain how prohibiting or regulating military-grade weaponry is an attempt to "disarm" the American people? That is tantamount to saying that a ban on foie gras is an attempt to starve the American people. Inevitably, the Second Amendment is raised in defense of these weapons and these practices.
When I was in law school, the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution was not a topic of interest. Unlike the First or Fourteenth Amendments, no courses were offered on it. Nor was it even an area of study in my Constitutional law class. In fact, my 1,300-page Constitutional law textbook refers to the Second Amendment once: the appendix containing the text of the Constitution itself. The reason for this conspicuous omission is simple. Until very recently there was very little case law on the Second Amendment, and what little there was had long been settled doctrine.
It occurred to me to ask what the Second Amendment actually says and what it means. As all good lawyers should, I began with the text:
"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."
Forgive the pun, but this sentence blew me away. While this Amendment is popularly known for its protection of gun rights, the text of the sentence is surprisingly ambiguous. Not only are the words vague and imprecise, but the punctuation is confusing and ungrammatical, at least in terms of modern usage. There appears to be at least one extraneous comma and possibly two. The punctuation obscures rather than clarifies its meaning.
The logic of the sentence, however, is clear. The sentence has the form of an argument in propositional logic, with the first part constituting the premise, and the second part constituting the conclusion. The first part logically supports the right to bear arms. Given this relation, it is seems textually obvious that the right to bear arms is, as written, related to the necessity of a well-regulated Militia.
It seems that conservative jurists and gun-rights advocates prefer to read the two parts of the Amendment separately, as if there was no relation or only an incidental between the two. A natural reading of the sentence stands against such claims. The two parts of the sentence are tethered through propositional logic.
As a reaction to 'penumbras' and the emergence of Constitutional rights not found in the text of that document, textualism has become a popular tool of conservative jurists. Textualism is used, for example, to attack abortion rights. Yet, as the Second Amendment illustrates, textualism does not always yield conservative results. Applying the tenets of textualism, it is difficult to conclude that the Second Amendment provides the broad individual right that many conservative jurists and gun-rights advocates now claim.
First, if the key tenet of textualism is to use the text to discern meaning, then the ambiguity in the term "right to bear arms" and the scope of that right should be ascertained by reference to any text which might illuminate its meaning. The first part of the sentence would and could serve that role, given its syntactical and logical relation.
Second, if another tenet of textualism is to read Constitutional text narrowly, then the scope of the "right to bear arms" should be read narrowly to have the most limited meaning. For example, even if the second part of the sentence guarantees an individual right to bear arms rather than a right associated with militias, the text does not suggest an unlimited individual right. A narrow reading of the text might well permit assault weapon prohibitions or regulations on some forms of gun ownership. After all, the right to bear arms does not necessarily imply the right to bear all arms. Some or even a few arms might satisfy a narrow reading of the text.
The Supreme Court enjoys the ultimate authority to interpret the Constitution. In two recent decisions, the Court has read the parts of the Amendment separately, concluding that the first part of the sentence is prefatory (which I think is hypocritical for an avowed textualist to conclude). The Court also concluded that the right to bear arms is an individual right. It has not yet addressed the full contours of that right, although Justice Scalia's opinion in Heller asserts that the right is "not unlimited" and suggested, in dicta, that "weapons that are most useful in military service -- M-16 rifles and the like -- may be banned." It remains to be seen whether the Court will in fact uphold such a ban, and whether future iterations of the Court will interpret the Amendment differently. But what is clear is that progressive jurists have a strong textual Constitutional argument for reasonable gun-control measures.[/quote]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

Huffington post. Next .

CWG. You were a security guard guarding Nukes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

[quote name='YourMomsLover' timestamp='1359511545' post='2118619']
Huffington post. Next .

CWG. You were a security guard guarding Nukes.
[/quote]

You guarded nukes... Period.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

CWG is fine with guarding nukes. But has a special interest in disarming the public.

I want a response.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

could you in any way, quantify this belief that I am interested in any way in "disarming the public"? More to the point, can you address how the need to say this came from the post I made that's a simple, easy to understand English language lesson focused on legalese?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

Because you only want the semi auto rifles right? Next you will want all the semi auto firearms then the bolt action rifles and revolvers..

311 long gun (all rifles) murders in 2011, you wish to take the least used firearm in murder and tell me you dont want the others with a straight face? lol...






Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

[quote name='AR-15 Panther' timestamp='1359518545' post='2118766']
Because you only want the semi auto rifles right? Next you will want all the semi auto firearms then the bolt action rifles and revolvers..

311 long gun (all rifles) murders in 2011, you wish to take the least used firearm in murder and tell me you dont want the others with a straight face? lol...
[/quote]
62 mass shootings in the United States in the last
30 years.

80% obtained the weapon legally.

Of the 142 guns possessed by the killers they had 35 assault weapons.

That slightly more than 50% of the mass killings had an assault weapon of some sort


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

When did I say mass killings? I said of the 11000+ gun murders in 2011, 311 were commited by long guns.

Reading is for fgts...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post




Number of Murders, United States, 2010: 12,996

Number of Murders by Firearms, US, 2010: 8,775

Number of Murders, Britain, 2011*: 638
(Since Britain’s population is 1/5 that of US, this is equivalent to 3,095 US murders)

Number of Murders by firearms, Britain, 2011*: 58
(equivalent to 290 US murders)

Number of Murders by crossbow in Britain, 2011*: 2 (equivalent to 10 US murders).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

Gun control doesn't work

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

Wait

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

Mass murder sprees in this country via highly efficient firearms will continue unchecked until society finally reaches the point where the status quo becomes unacceptable. The NRA/firearm industry lobbyists are using the same playbook as the tobacco industry lobbyists used for decades, trying to undermine truth with pseudoscience and outright lies. Back in the day, millions of addicted smokers advocated for their [u]unalienable r[i][u]ight [/u]as Americans [/i][/u]to endanger family members, coworkers and innocent bystanders with clouds of cancer causing smoke. At first the idea of regulating smokers seemed to be a ridiculous pipe dream of a few [u][i]extremists[/i][/u], but with education and time, Americans came to favor it. Firearm and ammo sales/usage will undoubtedly be more strictly regulated (not banned) once Americans are better informed and realize a change is needed. It is simply a matter of time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

[quote name='Panthro' timestamp='1359522791' post='2118806']



Number of Murders, United States, 2010: 12,996

Number of Murders by Firearms, US, 2010: 8,775

Number of Murders, Britain, 2011*: 638
(Since Britain’s population is 1/5 that of US, this is equivalent to 3,095 US murders)

Number of Murders by firearms, Britain, 2011*: 58
(equivalent to 290 US murders)

Number of Murders by crossbow in Britain, 2011*: 2 (equivalent to 10 US murders).
[/quote]

Cool stuff

If you want to get to the root of the problem, research the percentage of murders that are drug related.
Then compare drug trafficking in the US to drug trafficking in Britain.

Eery stuff.
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

[quote name='Panthro' timestamp='1359522836' post='2118807']
Gun control doesn't work
[/quote]

It sure doesn't. 40 gun homicides in Chicago since the beginning of 2013.

Crazy how those gang members don't follow the law...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

Are you in a gang in Chicago?

Something like 90% of the murders are gang related. Is everyone in Chicago in a gang?

are those 500 murders breaking into houses and murdering wives and children in their sleep? What % are those?

What is their non gang murder rate vs the rest of the US?

Gangs can be cleaned up over time as there is proof of it all over.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

So the average citizen doesn't need to protect themselves/ family from those gangs?

I would say its a very high percentage of those murders were committed by gangs breaking into houses. Wish I could find something about that.

So Panthro....what does "shall not be infringed" mean to you?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

[quote name='YourMomsLover' timestamp='1359553670' post='2118929']
So the average citizen doesn't need to protect themselves/ family from those gangs?

[b]I would say its a very high percentage of those murders were committed by gangs breaking into houses. Wish I could find something about that.[/b]

So Panthro....what does "shall not be infringed" mean to you?
[/quote]
You couldn't be more worng

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

So Panthro...was this girl a gang member?

[url="http://chicago.cbslocal.com/2013/01/29/15-year-old-girl-shot-and-killed-in-kenwood-neighborhood-park/"]http://chicago.cbslocal.com/2013/01/29/15-year-old-girl-shot-and-killed-in-kenwood-neighborhood-park/[/url]

[quote]
[b]CHICAGO (CBS) –[/b] A teenage girl–an honor student who had just performed at [b]President Obama’s inaugural[/b]–was gunned down Tuesday afternoon in the Kenwood neighborhood, just blocks from the high school she attended.
CBS 2’s Mike Parker reports the victim, 15-year-old Hadiya Pendleton, was taking shelter from the rain with a group of 10 to 12 teenagers under a canopy in Vivian Gordon Harsh Park on the 4500 block of South Oakenwald Avenue around 2:30 p.m., when someone jumped a fence, ran up to them, and opened fire.[/quote]

Maybe Chicago needs to get super tougher.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

Chicago fetish alert

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

Could've been DC.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

[quote name='g5jamz' timestamp='1359565437' post='2119085']
So Panthro...was this girl a gang member?

[url="http://chicago.cbslocal.com/2013/01/29/15-year-old-girl-shot-and-killed-in-kenwood-neighborhood-park/"]http://chicago.cbslocal.com/2013/01/29/15-year-old-girl-shot-and-killed-in-kenwood-neighborhood-park/[/url]



Maybe Chicago needs to get super tougher.
[/quote]

Sounds like a war zone.


Maybe if she had an AR15 she'd still be alive





Oh wait



[quote]“We hardly … have any crime. There’s been a few break-ins over the past two years since we’ve been here, but nothing that’s ever caused alarm,” she said.

[/quote]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

Why don't you compare Chicago to an active warzone with regard to deaths/woundings since you're the one calling it that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

Chicago has 1% of the US population

14,500 murders in the US of which 12,000 are non gang related

In Chicago that is 100 murders or <1% of the murders in the US

The non gang affiliated murder rate of Chicago,1%, is equal to its % of the population.

Chicago is as dangerous a place as anywhere in America for non gang members


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

Even with the severe handicap of including the city of Chicago, the state of Illinois ranks lower in the percentage of deaths by firearms than North Carolina. [url="http://www.statehealthfacts.org/comparemaptable.jsp?ind=113&cat=2"]http://www.statehealthfacts.org/comparemaptable.jsp?ind=113&cat=2[/url] Gun control, is only part of an overall approach to reducing firearm deaths, but there is ample evidence, even after the concerted efforts of the gun lobby to suppress research, that easy access to firearms significantly increases the chance of dying from a gunshot wound. [url="http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=1487470"]http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=1487470[/url]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites