Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

The 2nd Amendment


  • Please log in to reply
55 replies to this topic

#1 YourMomsLover

YourMomsLover

    SENIOR HUDDLER

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,881 posts

Posted 29 January 2013 - 08:13 PM

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.



#2 cookinwithgas

cookinwithgas

    Grey Poupon Elitest Trash

  • ALL-PRO
  • 23,821 posts

Posted 29 January 2013 - 08:29 PM

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.huffingto..._b_2486477.html

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.



#3 YourMomsLover

YourMomsLover

    SENIOR HUDDLER

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,881 posts

Posted 29 January 2013 - 09:05 PM

Huffington post. Next .

CWG. You were a security guard guarding Nukes.

#4 YourMomsLover

YourMomsLover

    SENIOR HUDDLER

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,881 posts

Posted 29 January 2013 - 09:12 PM

Huffington post. Next .

CWG. You were a security guard guarding Nukes.


You guarded nukes... Period.

#5 YourMomsLover

YourMomsLover

    SENIOR HUDDLER

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,881 posts

Posted 29 January 2013 - 09:28 PM

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

I want a response.

#6 cookinwithgas

cookinwithgas

    Grey Poupon Elitest Trash

  • ALL-PRO
  • 23,821 posts

Posted 29 January 2013 - 09:34 PM

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?

#7 AR-15 Panther

AR-15 Panther

    Cough "Here" Cough

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 320 posts

Posted 29 January 2013 - 11:02 PM

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...








#8 Panthro

Panthro

    aka Pablo

  • Moderators
  • 24,382 posts

Posted 30 January 2013 - 12:00 AM

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...

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




#9 AR-15 Panther

AR-15 Panther

    Cough "Here" Cough

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 320 posts

Posted 30 January 2013 - 12:09 AM

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...

#10 Panthro

Panthro

    aka Pablo

  • Moderators
  • 24,382 posts

Posted 30 January 2013 - 12:13 AM




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).


#11 Panthro

Panthro

    aka Pablo

  • Moderators
  • 24,382 posts

Posted 30 January 2013 - 12:13 AM

Gun control doesn't work

#12 Panthro

Panthro

    aka Pablo

  • Moderators
  • 24,382 posts

Posted 30 January 2013 - 12:14 AM

Wait

#13 NanuqoftheNorth

NanuqoftheNorth

    Frosty Alaskan Amber

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,944 posts
  • LocationAlaska

Posted 30 January 2013 - 12:23 AM

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 unalienable right as Americans 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 extremists, 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.

#14 Chimera

Chimera

    Membrane

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11,232 posts

Posted 30 January 2013 - 12:58 AM

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).


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.

#15 YourMomsLover

YourMomsLover

    SENIOR HUDDLER

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,881 posts

Posted 30 January 2013 - 04:31 AM

Gun control doesn't work



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

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


0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

Shop at Amazon Contact Us: info@carolinahuddle.com