The right to bear arms: what does the second amendment really mean?

[umbertino]

 

Its words have fueled centuries of debate – and not until 2008 did the supreme court clearly back an individual’s right to keep a weapon at home for self-defense

 

 

Alan Yuhas

Thursday 5 October 2017 11.00 BST

 

 

Mourners in Newtown, Connecticut, hold signs during a solidarity vigil in memory of victims of the Las Vegas shooting.

Photograph: Michelle Mcloughlin/Reuters

 

 

 

 

 

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/oct/05/second-amendment-right-to-bear-arms-meaning-history

[nstoolman1]

The Constitution is there to control the government.

The amendments are there to protect the rights of the people from the government.

Have people forgotten the Magna Carta? 

I have a natural, God given responsibility to protect me, mine and those around me when necessary, with whatever means available. I will do that to the best of my ability. 

What part of "shall not infringe" do people not understand?  

 

[Muleslayer]

13 hours ago, nstoolman1 said:

The Constitution is there to control the government.

The amendments are there to protect the rights of the people from the government.

Have people forgotten the Magna Carta? 

I have a natural, God given responsibility to protect me, mine and those around me when necessary, with whatever means available. I will do that to the best of my ability. 

What part of "shall not infringe" do people not understand?  

 

10-4!

come and take them

[8th ID]

22 hours ago, nstoolman1 said:

The Constitution is there to control the government.

The amendments are there to protect the rights of the people from the government.

Have people forgotten the Magna Carta? 

I have a natural, God given responsibility to protect me, mine and those around me when necessary, with whatever means available. I will do that to the best of my ability. 

What part of "shall not infringe" do people not understand?  

 

AMEN ! Could not agree more!

People seem to forget. There are 5 basic rights in the first amendment.

1. the right to free speech,

2. the right to free press,

3. the right to free religion (to worship how we choose),

4. the right to PEACEABLY assemble, and

5. the right to petition the government for grievances.

 

The second amendment, which is only one right, is there to protect and ensure the first amendment stays in place.

 

[Shabibilicious]

Fortunately a bump stock is not a weapon and therefore the regulating of such is not an infringement on the 2nd Amendment......the NRA seems to agree.

 

GO RV, then BV

[8th ID]

6 minutes ago, Shabibilicious said:

Fortunately a bump stock is not a weapon and therefore the regulating of such is not an infringement on the 2nd Amendment......the NRA seems to agree.

You're right, it is not a weapon. But it was designed and made because the government has decided to regulate the manufacture automatic weapons, which I believe is a violation of the Constitution.

 

2nd Amendment: 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 Militia is the Citizen. The Militia was made up of farmers, blacksmiths, bakers, cobblers, butchers, just everyday citizens that answered the call to defend their families and homes from tyranny. No part of that has changed today. As a Citizen, I should be able to have the same weaponry to answer that call today. You and your fellow liberals would have us only being able to own an old black powdered rifle or only a bolt action rifle or shotgun. Ask Hitler and Tojo how their bolt action rifles stood up against the advanced weaponry of the M1 Garand we had at the time. If I want an automatic rifle, then I should be able to get one without all of the hassle that there is. If I want a working M1 Abrams tank, then I should be able to have it! I am the militia, here to protect you and all of the people of this great land from tyranny and oppression. We can only do it if we have the same weapons to keep the government in check. Look at Switzerland. Every person capable of serving, does so and is issued an automatic weapon that they keep at home, in their house. Do they have problems? See Shabs, the problem is not the weapons, it's some of the people. 

 

I am all for taking weapons away from people that are not mentally competent or that are just plain nut jobs like this guy in Las Vegas. But you may say wait, you can't take them away. Yes you can. The 4th amendment protects against unreasonable searches and seizures. If a case of mental competence is taken before a Grand Jury (Amendment 5) and they decide a trial should go forward, then give them a speedy trial in front of a jury of their peers (Amendment 6). If the jury finds the person is not mentally competent, then seize them or their weapons. If the Constitution is used correctly, it would be for the protection of all people. Let's face it. You know as well as I do that there are people that should be in a mental institution where they could get the help that they need. If a person can be placed in an institution for a period of time and helped, then he will have the opportunity to go back in front of a jury of his peers and show that he is ready to take his place back into society. Why is this not being done? Well, your liberal friends have been releasing them when they shouldn't be.

 

This is a GREAT country that we live in. There is no other place like it in the world and I know some of our European friends here might not understand why we feel so strongly about these issues. It is because they have never lived under a Constitution like what he have. Sadly, a lot of Americans haven't either. They have forgotten all about the Constitution and what it stands for and means because we do not teach it in schools like we once did. If we keep banning things because of knee jerk reactions when a mentally unstable person does something, we will wake up one morning and find out that we have given up everything for our protection, including our freedom.

[Indraman]

What most people don't realize is that the first 10 amendments are not proclamations of rights given to citizens, but instead declarations of powers removed from the Federal Government (and by default, the State Governments).

 

Indy 

[nstoolman1]

The Amendments aren't rights given to anybody.

The Amendments are what protects those rights that are a God given to each and every one of us. 

The Constitution is for the control of the federal government .

 

 

[Indraman]

Great interview that contrasts the historical differences between UK and the US on gun violence. 

 

 

Indy 

[Indraman]

And the Left continues their attack on the 2nd Amendment...

 

 

Indy 

[nstoolman1]

The fight to keep the 2nd A is going to turn into an issue like the Jack A**es that are attacking the statues and heritage of the South.

Except the statues don't have firearms. Wow. What a lesson that will be. 

[patrickgold]

On Friday, October 06, 2017 at 8:21 AM, Shabibilicious said:

Fortunately a bump stock is not a weapon and therefore the regulating of such is not an infringement on the 2nd Amendment......the NRA seems to agree.

 

GO RV, then BV

Well if the Obama administration didn't approve this, then maybe this incident may not of happen. JMO