What do YOU think the Second Amendment means?

The hunting and sporting part was from 1968 gun bill They were trying to outlaw them back then. What we now called assualt rifles G-3 FN FAL etc. even back then. It was to be the way to decide if we needed or or not . These attacks nothing new.

Read the Federalist Papers. They were written by Thomas Jefferson, James Madison and the others who actually wrote the Constitution. They meant the 2nd Amendment to "enumerate" (not grant) the God-given right for Americans to have firearms for the defense of their home, community, and State, against both foreign invasion and domestic unrest, as well as to defend against tyranny imposed by our government. There are multiple explanations in the papers which were used to rally support for the ratification of the new Constitution by various State legislatures. This is historical fact, not some kind of spin created by the ACLU or other liberal Lawyers.

goldie said:

This is from wikipedia; In a dissent, joined by Justices Souter, Ginsburg, and Breyer, Justice Stevens said:

The Amendment's text does justify a different limitation: the "right to keep and bear arms" protects only a right to possess and use firearms in connection with service in a state-organized militia. Had the Framers wished to expand the meaning of the phrase "bear arms" to encompass civilian possession and use, they could have done so by the addition of phrases such as "for the defense of themselves". So it kind of sounds like you had the right to keep & bear arms if you were in a militia,or citizen trained army, not just a private citizen;on the other side, guns were used privately for hunting & survival,& later for protection against indians & the push west,& there is & never was any mention against it.Private ownership & use just seemed to get blended in with the original interpretation.I dont think any regulations on guns even started untill around prohibition.Criminal idiots screwing it up for the rest of us.....

Click to expand...

The problem with their interpretation, is that the term "state-organized militia" doesn't appear in the 2nd Amendment; only the term "well-regulated militia", and that term has been defined many times as "well equipped".

Curator said:

Read the Federalist Papers. They were written by Thomas Jefferson, James Madison and the others who actually wrote the Constitution.

Click to expand...

Madison, Alexander Hamilton and John Jay actually.

Hamilton and Jay eventually became bitter political rivals of Jefferson and Madison.

radiotom said:

Does the 2nd amendment allow the people to have nuclear weapons?

Click to expand...

Of course it does. But no civilian I know has the resources and know-how to acquire and maintain one. Funny how market forces and the naturally high price of low-supply, highly technically complex items manages to keep us from owning nukes without the need for a law.

Of course it does. But no civilian I know has the resources and know-how to acquire and maintain one. Funny how market forces and the naturally high price of low-supply, highly technically complex items manages to keep us from owning nukes without the need for a law.

Click to expand...

On top of that, if I have someone busting in on me at 3 am or in a post-Katrina situation, I would like to actually survive.

I'm of the opinion that the 2nd is in place to be one of the Checks & Balances that prevent any one person or branch of the government from gaining too much power. And in that respect, we citizens need to be at least as well armed and well practiced as those we are meant to be a check against.

Arms provide us the responsibility, duty, and right to overthrow a Government which oversteps it's bounds and renders itself a BURDEN instead of a SERVANT of the People.

One could argue that over a trillion dollars a year in overspending ... is quite a burden. Our forefathers couldn't comprehend how twisted and misshapen and bloated our government of the people, for the people, and by the people, could eventually become.

Everyone keeps saying "oh my goodness they're going to take away X/Y/Z and we won't be a free people anymore"

I'm sorry, but that train departed the station a long time ago.

The government cannot get ITSELF in check. It cannot spend responsibly. It cannot legislate responsibly. It cannot engage in foreign affairs responsibly. It cannot promote our freedom, our way of life, effectively and is viewed as "an evil empire" or "an empire of greed"....

To which, yes, that IS what we've become.

Our Government is a cancer, grown out of control.

The only remaining question is how many wheelbarrows you'll need to use to haul the cash to buy your loaf of bread in 20 years when all of these bonds come due. They've borrowed an extension, an artificial extension, to our vaulted "Golden Age" on the backs of our Children and Grand Children... the future generations pay for our sloth, our greed, our consumption without replenishment, our need to satiate desires instantaneously on the backs of foreign slave labor (even if it's just economic slavery; still slavery, off shored).

No, this country is broke, in many ways, and getting more broke by the year. When our current system of government FAILS...

These guns I own make sure I have a say in how it's reconstituted.

Does the 2nd amendment allow the people to have nuclear weapons?

Click to expand...

This silliness again?

It isn't specific about "arms"
At the time of the revolution, privately owned cannon weren't uncommon. Privately-owned armed ships weren't either.

Could you be trusted with a nuclear weapon? Just the warhead or the launch vehicle?

bigfatdave said:

This silliness again?

It isn't specific about "arms"
At the time of the revolution, privately owned cannon weren't uncommon. Privately-owned armed ships weren't either.

Could you be trusted with a nuclear weapon? Just the warhead or the launch vehicle?

Click to expand...

There is nothing silly about my question. Clearly it protects all arms, but this is something I've never heard anybody else ask.

If people don't like the 2nd amendment allowing for nuclear weapons then they should make an amendment to the Constitution instead of going through the courts and having some fascist judges rewrite it or legislators making unconstitutional laws.

radiotom said:

There is nothing silly about my question. Clearly it protects all arms, but this is something I've never heard anybody else ask.

Click to expand...

Seriously? I have heard the "2nd amendment doesn't allow nuclear weapons" argument for over 20 years now.

Yes, it does allow nuclear weapons, as written.

Yes, it allows tanks, and artillery, and jet fighters, and bombers, as written.

Also; where is the law that says nuclear weapons are prohibited from private possession? I think the notion is so absurd no one has ever actually sat down to WRITE a law about it. The materials to make the weapons are regulated, the technology to make them is prohibitively expensive. And storage? Man, I like my teeth, and eyeballs, and genitals. (Especially my genitals!)

Imagine you're a private citizen with the resources to acquire and deploy tanks, jet fighters, or a nuke. Imagine further that you have an intense desire to actually do this, killing hundreds or thousands of people.

Now imagine that you decide not to because it's against the law.

See how absurd that is.

Imagine you're a private citizen with the resources to acquire and deploy tanks, jet fighters, or a nuke. Imagine further that you have an intense desire to actually do this, killing hundreds or thousands of people.

Now imagine that you decide not to because it's against the law.

See how absurd that is.

Click to expand...

The only reason it is not extremely easy to manufacture non-nuclear weapons of mass destruction is the law. In addition to necessary parts and materials being tightly regulated there is active investigation of anybody detected trying to acquire said materials.

To own a nuke today one does not need the ability to refine fissionable material. Such weapons could be acquired from the black market LE did not actively limit such opportunities.

It is entirely plausible that a group of extremist with vast funds from an outside government could acquire such a weapon, import it and detonate in a large city if laws did not enable the government to prevent such things. The same could be said of any other weapon of mass destruction. Of course laws can not guarantee such an event will never occur but no rational argument can be made against efforts to prevent it.

Also, one does not need vast resources to create an extremely destructive dirty bomb. Should hospitals not be prohibited from selling their radioactive waste on the open market per the 2nd amendment? Such a position is completely absurd and out of touch with reality.

Such a broad definition of the second amendment, so as to allow any WMD, is a far greater risk to liberty than any the regulation of such materials. What many seem to forget is that arms can and have been used by certain segments of a civilian population to impose tyranny as well. The bolsheviks did not take power through kind words. They used weapons.

History has shown time and time again that the most effective way for a government to pass further restrictions on liberty is in response to a catastrophic attack.

We can talk all day about what the 2nd amendment should or should not allow but there must be some level of common sense with practical application in the real world.

Trent, I figure that it would fall under the category of Destructive Device under the NFA. So pardon my lack of NFA legal knowledge...would that be a $200 tax stamp? I'm curious to see the "justification" present there...

Civilian ability to own modern calvary (i.e. tanks, jets) would be severely restricted by cost and training availability. How many people can afford $150M for an F-22 AND have the capability to fly one? How about $107M for F-35? Let's go cheaper...$15-18M for F-16?
Driving a tank is easier, they let enlisted do that. It's also cheaper, $6-8 million per unit.

Something tells me that if Lockheed opened up sales to the public, and there was no government restrictions on the products, there would only be a small handful of civilians with the equipment. Between the cost of the jet, the fuel, the hangar, secure storage for the munitions, maintenance, a runway, and either a pilot or some very extensive lessons (and all of the upkeep there), there is a whole lot of cost for not much benefit.

It means that we do not need to explain or give reason our "betters" or any "masters" the need for owning and using a firearm.

Alexander Hamilton wrote, “If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no resource left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defence."

"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well armed lamb contesting the issue."

Benjamin Franklin's words are still very much a part of reality.

The Second Amendment guarantees people power, not state power.

It ought to be very, very clear that an unarmed minority of virtually any stripe will not have access to liberty, freedom, and the "pursuit of happiness" without the permission and/or indulgence of the majority. It should also be clear that an armed minority -- even an armed elite -- can rule tyrannically if the majority is unarmed. Or if the majority is just stupid and uninformed.

Without guns in the households -- a lot of guns in the households -- an out-of-control, runaway government, seeking power via fear, and looking for Enemy Combatants in every closet (and without a search warrant) will have nothing to fear in carrying out its unconstitutional agenda.

The only security of a free state is when the people can defend themselves. Period.

The fact that it may not be enough is sad, but does not reduce the fact that an armed citizenry will hopefully at least make tyrants hesitate.

When comparing the Constitution to the other documents of the period written by the same authors, it is conclusive that they intended parity between the populace and any standing army. Thus, the Second Amendment was intentionally broad in scope, making no delineation between allowable and non-allowable arms. The only implied limit was that of the pocketbook.

Yokel, I love that lamb quote.

Arms provide us the responsibility, duty, and right to overthrow a Government which oversteps it's bounds and renders itself a BURDEN instead of a SERVANT of the People.

One could argue that over a trillion dollars a year in overspending ... is quite a burden. Our forefathers couldn't comprehend how twisted and misshapen and bloated our government of the people, for the people, and by the people, could eventually become.

Everyone keeps saying "oh my goodness they're going to take away X/Y/Z and we won't be a free people anymore"

I'm sorry, but that train departed the station a long time ago.

The government cannot get ITSELF in check. It cannot spend responsibly. It cannot legislate responsibly. It cannot engage in foreign affairs responsibly. It cannot promote our freedom, our way of life, effectively and is viewed as "an evil empire" or "an empire of greed"....

To which, yes, that IS what we've become.

Our Government is a cancer, grown out of control.

The only remaining question is how many wheelbarrows you'll need to use to haul the cash to buy your loaf of bread in 20 years when all of these bonds come due. They've borrowed an extension, an artificial extension, to our vaulted "Golden Age" on the backs of our Children and Grand Children... the future generations pay for our sloth, our greed, our consumption without replenishment, our need to satiate desires instantaneously on the backs of foreign slave labor (even if it's just economic slavery; still slavery, off shored).

No, this country is broke, in many ways, and getting more broke by the year. When our current system of government FAILS...

These guns I own make sure I have a say in how it's reconstituted.
__________________

Click to expand...

Amen! but will disagree on taking 20 years till you need a wheel barrow. It's closer than you think.

"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well armed lamb contesting the issue."

Benjamin Franklin's words are still very much a part of reality.

Click to expand...

Except Franklin never said any such thing. This is another internet myth.

Yep, that gem is from James Bovard, a Libertarian.

JustinJ said:

Such a broad definition of the second amendment, so as to allow any WMD, is a far greater risk to liberty than any the regulation of such materials.

Click to expand...

If you advocate narrowing the definition of what kinds of arms 2A allows based on your sensitivities, then you give the antis exactly what they want. Any argument you can make for disallowing a nuke can be parlayed into an argument for disallowing an AR or a >10-round magazine. And from there any semi-auto, and from there a >6 round capacity, and so on...[/B]

IMO, 2A is the cornerstone of liberty! It's about an absolute limit on government power over the populace.

SSN Vet said:

IMO, 2A is the cornerstone of liberty! It's about an absolute limit on government power over the populace.

Click to expand...

And the one that holds all the other liberties in place.

The Amendment's text does justify a different limitation: the "right to keep and bear arms" protects only a right to possess and use firearms in connection with service in a State-organized militia.

Click to expand...

*Emphasis mine. Seems unlikely a populace who had just overthrown a "state-organized militia" in the name of individual liberty would enshrine all military power into another state institution. Even when they're reaching, SCOTUS arguments usually make more sense to me than this one. At any rate, I'm sure we or the Constitution have evolved beyond the original meaning or need since it was written . But I'm pretty sure the authors meant well-regulated when they wrote "well-regulated," and not state-regulated:banghead:

Criminal idiots screwing it up for the rest of us...

Click to expand...

Ya-don't say? I'm sure there were no criminal idiots with guns prior to prohibition times!:banghead: No, the State just hadn't granted itself massively expanded police powers in the name of security concerns (that it's own stupid laws had caused) until that point*

*unless you count the various Sedition Acts during wartime up to that point

TCB

Our forefathers couldn't comprehend how twisted and misshapen and bloated our government of the people, for the people, and by the people, could eventually become.

Click to expand...

On the contrary...