Comments on: Supreme Court Revisits Second Amendment

Hotly Anticipated Washington D.C. Gun Ban Case Goes Before Justices

[billorights]

It seems this bears repeating. The term %u201Cwell regulated militia%u201D has nothing to do with rules, regulations, or any other implication of government control over the militia.

The term %u201Cwell regulated%u201D means, and then meant, well-trained, practiced and proficient, as in %u201Cproficient with the use of their arms%u201D.

The word %u201Cmilitia%u201D means, and then meant, all of us who were not part of the standing army. The founding fathers had a healthy and well documented distrust of a standing army, which could be used by a tyrannical government to control the people. We, the people, also known as the militia, were expected to be the ultimate defense against any standing army, foreign or domestic.

%u201CA well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state%u201D describes a need and a primary benefit to be obtained by ensuring that %u201Cthe right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed%u201D. Notice the usage of the words %u201Cshall not be infringed%u201D rather than implying that the right is %u201Cgranted%u201D or %u201Cgiven%u201D. The right to keep and bear arms preceded the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

[bhappy2-2]

cfin5- Thank you for the compliment. You seem to be holding your own quite well, also.

[voidmaster-2009]

Look into the history of every population that has ever been enslaved by its own government. Each such population was definitively unarmed. There are times when it is essential to %u201Cstand down%u201D your own government by force of arms.

The argument that the second amendment is impractical or obsolete because the government possesses bigger guns is simply demonstrable proof of the second amendment%u2019s continued relevance. Disarming a population is not something that its own government can do overnight. It takes time. It happens in stages and it necessarily starts with the big guns.

[cfin5]

Posted by bhappy2-2 at 08:23 PM : Mar 19, 2008-----Thank you for that post. Sure makes it worthwhile putting up with error here when I see someone thinking like you :)

[bhappy2-2]

redbds- Do you have any idea why the Bill of Rights was named the Bill of Rights? If our Founding Fathers had intended for each leader and each Supreme Court Justice to decide what it meant they would have called it the Bill of Maybes, or the Bill of Possibilities or even the Bill of Wishes For Now. They named it the Bill of Rights because it lists the RIGHTS of the Citizens of America. If the Bill of Rights offends you PLEASE LEAVE MY COUNTRY.

[bhappy2-2]

Since we no longer call on individual citizens to bring their guns to the town square to repel the British army the amendment is simply no longer relevant. Posted by redbds

At the time the new nation didn''''t have a viable standing armed force. That is not the case today. The defense of our nation are well provided for by our military. The truth is that the second amendment no longer serves any purpose. Posted by redbds

Since you have no problem giving up the second amendment I presume you will have no problem when the other nine contained in the Bill of Rights are taken away either. And they WILL be taken, one at a time or maybe all at once. Since the military can provide all the protection we need we can do away with all other enforcement agencies (CIA, FBI, Police, Judicial Officers) and rely strictly on the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT CONTROLLED MILITARY. Then, when your right to freedom of speech is denied by those same people you can protest the action. No, wait! The freedom to hold peaceable assembly will be canceled as well. But when you are arrested for your protest at least you can still invoke your fifth amendment right against self incrimination. OH NO!!! THAT ONE WAS TAKEN ALSO! You see, the Bill of Rights works only when they are ALL included. When you remove one the others become less effective and finally they ALL disappear.

[cfin5]

Posted by redbds at 07:29 PM : Mar 19, 2008-------The 9th. Amendment was set to keep anyone from "playing lawyer" with what they clearly said our rights were. The 9th. Amendment is a guard for us against the government. It''s unconstitutional for the government to misinterpret (construe) our lawful (certain) rights we have with intent to confiscate (deny) or depreciate (disparage) any of our other rights enumerated.........That said, I see now why our school system has slowly dumbed down two generations of children. It has turned into the most inefficient babysitting money pit we have today. When children get good grades for good behavior instead of actually giving a correct answer,.....its too late. A student who "thinks" he/she is wise when they are not, are very easy to enslave, especially in their own mind. However a student who "knows" he/she is wise are the most difficult to enslave, especially in their own minds. I have known this for a long time and did not allow the school system to turn my children into my own enemy,......or my countries.

[historectomy]

I will bow to you , you are rite, this is all about the second amendment and the right to bare arms.

[michellem99-2009]

People. When the constution was drafted in 1770s..Wmerica had no military so the citizen were called to be an Amry to ffight. America had no police. A new Nation. Now this is today and this nation has a military,Police, fire, the like. Sure it is a right to bear arms but it is an abused right. It abused to the max.I live in a run free home. The right to bear arms does not give ye the right to drive by shot, kill, no gents.

[redbds]

historectomy,

You are using one arguement to imply meaning into somenting that simply isn''t there. You should be allowed to own a firearm to protect yourself. The bad guys have them and if you don''t then you could have a serious problem. But, I simply can''t read that meaning into what is written in the second amendment.

[historectomy]

redbds,
I have got to beleive you have an awesome security alarm, dobes and a really tall fence, either that or you are not living in the present world. have you read the papers lately.

[redbds]

historectomy and cfin5,

While I support your rights to bear firearms to protect yourselves as long as it is allowed by law, I do not subscribe to the NRA view that the second amendment guarantees it. The second amendment was intended to provide exactly what it says "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." Since we no longer call on individual citizens to bring their guns to the town square to repel the British army the amendment is simply no longer relevant. Those who claim that the drafters of the amendment intended it to mean otherwise are taking liberties with their interpretations. As far as the 9th amendment goes I don''t see how it applies unless you can point to somewhere else in the constitution that specifically states that you have the right to own and bear firearms for any purpose other than to form a malitia.

I think that we might just have to agree to disagree on this issue. But, I do love a spirited debate. Thank you both.

[guysdigdirt]

The arguement that the second amendment gives every citizen the right to own firearms is simply not a valid arguement when taken in context of its original purpose. The truth is that the second amendment no longer serves any purpose. Those who argue otherwise are simply ignoring the original purpose of the amendment.
Posted by redbds

You assume much;
1- That you know what they were thinking when the constituion was written.
2- That they did not forsee a need in the future
3- That there intention was to ever have a liberal interprite their meaning.
4-That they did not write it, with the same verbiage as other amendements on purpose. Do you think they did not mean for us to have freedom of speech today, societ is different and the means of communication much different.

Get over it, the second amendment does not GIVE a person a right to own a firearm or protect themselves, it GUARANTEES that right.

[historectomy]

redbds,
I think that you should read what you just typed! The first five sentences have all to do with home an personal protaction.

[cfin5]

The truth is that the second amendment no longer serves any purpose. Those who argue otherwise are simply ignoring the original purpose of the amendment.

Posted by redbds at 06:03 PM : Mar 19, 2008-----Just because our nation has grown and knowledge has increased doesn''t mean that "wisdom" has increased alongside with knowledge. I''m not ignoring the original purpose seeing why our Founding Fathers ratified the 9th. Amendment. In fact, it is YOU who are ignoring the original intent with slick words trying to get folks to ignore all that they said about the 2nd. Amendment they created for years after the fact. Folks like you violate the protection of my 9th. Amendment rights. Your an unconstitutionalist for sure!

[historectomy]

I will not hide nor will I cower, when it comes to protecting me or my family. If I dont speak up wisconsin will be the next DC.(Its well on its way.)
Lets all hope that what comes of this is some sensible laws to protect ourselves in any place at any time. I do beleive That we all should have the choice to carry.

[redbds]

The wording of the second amendment seems pretty clear to me. The purpose for not infringing the rights of the people to keep and bear arms was to form a militia. It does not say for sport or home protection. You have to consider the wording of the amendent in context to the time in which it was written. The malitia had defeated the British using mostly privately owned weapons. At the time the new nation didn''t have a viable standing armed force. That is not the case today. The defense of our nation are well provided for by our military. The arguement that the second amendment gives every citizen the right to own firearms is simply not a valid arguement when taken in context of its original purpose. The truth is that the second amendment no longer serves any purpose. Those who argue otherwise are simply ignoring the original purpose of the amendment.

[historectomy]

With all the junk that I have been reading 0n these post, I have found it hard not to respont until now.
No matter what the outcome of this will end up to be the general public will always know the original wording on the 2nd amendment as it is. Not as how it can be perceived by any courts or lawyers. It will still be tought by all history teachers/professors as the original text reads. The government In all its infinate wisdom should know better than to try and give history a historectomy.

[billorights]

Even if the bogus numbers and phacts postulated by ElMentiroso were true, it really does not matter. If we pretend for a moment that any of that baloney is true, what difference would it make?

I would guess that the number of people harmed by free speech every day far exceeds the number of people harmed by the use of firearms, criminal and otherwise. Imagine all the people with hurt feelings and damaged egos, suffering needlessly every day. Shall we revoke the First Amendment right to free speech, because if only one person%u2019s feelings can be protected, it will be worth it?

Clearly, the answer is NO.

The same immutable truth holds true for the right to keep and bear arms, which is guaranteed by the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution. It is a RIGHT, guaranteed, not created, by the Constitution.

[freemanusa]

Maybe the gun ban is''nt a bad idea. All the bad guys will say, We are not allowed to kill, rape, or rob anyone, because we are not allowed to have a hand gun.Come on people,get real. One thing for sure is the guy selling guns from the trunk of his car in a dark alley, will really make some money.