The 2nd Amendment

Fair enough.

I'd prefer a ban on hand guns rather than 'assault rifles'...or atleast the idea of a right to bare arms repealed. But I understand why that's never going to happen. I have to settle with improved education, and a steering away from the connection between guns and violence.

 

Lol......yes, its those exposed biceps that are the problem.....

It's BEAR arms. At least figure out what it is you dislike.

 

http://www.hipforums.com/newforums/showpost.php?p=7578484&postcount=45

 

I find that gun owners who say "I know my rights" often have never read the Second Amendment. They think they know what it says, but they don't. I notice in this thread that no one has quoted it so here it is

 

Your point being?

 

Well, I guess my main point is that the subject of the sentence is "A well-regulated Militia", so it's debatable whether it's really talking about individual gun rights. I know the Supreme Court has recently ruled that it is, but this ruling came after 100 years of federal courts ruling the other way.

 

No it didn't. Up until Heller v DC such a ruling has never been made. Regardless, the wording of the 2nd leaves no doubt that it is an individual right as it clearly states "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms". In every single other Amendment where "the people" is written, is taken to mean an individual right. The same holds true for the 2nd.

The "well regulated militia" sentence is not a conditional clause.

 

http://amanpour.blogs.cnn.com/2012/12/18/what-does-americas-second-amendment-really-mean/

 

http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/comment/2012/12/jeffrey-toobin-second-amendment.html

 

Cliche: Well, you would say that, wouldn't you.

For more than a hundred years, the answer was clear, even if the words of the amendment itself were not. The text of the amendment is divided into two clauses and is, as a whole, ungrammatical: “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 courts had found that the first part, the “militia clause,” trumped the second part, the “bear arms” clause. In other words, according to the Supreme Court, and the lower courts as well, the amendment conferred on state militias a right to bear arms—but did not give individuals a right to own or carry a weapon.

Read more: http://www.newyorker.com/online/blo...ey-toobin-second-amendment.html#ixzz2MhAb5xqG

 

You say "no doubt" but that's not true. In the dissent to Heller

(I was replying to Sig.)

 

* chuckle*

 

And Tobin was full of shit. None of the Supreme Court cases before DC v Heller addressed whether or not the right was an individual one. That said, it clearly is. If it isn't, then that means the 1st Amendment isn't an individual right, and neither is the 4th, the 9th, or the 10th.

 

I said "federal courts", not "Supreme Court".

 

Right, and the dissenters had it wrong. The men who wrote the US Bill of Rights are on record very clearly stating that citizens need to posses firearms in order to maintain a free state.

 

Then your point is irrelevant because, in this country, the Supreme Court has the final say, and that court held the 2nd Amendment as guaranteeing an individual right.

 

Siq, do you think the wording is ambiguous? If the supreme court went the other way - what would you think?

 

No, my point is that we live in an era of 5-4 Supreme Court decisions, which certainly indicates that cases are being decided on the basis of politics and not the law. Public approval of the Supreme Court is at an all-time low because of this.

You make it sound like any dissent to the opinion of the 5 Republican members of the Court is wrong and idiotic. Can't you see how dogmatic you sound?

 

I don't think it is at all. Anyone with a basic understanding of the English language and its grammar should be able to figure it out. This, coupled with statements made by the men who wrote it, point to an individual right.

 

That's not true. The Second Amendment is definitely the worst-written part of the Constitution. Is is ungrammatical and hard to understand.