Gun control - HOT topic. Part Deux
Clubber
Florida
OK, Spellchecker overridden. Now seriously...
How many know which amendment to the US Constitution grants us the right to bear arms?
Hint: Trick question
How many know which amendment to the US Constitution grants us the right to bear arms?
Hint: Trick question
Got something to say?
Start your own discussion
23 comments
Incorrect.
States and local governments can ban all guns if they want without violating the second amendment, but the fed cannot.
Until 1932, the above interpretation was how the SC saw it. Then things started getting weird.
" 1> The Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution does not establish the right to keep and bear arms. None of the provisions of the Constitution establish any "natural" rights. They recognize such rights, but the repeal of such provisions would not end such rights. Such rights were considered by many of the Framers as obvious or "self-evident", but they were immersed in the prevailing republican thought of the day, as expressed in the writings of Locke, Montesquieu, Rousseau, Madison, Hamilton, and others, which discussed "natural rights" in some detail."
2> The right to keep and bear arms is a natural right of individuals under the theory of democratic government. This was clearly the understanding and intent of the Framers of the U.S. Constitution and was a long-established principle of English common law at the time the Constitution was adopted, which is considered to be a part of constitutional law for purposes of interpreting the written Constitution.
3> What the Second Amendment also does is recognize the right, power, and duty of able-bodied persons (originally males, but now females also) to organize into militias and defend the state. It effectively recognizes that all citizens have military and police powers, and the "able-bodied" ones -- the militia -- also have military and police duties, whether exercised in an organized manner or individually in a crisis. "Able-bodied" is a term of art established by English common law at the time the Constitution was adopted, and is the only qualification besides citizenship on what constitutes the "militia". While not well defined in modern terms, it is somewhat broader than just able-"bodied": implicit is also "able-minded" and "virtuous". In other words, persons might be excluded who were physically able to bear arms but who were mentally or morally defective. Defense of the "state"
But before that, the 2nd also specifies that a well regulated militia is necessary. That part really confounds liberals who believe that the federal government must sanction and "regulate" this "militia" and then they try to make the militia into the modern armed forces and argue that the federal government can specify who can keep and bear arms. That is so very, very wrong.
In fact, around the 1790s (when the 2nd was written), "well regulated meant "practiced" and "competent." Specifically, in the case of the 2nd, "well regulated" means the individual militia members should be familiar with their weapons and their use. A well regulated militia would be composed of people who know how to shoot, load, repair and maintain.their weapons.
And militia - then AND NOW - is NOT a reference to anything the federal government controls day to day. The first provision of the 2nd specifically acknowledges that it is a "natural" right of Americans to assemble as an armed force! A militia is NOT a federal government controlled professional army.
The Militia Act of 1792 put to rest any question of who was in the militia. The 1792 act specified that EVERY able bodied male between the ages of 18 and 45 was a member of the militia and specified that militia membership was compulsory. The militia was self controlled, unless the individual state imposed further requirements upon the militia. The only time the federal government had any control over the militia would be when the militia were "called up" to aid in the national defense.
Today, the militia - BY LAW - includes every able bodied male citizen between the ages of 18 and 45, plus any foreign national residing in these united States who wishes to become a citizen, plus women who are members of the national guard or reserve, plus any American citizen of any age, gender or ability who wishes to volunteer for the militia. Notably no one is required to assert that they will volunteer before the militia is called up. So, essentially, we are ALL in the militia (unless we are over 45 and don't want to be.)
Because the 2nd implies the militia must have their own weapons, it is essential that any militia member have ready access to MILITARY firearms. There are many arguments still flying around about the 1930s federal tax and regulation of automatic weapons, with many legal scholars asserting that the natural right of Americans to keep automatic weapons has been unconstitutionally infringed. Other arguments about individual ownership of cannon, armored vehicles and explosives also abound. But no one can reasonably argue that the federal government can constitutionally restrict an individual's natural right to keep and bear modern personal firearms, including weapons capable of use in warfare.
Do I win the prize?
Anyway, to make it simple, the 2nd doesn't grant a right to bear arms, rather it PRESERVES and already existing right to bear arms. Only a bastardization of the English language and thought processes can see it otherwise.
But that's a slippery slope, because you then must abandon this reasoning if you're conservative on the issue of gay marriage. Liberals would also argue that marriage is a "natural" right, and since a percentage of all mammals and birds are homosexual then the word "natural" is appropriate.
Natural rights are those which free societies at large have historically and traditionally recognized. Gun rights can certainly fall within this concept. However, to the best of my knowledge, gay marriage is a fairly recent development. Gay marriage has not been accepted and followed anywhere close to the degree that would be necessary to claim that it is a natural right.
Even more of a fan of his since I met him!
"Gay "marriage" has been around for thousands of years..."
I can agree, but not government sanctioned. A BIG difference, my friend.
Sort of the same as killing babies!
So you are saying the FATHER has no say what happens to HIS child?