What Does the Second Amendment Really Say?

[WildCat]

dupe

 

[newyorkguy]

And what have you found?

"Neither is it [the right to keep and bear arms] in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence."

You found that the right to keep and bear arms exists.

Yes, we know you think that NYC should be exempt from the US Constitution.

Sorry, it doesn't work that way as you will find out in due course.

You can't have it both ways. You agree Cruikshank said the Constitution doesn't confer the right to keep and bear arms. Then you say the Constitution does.

 

[WildCat]

Easy. Let's rewrite the second, here: "The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed because we need a well-regulated militia."

It could be argued that the part after the "because" is no longer true, due to the presence of a US standing army. Therefore, the second amendment is no longer valid.

Or, you could just rewrite the amendment to be more fitting to today's situation, but there is no doubt in my mind as to what the wording means. That's what they wrote because that's what they meant.

The USA has had a standing army since 1792, the Bill of Rights was not ratified until December 1791, which kind of puts a damper on that interpretation.

Bear in mind it was never written that way nor interpreted that way by any higher court.

 

[WildCat]

You can't have it both ways. You agree Cruikshank said the Constitution doesn't confer the right to keep and bear arms. Then you say the Constitution does.

I've been consistent throughout. I never, ever said the US Constitution created the right to keep and bear arms, it protects that right from government infringement.

 

[newyorkguy]

Currently handguns are all but banned in New York City and have been since 1911 under the Sullivan Act.

Sorry, it doesn't work that way as you will find out in due course.

Why is it going to change? Because there's a new sheriff in town?

​

 

[Dr. Keith]

A good post, I'm just going to address this part before I lay down for a bit. Reading all those 'f' for 's' documents has given me a headache...

Understand completely. I almost deferred on replying to you post until I had more time, but I felt bad that you had done so much work. Rest assured that I have put less research into mine and that I appreciate your well researched and reasoned posts.

This is true. There is a clear way to address the issue of arms or tomatoes without tearing down the house. If the militia thing has changed an Amendment is the clear legal way to say it has. It probably hasn't because most on one in the house likes tomatoes anyway and they keep misspelling it. Ftupid fhitheadf. What was I saying? I'm going to lay down...

I agree that an amendment is a way to change it, but that doesn't get to what the original meant. In the tomato example the rule could be read to mean:

So long as grandmother is alive (or in the house) no tomatoes shall be served.​

or

No tomatoes shall ever be served in this house.​

One emphasizes the first clause while the second emphasizes the second clause. Both positions have support in the original. Why? Because the original statement was unclear as written.

 

[newyorkguy]

I've been consistent throughout. I never, ever said the US Constitution created the right to keep and bear arms, it protects that right from government infringement.

Cruikshank said , "The Second Amendment...has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the national government...."

Where we do agree is that the legal meaning of the Second Amendment is expanding. New sheriff!

 

[newyorkguy]

I've been consistent throughout. I never, ever said the US Constitution created the right to keep and bear arms, it protects that right from government infringement.

So if the Constitution doesn't confer the right to keep and bear arms how was the right get created?

By natural means?

 

[BStrong]

You see a straw man, I see an analogy. If the constitutional protection does not extend to all arms, IMO it's valid to speculate on where that protection stops.



What a weird case.

I still don't see the problem with establishing a database, but again, that is off topic.

At no time have nuke devices been an item in lawful civilian commerce, and prior to the National Firearms Act of 1934 small arms and larger arms of all types were legal for civilian ownership.

After the NFA, civilians were still allowed (in states that allow same) to possess registered NFA weapons and devices, as they do today.

What you won't find allowed for lawful civilian possession is what was described by the late, great Kent Lomont as "the really fun stuff" chemical, biological, radiological and nuclear weapons.

Even with the registered transferable destructive devices you find that the rounds for such weapons themselves are required to be registered and are subject to the $200.00 transfer tax (certain exemptions for LEA's - the military is exempt) and there is no lawful civilian commerce in an actual military ammo for these types - there are many registered M79 and M203 grenade launchers in the NFRTR, but the issue HE rounds are not legal for civilian purchase.

The case can be made that any GI issue individual or some crew served weapon at the company level would be covered by the Second - M16, M4, M249, M203, M60, M240 but heavier weapons might be a different issue.

 

[WildCat]

Why is it going to change? Because there's a new sheriff in town?

No, because it cannot survive even intermediate scrutiny under the 2nd Amendment.

So if the Constitution doesn't confer the right to keep and bear arms how was the right get created?

By natural means?

Yes, the basic human rights our Constitution assumes all people are born with. Why does that idea repulse you so?

 

[Belz...]

The USA has had a standing army since 1792, the Bill of Rights was not ratified until December 1791, which kind of puts a damper on that interpretation.

Not really. It was just obsolete as soon as they ratified it.

Yes, the basic human rights our Constitution assumes all people are born with.

And that makes no sense. It assumes we're born with it because it says so.

 

[newyorkguy]

Yes, the basic human rights our Constitution assumes all people are born with. Why does that idea repulse you so?

The right to carry a handgun is a basic human right? The idea doesn't repulse me, I do find it puzzling.

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Yes, the basic human rights our Constitution assumes all people are born with. Why does that idea repulse you so?

People are not born with any rights. The idea that God or somebody gave people rights is absurd.

 

[GlennB]

Yes, the basic human rights our Constitution assumes all people are born with.

Then define 'human rights', in this sense, without reference to laws written or assumed by humankind. I've never seen it done without descending into religion, mysticism or highly debatable philosophical principles, and those vary from place to place and from time to time.

You can be the first.

 

[Belz...]

OK, how is that justification currently relevant? And if it is no longer relevant does that have any impact on the second part?

And if it doesn't, why is the first part there at all ? That's the part that leads to confusion.

 

[Belz...]

Minoosh, they had bombs back then, you know. The 2nd amendment doesn't say "and bombs, and artillery, and battleships..."

And that's another problem. "Arms" is a bit vague nowadays.

 

[Belz...]

Kim Jong Un agrees.

Amazing how people are so willing to toss away the entire legal basis for the freedoms we enjoy just because they don't like guns!

That's not a very fair assesment, given that most people who are opposed to gun are of that mind because of gun-related deaths.

Why did you word you post that way ?

 

[WildCat]

Not really. It was just obsolete as soon as they ratified it.

And yet no court has ever noticed that? This thread has gone on a long time, and neither you nor anyone else has provided anything whatsoever to support the claim that self defense wasn't a core right of the 2nd Amendment, or that it was entirely about militia service. Evidence has been shown that at the time the people who wrote it did indeed see it as an individual right unconnected to militia service.

Do you have anything besides assertions?

And that makes no sense. It assumes we're born with it because it says so.

Yes it does, and I like it that way.Perhaps you're more comfortable with the idea that all rights come from the government, but I'm not.

The right to carry a handgun is a basic human right? The idea doesn't repulse me, I do find it puzzling.

Self defense is a basic human right, and a handgun is an excellent means of self defense. And since we have the right to keep and bear arms we have the right to use a handgun in self defense, just like Bloomberg and all his rich friends he allowed to get handgun carry permits for.

People are not born with any rights. The idea that God or somebody gave people rights is absurd.

In the USA it is assumed people are born with rights, deal with it.

Then define 'human rights', in this sense, without reference to laws written or assumed by humankind. I've never seen it done without descending into religion, mysticism or highly debatable philosophical principles, and those vary from place to place and from time to time.

You can be the first.

Your position is that there is no such thing as human rights?

 

[WildCat]

That's not a very fair assesment, given that most people who are opposed to gun are of that mind because of gun-related deaths.

Why did you word you post that way ?

And most people who were against the Citizens United decision did so because they didn't want a movie about Hillary Clinton to be shown. Nevertheless, it is not out of bounds to point out that under the reasoning involved in banning the movie we could also ban newspaper editorials, political opinions aired on CNN, indeed this very forum could be forced to undergo government censorship.

Likewise, our Constitution assumes people are born with rights and government can only take rights away, not grant them. It's the underpinning of our entire country, and should be thrown out because some people have an irrational fear of guns?

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

In the USA it is assumed people are born with rights, deal with it.

Without any basis for that. So the idea is still stupid.