The reason for the Second Amendment was to keep the government in check hence being necessary the security of a FREE STATE.
It wasn't for hunting obviously, if our elected officials don't do what we elected them for hence against the will of the people what ever that may be the 2nd Amendment was put in place by our founders if the 1st Amendment failed.
1st Amendment: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Alright, you might have to educate me on how the 2nd amendment is supposed to be interpreted here.
But it gives the right to form militia groups, and the right of 'the people' to keep and bear arms.
So, surely 'the people' can bear arms, whether they're in a militia group or not?
No they are not two separate things. It is one sentence explaing who can do it (the people) what they can do (bare arms) and for what purpose they can do it (form a militia).
So no, that does not automatically mean they can do it for reasons outside the context of the allowable purpose. It says you can do it for this reason, not simply that you can do it.
Ok. Is that how most people interpret it? Or do people argue about it's interpretation?
Might be silly questions, but obviously I don't know much about this apart from reading the 2nd amendment.
It didn't used to be such a controversial concept, the Supreme Court interpreted it that way 3 times between 1850 and 1940. The recent change in that interpretation among the public seems to be linked not to a lack of understanding, but to ignorance as to what it says in the first place. It has become so commonly accepted that the Second Amendment says "the people have the right to bare arms", as if that is all it says. The average American doesn't seem to be aware of the militia part of the amendment.
If you pull a few words out of a sentence, you can make the Constitution say whatever you want. It would be like be taking the first four words of the First Amendment " Congress shall pass no law..." and saying that means that the Constitution says Congress has no power to pass laws. But if you read that statement in context with the rest of the amendment you would realise that is completely wrong.
Gun control, do we need more of it?
↑ View this comment's parent
← View full post
The reason for the Second Amendment was to keep the government in check hence being necessary the security of a FREE STATE.
It wasn't for hunting obviously, if our elected officials don't do what we elected them for hence against the will of the people what ever that may be the 2nd Amendment was put in place by our founders if the 1st Amendment failed.
1st Amendment: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
I'm drunk
--
Cindy1B0
7 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
1
1
-
anti-hero
7 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
-
billygoatgruff
7 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
actually there is NOTHING wrong with huntiing
Keep the government in check, true. At the time the weapons were equal. How well is a gun going to stand up to a drone strike?
--
VirgilManly
7 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
Remind me how well we did in Iraq and Vietnam. History is full of examples where sheer numbers often defeated more advanced technology.
--
anti-hero
7 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
You think the American population is going to overthrow the government? Not unless the military sides with the people instead of the government.
--
VirgilManly
7 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
I'm not aware of any plans for it, are you?
:)
--
anti-hero
7 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
Ssshhhhh
Your level of sobriety aside, it still says a well regulated militia.
--
victorygin
7 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
Alright, you might have to educate me on how the 2nd amendment is supposed to be interpreted here.
But it gives the right to form militia groups, and the right of 'the people' to keep and bear arms.
So, surely 'the people' can bear arms, whether they're in a militia group or not?
--
billygoatgruff
7 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
No they are not two separate things. It is one sentence explaing who can do it (the people) what they can do (bare arms) and for what purpose they can do it (form a militia).
So no, that does not automatically mean they can do it for reasons outside the context of the allowable purpose. It says you can do it for this reason, not simply that you can do it.
--
victorygin
7 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
Ok. Is that how most people interpret it? Or do people argue about it's interpretation?
Might be silly questions, but obviously I don't know much about this apart from reading the 2nd amendment.
--
billygoatgruff
7 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
1
1
It didn't used to be such a controversial concept, the Supreme Court interpreted it that way 3 times between 1850 and 1940. The recent change in that interpretation among the public seems to be linked not to a lack of understanding, but to ignorance as to what it says in the first place. It has become so commonly accepted that the Second Amendment says "the people have the right to bare arms", as if that is all it says. The average American doesn't seem to be aware of the militia part of the amendment.
If you pull a few words out of a sentence, you can make the Constitution say whatever you want. It would be like be taking the first four words of the First Amendment " Congress shall pass no law..." and saying that means that the Constitution says Congress has no power to pass laws. But if you read that statement in context with the rest of the amendment you would realise that is completely wrong.
--
victorygin
7 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
See More Comments =>
Interesting... Thanks.