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.
I do want to be clear that I am certainly not suggesting that the Constitution bans the use of guns for other purposes, just that it doesn't guarantee them as a right. All I am saying is that it only guarantees the right for the purpose of a militia that is well regulated and serving the security of the state, because the amendment applies only to that purpose. It says nothing either way about any other use.
What that means is that for any other purpose there should be no Constitutional impediment that would prevent federal and local governments from allowing or restricting them as they see fit. So in terms of private use, a law that says you can walk around town with a machine gun would be every bit as legal as one that says guns are completely banned for private use. The government has the descrition to use as much regulation or as little regulation as they see fit.
Gun control, do we need more of it?
↑ View this comment's parent
← View full post
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
Interesting... Thanks.
--
billygoatgruff
7 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
I do want to be clear that I am certainly not suggesting that the Constitution bans the use of guns for other purposes, just that it doesn't guarantee them as a right. All I am saying is that it only guarantees the right for the purpose of a militia that is well regulated and serving the security of the state, because the amendment applies only to that purpose. It says nothing either way about any other use.
What that means is that for any other purpose there should be no Constitutional impediment that would prevent federal and local governments from allowing or restricting them as they see fit. So in terms of private use, a law that says you can walk around town with a machine gun would be every bit as legal as one that says guns are completely banned for private use. The government has the descrition to use as much regulation or as little regulation as they see fit.