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.
This clearly states that only Militia has the right to bear arms, so don't use the second amendment as a way to say "Gun Control is unconstitutional".
Edit: Adding my replies.
Standard legal construction is to look all parts of the same amendment so that they fit together and make sense.
You can setup a "Well Regulated Militia" ahead of time, so they won't have to "Throw Rocks".
If the right to bear arms was independent of the militia, your reading the militia part of the second amendment out of the second amendment... That's improper legal analysis.
Why is the militia part in the second amendment if not to regulate who gets the guns?
The term militia is commonly used today to refer to a military force composed of ordinary citizens[1] to provide defense, emergency law enforcement, or paramilitary service, in times of emergency without being paid a regular salary or committed to a fixed term of service.
That was taken from Wikipedia. If the ordinary citizens didn't have guns to begin with, when an emercency came along, they would be throwing rocks.
Brokkr: The term militia is commonly used today to refer to a military force composed of ordinary citizens[1] to provide defense, emergency law enforcement, or paramilitary service, in times of emergency without being paid a regular salary or committed to a fixed term of service.
That was taken from Wikipedia. If the ordinary citizens didn't have guns to begin with, when an emercency came along, they would be throwing rocks.
So you're saying you have to be a card-carrying militia member to own a gun? Ok, gotcha. We'll start handing out the militia cards with every gun sold. Game on, son, you've made the world a safer place. Bully for you.
"regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state" Do you know the meaning of Militia?
I'll use your logic against you "being necessary to the security of a free state, the (right of the people) to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."
How can you have the conclusion "This clearly states that only Militia"? It didn't say "only the militia should have guns" The second amendment says people can have their own gun for their security.
Brokkr: The term militia is commonly used today to refer to a military force composed of ordinary citizens[1] to provide defense, emergency law enforcement, or paramilitary service, in times of emergency without being paid a regular salary or committed to a fixed term of service.
That was taken from Wikipedia. If the ordinary citizens didn't have guns to begin with, when an emercency came along, they would be throwing rocks.
Right. It's more important for civilians to have guns in times of war in our nation (which hasn't happened since... 1865) than to stop people like the guy who shot up VT last year. He had mental problems and just bought his guns from a gun store. We no longer need militias. Back when the amendment was created, our army didn't exist. The Articles of Confederation didn't allow for a national army. The founding fathers didn't know that the idea would become obsolete. It's akin to the third amendment. How many times have people complained about somebody violating their third amendment rights?
Article 1, Section 8 contains a similar grammatical construction:
"To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries;"
The clauses before the first comma are the Prefatory Clauses. What follows are the Operative Clauses. The Prefatory does not limit the scope of the Operative--I would hope that Congress could give me an exclusive right to writings just so I can make money off them, correct? That my writing doesn't have to be capable of promoting the progress of science and the useful arts in order to be capable of being protected by Federal copyright law?
Standard legal construction is to look all parts of the same amendment so that they fit together and make sense.
You can setup a "Well Regulated Militia" ahead of time, so they won't have to "Throw Rocks".
If the right to bear arms was independent of the militia, your reading the militia part of the second amendment out of the second amendment... That's improper legal analysis.
Why is the militia part in the second amendment if not to regulate who gets the guns?
"regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state" Do you know the meaning of Militia?
I'll use your logic against you "being necessary to the security of a free state, the (right of the people) to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."
How can you have the conclusion "This clearly states that only Militia"? It didn't say "only the militia should have guns" The second amendment says people can have their own gun for their security.
This suits your name perfectly, though you do make a very good point.
Shucks. What would happen if America was to ban all firearms, meaning you'd have to have a license to own firearms?
Some say that there will be 'mass robberies' and all that, because civilians will no longer have a gun to protect themselves against armed robbers. Other the other hand, I'm of the opinion that this is a load of bullwhacky because criminals will get their guns anyway.
In The Netherlands, for instance, it's illegal to carry firearms. It's illegal to own firearms, unless you have a license. And even that's checked regularly and you'd have to pass certain regulations and bla bla bla legal stuff.
We don't have guns, and we don't seem to have mass murders by psycho kids that took their dad's shotgun. But we also don't seem to have a stupid amount of armed robberies. We don't seem to have a stupid amount of criminals breaking into people houses with their guns, because the civilians living in those houses don't have a gun.
There are obviously still criminals with firearms. They'll always get their weapons through other means. So, if you ask me.. Get rid of that second Amendment.
James Raynor: Standard legal construction is to look all parts of the same amendment so that they fit together and make sense.
You can setup a "Well Regulated Militia" ahead of time, so they won't have to "Throw Rocks".
If the right to bear arms was independent of the militia, your reading the militia part of the second amendment out of the second amendment... That's improper legal analysis.
Why is the militia part in the second amendment if not to regulate who gets the guns?
Nice double-standard you got there. You completely ignored the "the right of the people" part in your op, but when someone points it out, you harp on them for ignoring the militia part.
Mariena: There are obviously still criminals with firearms. They'll always get their weapons through other means. So, if you ask me.. Get rid of that second Amendment.
You hit the nail on the head, but you took it in the opposite direction that I would have. Criminals will always have access to guns, illegal or not, so what will making them illegal do?
It is possible to over turn an amendment(see the relationship between amendments 18 and 21), but that's only if it was a terrible idea(see amendment 18 if you disobeyed me the first time).
Amendment 2 is really misunderstood and I shall not correct anyone, but only tell you it's not your problem to fix. It's the gun owner's.
If the right to bear arms was independent of the militia, your reading the militia part of the second amendment out of the second amendment... That's improper legal analysis.
If the right to bear arms was independent of the militia, your reading the militia part of the second amendment out of the second amendment... That's improper legal analysis.
I giggled there for a second.
Since these are laws, you have to read them from a legal mindset.
If the right to bear arms was independent of the militia, your reading the militia part of the second amendment out of the second amendment... That's improper legal analysis.
I giggled there for a second.
Since these are laws, you have to read them from a legal mindset.
I giggled for two seconds this time. Because you're accusing me of misreading after you clearly noted "the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."
I specify again "the right" and "shall not be infringed".
Now, how am I misreading? You said "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state" and ignored the rest. How's that LEGAL MINDSET. IF YOU IGNORE HALF OF THE AMENDMENT????
If the right to bear arms was independent of the militia, your reading the militia part of the second amendment out of the second amendment... That's improper legal analysis.
I giggled there for a second.
Since these are laws, you have to read them from a legal mindset.
I giggled for two seconds this time. Because you're accusing me of misreading after you clearly noted "the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."
I specify again "the right" and "shall not be infringed".
Now, how am I misreading? You said "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state" and ignored the rest. How's that LEGAL MINDSET. IF YOU IGNORE HALF OF THE AMENDMENT????
The right of the people in the militia can bear arms.
If the right to bear arms was independent of the militia, your reading the militia part of the second amendment out of the second amendment... That's improper legal analysis.
I giggled there for a second.
Since these are laws, you have to read them from a legal mindset.
I giggled for two seconds this time. Because you're accusing me of misreading after you clearly noted "the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."
I specify again "the right" and "shall not be infringed".
Now, how am I misreading? You said "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state" and ignored the rest. How's that LEGAL MINDSET. IF YOU IGNORE HALF OF THE AMENDMENT????
The right of the people in the militia can bear arms.
Which is one interpretation of the amendment. Under that interpretation, anyone eligible for the draft still has the right to bear arms.
Mariena: There are obviously still criminals with firearms. They'll always get their weapons through other means. So, if you ask me.. Get rid of that second Amendment.
You hit the nail on the head, but you took it in the opposite direction that I would have. Criminals will always have access to guns, illegal or not, so what will making them illegal do?
Making guns illegal will in fact reduce the amount of criminals that have firearms. I have no numbers or articles to back this up, but how many would buy a gun as a civilian only to use it as a tool for criminality, instead of home defense?
It would remove a lot of guns that aren't supposed to be there.. let's say.. in the hands of a ton of civilians, whom are not supposed to have it in the first place. How many stories have you heard of "son grabs handgun from dad and kills people with it"? Heck, an article was posted not a day or two ago where that kid grabbed a 9mm handgun from his parents from an unsecure lockbox. The xbox360 kid. This will probably dramatically reduce those "school shooting dramas" that are in the news every now and then. And of course kids that shoot their parents, ahem. Such people are too incompetent to safely own firearms. It needs to be regulated.
And normally I don't like to compare to other people.. but.. We, The Netherlands, do it. Europe does it. Heck, Asia and Australia do it. Why can't the USA do it safely? Why would banning firearms in the rest of the world WORK, while in the USA it would not?
On the other hand, I live in Europe, so I don't have anything to say on this and I probably don't even care what you people will do over there.
Note: I did not base this on any news articles .. just common sense and female intuition.
Mariena: There are obviously still criminals with firearms. They'll always get their weapons through other means. So, if you ask me.. Get rid of that second Amendment.
You hit the nail on the head, but you took it in the opposite direction that I would have. Criminals will always have access to guns, illegal or not, so what will making them illegal do?
Making guns illegal will in fact reduce the amount of criminals that have firearms. I have no numbers or articles to back this up, but how many would buy a gun as a civilian only to use it as a tool for criminality, instead of home defense?
It would remove a lot of guns that aren't supposed to be there.. let's say.. in the hands of a ton of civilians, whom are not supposed to have it in the first place. How many stories have you heard of "son grabs handgun from dad and kills people with it"? Heck, an article was posted not a day or two ago where that kid grabbed a 9mm handgun from his parents from an unsecure lockbox. The xbox360 kid. This will probably dramatically reduce those "school shooting dramas" that are in the news every now and then. And of course kids that shoot their parents, ahem. Such people are too incompetent to safely own firearms. It needs to be regulated.
And normally I don't like to compare to other people.. but.. We, The Netherlands, do it. Europe does it. Heck, Asia and Australia do it. Why can't the USA do it safely? Why would banning firearms in the rest of the world WORK, while in the USA it would not?
On the other hand, I live in Europe, so I don't have anything to say on this and I probably don't even care what you people will do over there.
Note: I did not base this on any news articles .. just common sense and female intuition.
It is regulated, heavily. The famous school shooting cases and the 360kid case you mentioned all involved either illegal access or illegal ownership of the firearms. Those laws were already in place and they were broken anyways. Criminals are going to break the law, no matter how many of them there are.
Mariena: There are obviously still criminals with firearms. They'll always get their weapons through other means. So, if you ask me.. Get rid of that second Amendment.
You hit the nail on the head, but you took it in the opposite direction that I would have. Criminals will always have access to guns, illegal or not, so what will making them illegal do?
Making guns illegal will in fact reduce the amount of criminals that have firearms. I have no numbers or articles to back this up, but how many would buy a gun as a civilian only to use it as a tool for criminality, instead of home defense?
It would remove a lot of guns that aren't supposed to be there.. let's say.. in the hands of a ton of civilians, whom are not supposed to have it in the first place. How many stories have you heard of "son grabs handgun from dad and kills people with it"? Heck, an article was posted not a day or two ago where that kid grabbed a 9mm handgun from his parents from an unsecure lockbox. The xbox360 kid. This will probably dramatically reduce those "school shooting dramas" that are in the news every now and then. And of course kids that shoot their parents, ahem. Such people are too incompetent to safely own firearms. It needs to be regulated.
And normally I don't like to compare to other people.. but.. We, The Netherlands, do it. Europe does it. Heck, Asia and Australia do it. Why can't the USA do it safely? Why would banning firearms in the rest of the world WORK, while in the USA it would not?
On the other hand, I live in Europe, so I don't have anything to say on this and I probably don't even care what you people will do over there.
Note: I did not base this on any news articles .. just common sense and female intuition.
It is regulated, heavily. The famous school shooting cases and the 360kid case you mentioned all involved either illegal access or illegal ownership of the firearms. Those laws were already in place and they were broken anyways. Criminals are going to break the law, no matter how many of them there are.
Alrighty, but still my question is:
And normally I don't like to compare to other people.. but.. We, The Netherlands, do it. Europe does it. Heck, Asia and Australia do it. Why can't the USA do it safely? Why would banning firearms in the rest of the world WORK, while in the USA it would not?
Some countries that have done it can't do it safely. In the UK crimes involving firearms jumped from 13,874 in '98/'99 ('97 being the year the ban was put into place) to 24,070 in '03/'04. More recently, the % of crimes commited with a firearm has lowered, yet the crime rates have stayed the same or have even risen.
Mariena: There are obviously still criminals with firearms. They'll always get their weapons through other means. So, if you ask me.. Get rid of that second Amendment.
You hit the nail on the head, but you took it in the opposite direction that I would have. Criminals will always have access to guns, illegal or not, so what will making them illegal do?
Making guns illegal will in fact reduce the amount of criminals that have firearms. I have no numbers or articles to back this up, but how many would buy a gun as a civilian only to use it as a tool for criminality, instead of home defense?
It would remove a lot of guns that aren't supposed to be there.. let's say.. in the hands of a ton of civilians, whom are not supposed to have it in the first place. How many stories have you heard of "son grabs handgun from dad and kills people with it"? Heck, an article was posted not a day or two ago where that kid grabbed a 9mm handgun from his parents from an unsecure lockbox. The xbox360 kid. This will probably dramatically reduce those "school shooting dramas" that are in the news every now and then. And of course kids that shoot their parents, ahem. Such people are too incompetent to safely own firearms. It needs to be regulated.
And normally I don't like to compare to other people.. but.. We, The Netherlands, do it. Europe does it. Heck, Asia and Australia do it. Why can't the USA do it safely? Why would banning firearms in the rest of the world WORK, while in the USA it would not?
On the other hand, I live in Europe, so I don't have anything to say on this and I probably don't even care what you people will do over there.
Note: I did not base this on any news articles .. just common sense and female intuition.
It is regulated, heavily. The famous school shooting cases and the 360kid case you mentioned all involved either illegal access or illegal ownership of the firearms. Those laws were already in place and they were broken anyways. Criminals are going to break the law, no matter how many of them there are.
Alrighty, but still my question is:
And normally I don't like to compare to other people.. but.. We, The Netherlands, do it. Europe does it. Heck, Asia and Australia do it. Why can't the USA do it safely? Why would banning firearms in the rest of the world WORK, while in the USA it would not?
Because you would only be able to regulate the guns the general public uses at first for a long time you would have criminals running around with guns while the civilians are now unarmed. It works in Europe because the law has been in place from the beginning we didn't wait for everyone to amass armories or guns before taking them back.
Mariena: There are obviously still criminals with firearms. They'll always get their weapons through other means. So, if you ask me.. Get rid of that second Amendment.
You hit the nail on the head, but you took it in the opposite direction that I would have. Criminals will always have access to guns, illegal or not, so what will making them illegal do?
Making guns illegal will in fact reduce the amount of criminals that have firearms. I have no numbers or articles to back this up, but how many would buy a gun as a civilian only to use it as a tool for criminality, instead of home defense?
It would remove a lot of guns that aren't supposed to be there.. let's say.. in the hands of a ton of civilians, whom are not supposed to have it in the first place. How many stories have you heard of "son grabs handgun from dad and kills people with it"? Heck, an article was posted not a day or two ago where that kid grabbed a 9mm handgun from his parents from an unsecure lockbox. The xbox360 kid. This will probably dramatically reduce those "school shooting dramas" that are in the news every now and then. And of course kids that shoot their parents, ahem. Such people are too incompetent to safely own firearms. It needs to be regulated.
And normally I don't like to compare to other people.. but.. We, The Netherlands, do it. Europe does it. Heck, Asia and Australia do it. Why can't the USA do it safely? Why would banning firearms in the rest of the world WORK, while in the USA it would not?
On the other hand, I live in Europe, so I don't have anything to say on this and I probably don't even care what you people will do over there.
Note: I did not base this on any news articles .. just common sense and female intuition.
It is regulated, heavily. The famous school shooting cases and the 360kid case you mentioned all involved either illegal access or illegal ownership of the firearms. Those laws were already in place and they were broken anyways. Criminals are going to break the law, no matter how many of them there are.
Alrighty, but still my question is:
And normally I don't like to compare to other people.. but.. We, The Netherlands, do it. Europe does it. Heck, Asia and Australia do it. Why can't the USA do it safely? Why would banning firearms in the rest of the world WORK, while in the USA it would not?
Because you would only be able to regulate the guns the general public uses at first for a long time you would have criminals running around with guns while the civilians are now unarmed. It works in Europe because the law has been in place from the beginning we didn't wait for everyone to amass armories or guns before taking them back.
Firearms for self defense is a joke, almost all the time they draw the gun before you to, you try to draw your gun, you get shot.
The only solution i can really tink of is at first make it harder to get a concealed carry license then when guns are off the streets from that you start slowly making them harder to get and in a few years you can get them out all together just taking them away suddenly would cause an uproar.
I do all my best thinking with a few drinks on me apparently now whether its valid or not is a different question
Oh and sorry i didnt quote you but that would start making posts ridiculously long real fast
It is regulated, heavily. The famous school shooting cases and the 360kid case you mentioned all involved either illegal access or illegal ownership of the firearms. Those laws were already in place and they were broken anyways. Criminals are going to break the law, no matter how many of them there are.
Virginia Tech massacre. They found a receipt on him for two pistols. From an average gun shop. And: Even if it won't stop crime, why not make it harder for them to get guns? There are better and safer methods of security than owning a gun.
Extra Punctuation
MovieBob: Intermission
Experienced Points
First Person
Miracle of Sound: Encore
Exploding Barrels
Loading Time
No Right Explanation
Backchat
Drinking Games
Escape to the Movies
Escapecraft
Escapist Podcast
Feed Dump
GinxTV
Jimquisition
LoadingReadyRun
Mahalo
Meatbag and Co
Media Sandwich
Miracle of Sound
No Right Answer
Pro-Gamer Gauntlet
Reviews
Space Janitors
Tales from the Table
The Big Picture
The Escapist Presents
The Retro Show
Trailers
Unskippable
Zero Punctuation
Max Payne 3 Review
Company of Heroes 2
XCOM Enemy Unknown
Black Ops 2
Diablo 3 Review
TERA Review
Firefall Beta Preview
Starhawk Review
Critical Miss
Name Game
Amendment II
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.
This clearly states that only Militia has the right to bear arms, so don't use the second amendment as a way to say "Gun Control is unconstitutional".
Edit: Adding my replies.
Standard legal construction is to look all parts of the same amendment so that they fit together and make sense.
You can setup a "Well Regulated Militia" ahead of time, so they won't have to "Throw Rocks".
If the right to bear arms was independent of the militia, your reading the militia part of the second amendment out of the second amendment... That's improper legal analysis.
Why is the militia part in the second amendment if not to regulate who gets the guns?