Gun control and the 2nd amendment ?????

[The Decider]

There are too many interpretations of the constitution to allow for us to directly follow it. You can have literal translations by following the constitution word for word. You can also have spiritual interpretation by looking and what the words meant at the time. Our legal system is common law. We rely on precedent to clarify law. The reason we have a supreme court is to create the interpretations of the constitution and precedents in the law. After the supreme court rules it is the main precedent that federal and local law must follow.

I agree with you, which is why I asked for legal evidence to support the main claim in the OP:

"Assuming the second amendment does mean a right to bear arms PERIOD, then it would also mean that if you could afford it you could put a nuclear missile on your property."

What constitutional precedent in the history of United States jurisprudence applied the "right to bear arms" to any weapon other than personal arms such as rifles and similar small arms? The OP doesn't address this question.

[tokolak]

In response to the OP:
You can not own any weapon. It is regulated by state and federal laws according to the supreme court.In the district of columbia vs heller case.

*You can not own any weapon besides reasonable personal arms.
I should seriously proof-read before posting.

[Thanatos]

Which phrase or form of the case is that Thanatos? I have no worry about the credence of the NRA and their ire…. believe me.

Please explain the clauses you mention and just what they mean to you;

Concerning grammar, many people would like to read the second amendment as just "the right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed." This has spurred an intensely politicized debate about the meaning of the commas and the grammatical structure of this rather awkward (by today's standards) sentence.

Clause and Effect - New York Times

The founders — most of whom were classically educated — would have recognized this rhetorical device as the “ablative absolute” of Latin prose. To take an example from Horace likely to have been familiar to them: “Caesar, being in command of the earth, I fear neither civil war nor death by violence” (ego nec tumultum nec mori per vim metuam, tenente Caesare terras). The main clause flows logically from the absolute clause: “Because Caesar commands the earth, I fear neither civil war nor death by violence.”

Likewise, when the justices finish diagramming the Second Amendment, they should end up with something that expresses a causal link, like: “Because a well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.” In other words, the amendment is really about protecting militias, notwithstanding the originalist arguments to the contrary.

Basically, the way you parsed it is right and the way the NRA wants it read is not.

while also explaining having guns and thoughts, with Revolutions and freedom. Thanks

One of the more compelling and common arguments for the second amendment is that we might need guns to defend ourselves from the government. Well, alright, governments are not known for being warm and fuzzy so maintaining freedom is a legitimate concern.

However, the top threats to freedom in the world today are not a shortage of guns and ammunition. It doesn't matter how strong your arms are if your brain went dead in front of the television a long time ago and you've been reduced to a jingoistic fearful lemming. Such creatures literally cannot help but be pawns in someone else's scheme. Thus, truly defending freedom starts with cultivating the right attitude and being aware of the world around you.

The right mental state is both necessary and sufficient for freedom. I say sufficient because it's very, very hard to keep a group of people down who are no longer interested in what you have to say.

[m5lange1]

Quoting Thedecider What constitutional precedent in the history of United States jurisprudence applied the "right to bear arms" to any weapon other than personal arms such as rifles and similar small arms? The OP doesn't address this question.

I thought I did

Quoting myself @the decider. You can bear a nuclear warhead by putting it on your property, or to be technical to carry it around on the back of a big rig. If you can afford one you can surely afford the other. And bearing a tank is easy as long as you know how to drive it. The point is not the logistics of actually carrying them but what is allowed to be carried.

You can bear a bomb you can bear a bazooka you can bear a rocket launcher and grenades. (since you seem to be fixating on my nuke example we will drop that). We all know that those weapons were not available when the amendment was adopted. Neither were semiautomatic pistols and assult riflels yet those saying restricting use of those weapons infringes on their constitutional rights. Why does the 2nd amendment (And it is in argument against restrictive ordinances and laws etc that this argument is raised) apply to semiautomatic pistols and assult rifels and not rocket launchers and hand grenades?

To say laws have been passed is irrelevant to my point. My point is that either the second amendment in and of itself either applies to "arms" regardless of the destructive ablity or technilogical development or it only applies to some 'arms' and to claim it gives anyone or any organization the right to decide which weapons it referrs to is just hipocricy.

[m5lange1]

Interestingly the add at the top of this page as I write this says

TELL CONGRESS TO SUPPORT THE SECOND AMENDMENT. SIGN PETITION

If, as Trojan_Ripper suggests, it is based on state or local laws then what are they trying to get Congress involved for? I did not click on this but solicitation on this matter is normally to get Congress to prohibit local, state, restrictions the carrying of SOME but not ALL weapons.

[tokolak]

I thought I did


To say laws have been passed is irrelevant to my point. My point is that either the second amendment in and of itself either applies to "arms" regardless of the destructive ablity or technilogical development or it only applies to some 'arms' and to claim it gives anyone or any organization the right to decide which weapons it referrs to is just hipocricy.

Why should a restriction of arms be hypocritical. Almost everything needs to be regulated to some degree. Murder is ilegal. That means all killing is wrong. We should disband our army and arrest all those who fought in wars because they are killers and have broken this sacred law. There is no hypocracy in limiting arms through laws.

[Thanatos]

We should disband our army and arrest all those who fought in wars because they are killers and have broken this sacred law.

There are people who might not say that but not out of sarcasm. Sometimes, on some issues, you'll get this nagging sense that the "right" answer is still wrong and the utterly insane choice is the truly right one but that it might be best to not point this out too loudly.

... and sometimes, history proves you right.

In a fair, sane universe nobody would build machines to kill people and nobody would use them.

[The Decider]

I thought I did

You can bear a bomb you can bear a bazooka you can bear a rocket launcher and grenades. (since you seem to be fixating on my nuke example we will drop that). We all know that those weapons were not available when the amendment was adopted. Neither were semiautomatic pistols and assult riflels yet those saying restricting use of those weapons infringes on their constitutional rights. Why does the 2nd amendment (And it is in argument against restrictive ordinances and laws etc that this argument is raised) apply to semiautomatic pistols and assult rifels and not rocket launchers and hand grenades?

To say laws have been passed is irrelevant to my point. My point is that either the second amendment in and of itself either applies to "arms" regardless of the destructive ablity or technilogical development or it only applies to some 'arms' and to claim it gives anyone or any organization the right to decide which weapons it referrs to is just hipocricy.

Your argument is stronger without the nuclear weapons example, but still flawed. The "right to bear arms" phrase has an important 2nd Amendment qualifier, "a well-regulated militia." Regulation implies choice and prioritization. We don't allow people to own nukes--I mean "bear" them if you insist--because the social detriment of a nuclear armed populace outweighs the benefit. Same goes for grenades, shoulder-fired rocket launchers, bazookas, nunchuck sticks, Kung Fu stars, asp tactical batons, and a myriad of other prohibited personal weapons. We also don't allow people who yell "Fire!" in a crowded theater to hide behind the 1st Amendment right to free speech. The founders did not want us to suspend common sense, which in part led to their creation of a Supreme Court to interpret the Constitution.

[m5lange1]

We also don't allow people who yell "Fire!" in a crowded theater to hide behind the 1st Amendment right to free speech

Exactly!!! But here is the difference... There is no group out ther trying to use the 1st Amendment to give them the right to yell fire!

[Trojan_Ripper]

Our founding fathers wisely allowed for us to amend what they wrote down didn’t they M5lange1?

I really liked the Deciders well said statement and point of…. “The founders did not want us to suspend common sense, which in part led to their creation of a Supreme Court to interpret the Constitution”.

So considering the question and statements above, and from the thread responses, I wonder if you would mind to clarify your stance a little more.

1. Do you believe we should have the right to “bear” ANY and all type arms that we want, and why?

2. Do you agree and accept the stance brought by the NRA on our second amendment rights?

3. Do you believe the NRA has tried to limit or increase our rights on bearing arms?

4. You mentioned Arizona earlier allowing guns in bars, do you agree with that law?

5. You mentioned earlier about the old west laws of checking your guns, would you have agreed with that law or ordinance?

6. Would you agree that your right to holstering a pistol (open carry) in plain view should be allowed in ALL states, and those states who do not allow it are in violation of our second amendment rights?

7. Do you believe citizens should be required to register all their guns? What’s the pros and con’s of all the different types of certifications, permit’s, etc required by different states? Shouldn’t all 50 states have the same laws concerning open carry, concealed, within reach, suppressed/silenced, etc, laws?

[gallo]

Like the Second Amendment states:

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….

To make it easy start with “The National Firearms Act of 1934” which regulates what you can bear.

Your understanding of the ablative case is likely to attract the ire of the NRA. Many people will insist that the first two clauses do not modify the third.

So says the Supreme Court, so the question is moot. But just because you have a right to bear arms does not mean that the Federal, state, and local governments cannot regulate arms, and in certain cases deny someone the right to carry one (a felon, for example).

See District of Colombia et al v. Heller (No. 07–290).

[Trojan_Ripper]

So says the Supreme Court, so the question is moot. But just because you have a right to bear arms does not mean that the Federal, state, and local governments cannot regulate arms, and in certain cases deny someone the right to carry one (a felon, for example).

See District of Colombia et al v. Heller (No. 07–290).

So your point being....?