2nd Amendment Analysis
-
blackeagle603
- Posts: 9783
- Joined: Tue Aug 19, 2008 4:13 am
Re: 2nd Amendment Analysis
Any arguments that it doesn't clearly apply to individual right to bear arms (both on personal property and in public) pretty much reduces to either ignorance, wishful thinking or sophistry.
So the real discussion isn't about the meaning of the 2nd but rather a personal belief/values view of whether it should be there at all (or not).
So the real discussion isn't about the meaning of the 2nd but rather a personal belief/values view of whether it should be there at all (or not).
"The Guncounter: More fun than a barrel of tattooed knife-fighting chain-smoking monkey butlers with drinking problems and excessive gambling debts!"
"The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic;" Justice Story
"The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic;" Justice Story
-
scipioafricanus
- Posts: 1301
- Joined: Mon Aug 18, 2008 10:08 pm
Re: 2nd Amendment Analysis
Yes you could buy a cannon when the 2nd Amendment was ratified, Mr Biden. You are either a liar or ignorant. After years of you saying how smart you are, it must be the former.
If there is a Stairway to Heaven, is there an Escalator to Hell?
If God wanted men to play soccer, he wouldn’t have given us arms. - Mike Ditka
If God wanted men to play soccer, he wouldn’t have given us arms. - Mike Ditka
-
g-man
- Posts: 1431
- Joined: Tue Aug 19, 2008 4:40 pm
Re: 2nd Amendment Analysis
Three words in the Constitution which help frame the discussion on the ability of 'civilians' to purchase weapons of war, up to and including (at least) naval artillery:
and yet here we are.
Congress can still grant a private citizen, owning a ship equipped and manned for war (which included at the time of the adoption of the Constitution the cannons, mortars, muskets, rifles, swords, cutlasses... etc. ad nauseum) permission to attack the ships of another nation on their behalf. It is therefore ridiculous to believe that the same founding fathers who enumerated the power for Congress to do this believed in anything other than the individual right to own arms. Of all types, shapes, sizes, capabilities...Article I, § 8, clause 11, (Enumerated powers) wrote: To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;
and yet here we are.
Igitur qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum
-
MiddleAgedKen
- Posts: 2873
- Joined: Mon Aug 18, 2008 8:11 pm
- Location: Flyover Country
Re: 2nd Amendment Analysis
What did the British intend to seize in Lexington and Concord, and from whom?
Shop at Traitor Joe's: Just 10% to the Big Guy gets you the whole store and everything in it!
-
Langenator
- Posts: 1155
- Joined: Sun Jun 27, 2010 2:10 pm
Re: 2nd Amendment Analysis
Another thing I read recently is that the modern practice of putting all of the Amendments, especially the Bill of Rights, as a separate list of items outside the main document.
They weren't intended to stand like that at all. Madison intended most of what we now call the Bill of Rights to be inserted into Article I, Section 9 - the section that lists the things Congress isn't allowed to do. It does, to me at least, reinforce the concept that it doesn't grant any right, but rather is a restriction on the .gov.
This is in keeping with the standard practice for how existing laws are changed.
They weren't intended to stand like that at all. Madison intended most of what we now call the Bill of Rights to be inserted into Article I, Section 9 - the section that lists the things Congress isn't allowed to do. It does, to me at least, reinforce the concept that it doesn't grant any right, but rather is a restriction on the .gov.
This is in keeping with the standard practice for how existing laws are changed.
Fortuna Fortis Paratus