2nd amendent left ambiguous for a reason...

originally posted by: testingtesting
a reply to: EternalSolace

I'm a Brit so I don't know but aren't automatic weapons already banned?.
Or do you want them unbanned?.

They are not banned here, they are restricted. Meaning that you need to acquire a special license to own them.

The second amendment is not "ambiguous".

It's just that we all forgot how the English language works. For the following, I am using the term "independent clause" with regard to sentence structure and not the legal definition of a clause.

"A well-regulated militia(sentence fragment), being necessary to the security of a free state(sentence fragment)", is an independent clause and it can stand alone. No part of this independent clause creates or imposes a condition on the people.

..."the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed", is also an independent clause. It also does not impose any restrictions on the people and the right to arms except to say that such a right shall not be infringed.

It's not ambiguous. Just take an English class.

2nd amendment is a curious wording.

a well regulated militia....okay
so, who regulates the militia?

The citizens do of course
And how do citizens regulate? through laws and ordinances.

The forefathers would agree to safe and sane gun regulations based on that if its the will of the people...but it has to go both ways. Should the people vote to loosen restrictions, that is also considered regulating...and there may be times when removing "assault style" rifles from the average citizen is good, and allowing them to have it down the road is also good if times require it and the citizens vote for it

That seems the most straightforward way of reading the 2nd.

a reply to: projectvxn

Um...


I’m guessing you don’t know the definition of the word “arms”..

If they were not being ambiguous. Then why are Apache helicopters and nuclear missles legal to own???

Those are without question “arms” right???


The fact is they were 100% referring to militias and protecting against state on state or state on federal attacks..

The federal government regulates states, the states regulate individuals. So the constitution is ALWAYS referring to the state unless specifically stating otherwise.




The individuals right to own guns was considered “to go without saying”.. and was put in there to protect against a European system where the peasants couldn’t own ANY weapons..

After the military got so big and powerful the thought of regular people having those weapons was horrific. So WAY LATER the Supreme Court interpolated individual gun ownership out of what was INTENDED to be a protection against tyranny..

a reply to: JoshuaCox

First, the correct view of the second amendment is as I mentioned.

Secondly, the legal interpretation of what the word arms means has been satisfied already.

What Does the Word “Arms” Mean in the 2nd Amendment? - Tenth Amendment Center

From this we can conclude that the word “arms” referred to weapons found among contemporary military arsenals.

In 1755 Dr. Johnson’s Dictionary of the English Language was first published. It defined “arms” as “weapons of offence, or armour of defence.”

Again, the meaning does not exude military weapons.

Since the word “arms” means the same thing today as it did centuries ago it’s only logical the authors of the Second Amendment meant the same thing. And unlike the English Bill of Rights, there are no limitations placed on the right to keep and bear arms in the U.S. Constitution.

Let's not go out of our way to misinterpret the plain meaning of words, or even their derivative colloquialisms for the sake of further political expediency.

There are no restrictions on the American people when it comes to the right to keep and bear arms.

The Nuke argument is a strawman and you know it. It isn't even worth addressing.

a reply to: Jubei42

Why are you assuming the US military would side with the government? The US military is struggling with the taliban and they've used hell fire missiles on them for 17 years

a reply to: JDmOKI

We have never struggled with the Taliban. We've struggled with politicians.

Either let the military kill the enemy or don't go to war.

originally posted by: JDmOKI
a reply to: Jubei42

Why are you assuming the US military would side with the government?

Great point, they probably wouldn't. Even more reasons the 2nd is not there to keep the government in check

originally posted by: joemoe
People who argue for Gun control are not against guns, they just want guns in the hands of a few elites and their cronies that control the Government. After all, it takes people with guns to take away guns from those who are disenfranchised.

You don't need a gun to kill people.

In this modern age, they are so many more efficient ways, that the gun is really outmoded.

The gun is a particular type of tool, however, that facilitates a particular type of killing.

It's a tool of "anger" killing, because you deliberately aim it at the person or people you're angry at, and "see yourself" putting them down, feeling good that they got what they deserved etc...it carries a certain "mental correspondence" that clearly identifies both the killer and the victims in that act of rage, like a movie drama.

But, you can kill the same people, in secret, by poisoning their food in the school cafeteria, or releasing poisonous gas in the class room, all done in a way that you're "not seen" doing the killing, etc.. There are countless alternatives to the gun, if the sole objective is to kill.

What the gun does, is "celebrate" the kill. The killer wants to be seen by his victims while he is putting them down.

He wants to stand in front of his victims and say "you, and you, and you" with each bullet, speficying each individual victim in turn, because his rage is directed at specific individuals, and he needs "instant feedback confirmation" that they are being hit and killed by each pull of the trigger.

See? There's a certain "mental attitude" that's involve with the use of the "gun" as your killing tool.

It's a pumped up, self-importance, psychological mental drama, that gets acted out, that's only possible via the ready and easy "availability" of guns. Instant, and effortless.

Other types of killing requires more planning, more "reasoning", more "time", and so by the time the killer is ready with his plans, his anger is likely to have subsided, and he changes his mind. Too much effort to kill in other ways, and too easy to kill with the gun.

a reply to: Jubei42

I don't agree fighting a ground war in the US wouldn't be easy for even modern armies

a reply to: JDmOKI

Imagine the struggle of the well regulated militia

a reply to: Jubei42

It has already happened once during the civil war and it’ll probably happen again

Our forefathers would've never allowed the dumbing down of our education to the point where it stands now. A generation raised behind a keyboard that still somehow border on illiteracy. Those blaming a gun are looking for an temporary fix. The 2nd amendment is worded in a way that states that the right shall not be infringed upon.

Banning AR15s will not stop school shootings or mass shootings. They will choose another model of firearm to use. These kids are detached from reason and so isolated from others in this age of internet avatars on xbox gamws that life has no real value when they turn off the console. I know many of you laugh at the mention of religion but these things didn't happen when families went to church, ate dinner at the table, and parents spent quality time with their children.

Yes, religion accounts for a lot of death around the globe but America was a better place before we stopped believing in something greater than ourselves. We are seeing what happens when we turn our backs on the Lord by mocking anything Christian, glorifying violence, and not teaching our children that life is hard but does get better with time and they have someone that cares about them.

originally posted by: JoshuaCox
a reply to: EternalSolace

it is because they knew it was a jumbled mess of compromises. Not some set in stone dogma meant to outlast the ages..

Each individual hated parts of the constitution. They were not on the same page at all..

And? You do realize that the COTUS was ratified by a majority of the States, not the Founders, right?

And some of those States would not entertain ratification until the Bill of Rights was included.

originally posted by: projectvxn
The second amendment is not "ambiguous".

It's just that we all forgot how the English language works. For the following, I am using the term "independent clause" with regard to sentence structure and not the legal definition of a clause.

"A well-regulated militia(sentence fragment), being necessary to the security of a free state(sentence fragment)", is an independent clause and it can stand alone. No part of this independent clause creates or imposes a condition on the people.

..."the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed", is also an independent clause. It also does not impose any restrictions on the people and the right to arms except to say that such a right shall not be infringed.

It's not ambiguous. Just take an English class.

I don't see any ambiguity either. But, yet I understand things a bit differently.

Here is what that statement is saying, in "alternative words":

BECAUSE OF A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state,
THEREFORE the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

See?

The two parts of the statement go together. It is typical practice in well written English, to exclude the "BECAUSE OF" and "THEREFORE" terms, and write it as it appears in the constitution.

BUT...the first part does not stand on it's own, it needs to be completed by the second part, to finish the thought.

originally posted by: butcherguy
If there were automatic weapons available during the American Revolution, does anyone think that the Constitution would have been written to purposely exclude them from private ownership by citizens?

Maybe the founding fathers could have put a paragraph in the Declaration of Independence that the colonists would refuse them against similarly armed British?

CONTACT!!

Try that with black powder muzzleloaders!

.50 cal weed eaters.

originally posted by: paraphi
The Second Amendment talks about a "well regulated militia". There is no such thing. Also, the Second Amendment is only ambiguous because it's so vague. Probably OK for 1790 when people knew what a firearm was, and where there was prevailing political imperatives, but somewhat out of date today.

I speak as a non-American chipping in.

Well regulated in the sense that a militia wouldn't be very effective if it was stuck with muskets while the government used m16s.

In other words, well regulated enough to stand a chance or be on equal footing with the government.

originally posted by: Wardaddy454

Well regulated in the sense that a militia wouldn't be very effective if it was stuck with muskets while the government used m16s.

In other words, well regulated enough to stand a chance or be on equal footing with the government.

That was a balancing act that was only meaningful in the 1700s and 1800s.

Today, the Federal Government has Nuclear Weapons, and there's no conceivably way that we can see each state being allowed to develop equal armaments to match the Fed.

originally posted by: AMPTAH

originally posted by: Wardaddy454

Well regulated in the sense that a militia wouldn't be very effective if it was stuck with muskets while the government used m16s.

In other words, well regulated enough to stand a chance or be on equal footing with the government.

That was a balancing act that was only meaningful in the 1700s and 1800s.

Today, the Federal Government has Nuclear Weapons, and there's no conceivably way that we can see each state being allowed to develop equal armaments to match the Fed.

Sure, a civil nuke war would be started by a dem, I agree.

Obama would have used dirty bombs, at first.

originally posted by: AMPTAH

originally posted by: Wardaddy454

Well regulated in the sense that a militia wouldn't be very effective if it was stuck with muskets while the government used m16s.

In other words, well regulated enough to stand a chance or be on equal footing with the government.

That was a balancing act that was only meaningful in the 1700s and 1800s.

Today, the Federal Government has Nuclear Weapons, and there's no conceivably way that we can see each state being allowed to develop equal armaments to match the Fed.

Yes, because setting off a nuke on your own populace will definitely keep you in power. Nuclear powers around the globe would look on in horror and do nothing....

Not.