Second Amendment

[icedtea]

So in Con law we are going over the 2nd Amendment and the debate larely seems to be focused on whether it is a collective right or an individual right.

I am leaning toward an individual right not tied to state militias.

Thought / opinions ?

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.

[BigKahuna13]

So in Con law we are going over the 2nd Amendment and the debate larely seems to be focused on whether it is a collective right or an individual right.

I am leaning toward an individual right not tied to state militias.

Thought / opinions ?

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.

"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State" is a dependant clause modifying - in this case giving a reason for - the independent clause "the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"

So I think the intent was to justify a militia - which back then meant any ablebodied man - with the idea that the militia would protect the states from a runaway Federal government. Realistically that doesn't work anymore. Not even close. So the 2nd is an anachronism in that it no longer serves its original purpose.

Which is a completely separate question from whether or not free people have the right to own firearms - they do.

[icedtea]

So in Con law we are going over the 2nd Amendment and the debate larely seems to be focused on whether it is a collective right or an individual right.

I am leaning toward an individual right not tied to state militias.

Thought / opinions ?

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.

"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State" is a dependant clause modifying - in this case giving a reason for - the independent clause "the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"

So I think the intent was to justify a militia - which back then meant any ablebodied man - with the idea that the militia would protect the states from a runaway Federal government. Realistically that doesn't work anymore. Not even close. So the 2nd is an anachronism in that it no longer serves its original purpose.

Which is a completely separate question from whether or not free people have the right to own firearms - they do.

I think you can look at it as it it an independant clause, showing a regard to Federalism concerns. And by the use of the word people and not state it implies a individual right to bear arms, which I feel is what the framers intended and personally agree with.

[BigKahuna13]

So in Con law we are going over the 2nd Amendment and the debate larely seems to be focused on whether it is a collective right or an individual right.

I am leaning toward an individual right not tied to state militias.

Thought / opinions ?

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.

"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State" is a dependant clause modifying - in this case giving a reason for - the independent clause "the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"

So I think the intent was to justify a militia - which back then meant any ablebodied man - with the idea that the militia would protect the states from a runaway Federal government. Realistically that doesn't work anymore. Not even close. So the 2nd is an anachronism in that it no longer serves its original purpose.

Which is a completely separate question from whether or not free people have the right to own firearms - they do.

I think you can look at it as it it an independant clause, showing a regard to Federalism concerns. And by the use of the word people and not state it implies a individual right to bear arms, which I feel is what the framers intended and personally agree with.

But it's not really an independant clause. "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state" really can't stand on it's own the way the declarative statement: "the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" can. I have a hard time interpreting the first clause as anything other than a justification for the second. Which gets back to the "well what's a militia then and now" question.

Do you it's significant that "People" is capitalized? Does that imply something different than "people" would have?

[BadDog]

So I think the intent was to justify a militia - which back then meant any ablebodied man - with the idea that the militia would protect the states from a runaway Federal government. Realistically that doesn't work anymore. Not even close. So the 2nd is an anachronism in that it no longer serves its original purpose.

So sad but so true -- hence the states have stood by while an illegitimate "President" has made illegimate appointments to a now theocratic "Supreme Court".

"Remember 9/11 -- Stamp Out Religous Fanatics!"

[Bubba]

The right of the people to bear arms is absolutely necessary as is a peoples' militia. How else are we going to defend ourselves from the UN's secret black helicopters already standing by to take over the country under the new world order?

[BadDog]

The right of the people to bear arms is absolutely necessary as is a peoples' militia. How else are we going to defend ourselves from the UN's secret black helicopters already standing by to take over the country under the new world order?

Yes...but not sure if the UN could even get it together to use their black scooters to take over a county on behalf of New World Coffee...

And doesn't parity seem to require that we arm bears as well?

[icedtea]

So in Con law we are going over the 2nd Amendment and the debate larely seems to be focused on whether it is a collective right or an individual right.

I am leaning toward an individual right not tied to state militias.

Thought / opinions ?

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.

"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State" is a dependant clause modifying - in this case giving a reason for - the independent clause "the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"

So I think the intent was to justify a militia - which back then meant any ablebodied man - with the idea that the militia would protect the states from a runaway Federal government. Realistically that doesn't work anymore. Not even close. So the 2nd is an anachronism in that it no longer serves its original purpose.

Which is a completely separate question from whether or not free people have the right to own firearms - they do.

I think you can look at it as it it an independant clause, showing a regard to Federalism concerns. And by the use of the word people and not state it implies a individual right to bear arms, which I feel is what the framers intended and personally agree with.

But it's not really an independant clause. "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state" really can't stand on it's own the way the declarative statement: "the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" can. I have a hard time interpreting the first clause as anything other than a justification for the second. Which gets back to the "well what's a militia then and now" question.

Do you it's significant that "People" is capitalized? Does that imply something different than "people" would have?

I did not take that into consideration, but I do think that it would make a differance and lend to more your opinion concerning People with the state militia.
It seems to me we need less gun control and more education.

[G-smashed]

The right of the people to bear arms is absolutely necessary as is a peoples' militia. How else are we going to defend ourselves from the UN's secret black helicopters already standing by to take over the country under the new world order?

That sounds pretty paranoid coming from you!
It sounds like you've been talking to Xjib or Bling or Dick Cheney.
Besides, wouldn't UN helicopters be blue?

[XtremeJibber2001]

It seems to me we need less gun control and more education.

I'm in agreement with this statement. Gun control is for the most part, useless, especially for those who wish to do harm unto others in total disregard of any law.

What amount of education, how much education, and who needs to be educated is the big question.

That sounds pretty paranoid coming from you!
It sounds like you've been talking to Xjib or Bling or Dick Cheney.
Besides, wouldn't UN helicopters be blue?

When will this madness stop!? I haven't drank the Kool-aid since Bubba, BK, DMC, and CS straightened me out. Give credit where credit is due.

[Bubba]

And doesn't parity seem to require that we arm bears as well?

I have the right to both bear arms and bare arms. Arming bears would not be a bad idea but could start an arms race to avoid shifting the balance of power.

[icedtea]

It seems to me we need less gun control and more education.

I'm in agreement with this statement. Gun control is for the most part, useless, especially for those who wish to do harm unto others in total disregard of any law.

What amount of education, how much education, and who needs to be educated is the big question.


Most people should be able to understand the basic concepts of using firearms after say a six hour class.
It would be great in my opinion to have an education program similiar to that of driver's ed. Make it almost mandatory that all citizens receive proper training and education.
I would educate all those who have not exhibited great personality flaws throughout there life or are inherently angry.
It just seems to me that all I have ever heard about guns is growing up is that they are bad and dangerous. Since then I have been to a shooting range and have learned how to properly handle and shoot a gun.
It is quite a feeling have one in your control and also a humbling one.

WARNING THIS IS A JOKE - "guns don't kill people, dangerous minorities kill people"

or a little more PC - "If guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns"

[BigKahuna13]

It seems to me we need less gun control and more education.

I'm in agreement with this statement. Gun control is for the most part, useless, especially for those who wish to do harm unto others in total disregard of any law.

What amount of education, how much education, and who needs to be educated is the big question.


Most people should be able to understand the basic concepts of using firearms after say a six hour class.
It would be great in my opinion to have an education program similiar to that of driver's ed. Make it almost mandatory that all citizens receive proper training and education.
I would educate all those who have not exhibited great personality flaws throughout there life or are inherently angry.
It just seems to me that all I have ever heard about guns is growing up is that they are bad and dangerous. Since then I have been to a shooting range and have learned how to properly handle and shoot a gun.
It is quite a feeling have one in your control and also a humbling one.

WARNING THIS IS A JOKE - "guns don't kill people, dangerous minorities kill people"

or a little more PC - "If guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns"

When I lived there I had a pistol permit issued by NYC. I took me nearly a year, jumping through all manner of hoops, and a considerable sum of money to get it. What it didn't take was any kind of training classes. None at all. I felt the city was criminally negligent for not demanding proof that prospective firearm owners had learned how to safely handle the things.

[icedtea]

It seems to me we need less gun control and more education.

I'm in agreement with this statement. Gun control is for the most part, useless, especially for those who wish to do harm unto others in total disregard of any law.

What amount of education, how much education, and who needs to be educated is the big question.


Most people should be able to understand the basic concepts of using firearms after say a six hour class.
It would be great in my opinion to have an education program similiar to that of driver's ed. Make it almost mandatory that all citizens receive proper training and education.
I would educate all those who have not exhibited great personality flaws throughout there life or are inherently angry.
It just seems to me that all I have ever heard about guns is growing up is that they are bad and dangerous. Since then I have been to a shooting range and have learned how to properly handle and shoot a gun.
It is quite a feeling have one in your control and also a humbling one.

WARNING THIS IS A JOKE - "guns don't kill people, dangerous minorities kill people"

or a little more PC - "If guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns"

When I lived there I had a pistol permit issued by NYC. I took me nearly a year, jumping through all manner of hoops, and a considerable sum of money to get it. What it didn't take was any kind of training classes. None at all. I felt the city was criminally negligent for not demanding proof that prospective firearm owners had learned how to safely handle the things.

wow, that is shocking. a lot of deaths occur when people are cleanign their gun.

[XtremeJibber2001]

Most people should be able to understand the basic concepts of using firearms after say a six hour class.

Exactly. When I got my hunting license, I had to pass a class and attend a class that I'm certain was over an hour. They taught me very little about the operation of a gun, but explained to me what not to do. I also had to go out to the range to demonstrate I could sufficiently operate a gun, but this was in NJ.

It would be great in my opinion to have an education program similiar to that of driver's ed. Make it almost mandatory that all citizens receive proper training and education.

I agree, but the NRA and it's followers would see an issue with this because driving is a privilege where to bear arms is a right. Aside from the NRA's qualms, I agree wholeheartedly with your idea.

I would educate all those who have not exhibited great personality flaws throughout there life or are inherently angry.

This is quite the hurdle, it would be very hard to achieve such, IMHO.

wow, that is shocking. a lot of deaths occur when people are cleanign their gun.

It's actually not shocking for those who are familiar with gun laws. I can buy a gun in PA today and I'm set. No training, no test, noda. This includes everything from a simple Glock 17 all the way up to an AR-15