2nd Amendment: Has it changed since 1789?

So, kind of on the same topic of my other thread. I feel like these right-wingers think the 2nd Amendment has never changed, that it always was a "universal right".

If that's the case, a universal right for who? Why couldn't slaves own guns? What about immigrants? If slaves can't have guns is it because only citizens can have guns? Or is it anyone who is not a slave can have guns? Why can't felons have guns? Do felons lose natural rights? Is owning a gun a natural right? Or is it given to you by the state/government and can be taken away?

Should it be a natural right?

If it's not a natural right why can't we regulate guns?

Mod Edit - Rule 2 - Insult to a Group

 

An American citizen has the right to bare arms (own a gun), these rights can be taken away for criminal activity such as a felony as you have listed. That's it, simple as that. And yes, even as a 2nd amendment person, I think we need to be careful on who we sale them to, such as background checks, this is already an active requirement. However, it is impossible to keep guns out of the hands of criminals. They do not purchase guns that have a paper trail, unless of course it's just a spontaneous criminal act (a nutcase), who kills themselves after the act anyways.

To band guns completely would just increase the black market sales and murders. Bringing them across the borders etc.

 

The text of the 2nd amendment has not changed since 1791 (when it was added to the Constitution). It did not exist in 1789.

Slaves were illegally not allowed to have rights, so that's a silly point. Slavery was counter to the Constitution, and should never have been allowed.

Felons lose natural rights (even to the point of life itself, which is the most basic of natural rights), so felons losing the right to own guns is consistent with the Constitution (read the 5th amendment, where it says life, liberty and property can be taken by due process).

 

The Second Amendment has not changed. The Supreme Court's interpretation of it has. If you read the Second Amendment, you'll find it ambiguous.

 

They are not citizens

Are you born with anything that would prevent you from using a gun ? If not its a natural right. Governments can either protect these rights restrict these rights or deny them but they cant invent them.

 

What's wrong with the three other threads you created on the topic today? Are they flaming out?

 

Wow, do you ever think before posting, or are you paid to post weak propaganda?

There are as many pro-gun rights people in the Democrat party as the Republican. Its the "progressives" who want to ban guns, and they want that because they cannot control an armed population - exactly as the Founders intended.

Go read "The Law", by Bastiat. That will give you the foundation regarding rights and the role of the govt. http://bastiat.org/en/the_law.html

 

Slave owners and later democrats used government power to violate rights. In case you missed it we actually fought a war to free the slaves so their rights would stop being oppressed but intransigent democrats still tried. The first gun control was implemented by democrats to keep guns out of the hands of blacks.

BTW: Both the first and second amendments can be written on a napkin. You must think the Framers were stupid.

 

To anyone who wants to focus on the 2nd amendment as a justification for gun control, can you please answer this question: Does the 2nd amendment grant congress any legislative power?

 

Why do you think slaves were prohibited from owning guns?

 

The text of the second amendment has not changed.

The meaning of the text has changed dramatically, especially with the activist judge Scalia's opinion in Heller, where he basically re-wrote the 2A.

No longer was it about citizens "bearing arms" as a "well regulated" militia was necessary for a free state.

After Scalia's activism, the 2A is now about whether a weapon is of the type "commonly used" by law-abiding citizens. Whatever the Supremes decide they want that to be.

 

Does the 2nd amendment grant congress legislative power? Or does it limit congress' legislative power?

 

No amendment grants congress legislative power. That power is granted in Article I of the Constitution.

I think most constitutional amendments provide for some limitation on congressional power. The 2A does.

Does this have something to do with my post?

 

Most of the responses I get so far is that "only citizens can have guns".

Better warn all those immigrants that have guns that you are coming to take their guns away.

Proves my point, most right-wingers really don't know what they are talking about and have no clue what consequences laws have.

 

Only if you ignore the writings of the time of English law and the meaning of the amendment.

 

Of course, it's changed. But the barrel-strokers are generally ignorant of history.

The 2nd was certainly created in the context of a militia, a collective right. The founders hated the concept of a standing military. They saw what dangers of standing armies in Europe. The citizen militia was a concept that served as a stopgap until a standing army could be formed. Nothing more, nothing less.

None of this BS about self-protection or the RWNJ 24/7 carry that it has morphed into. That was not intent at the time.

- - - Updated - - -

Natural rights are hokum.

 

Nonsense, Scalia, simply restored the court to the proper historical understanding, undoing a few years of naked, aggressive activism by the left. The point of the second is that since you can't have a militia, well regulated or otherwise without an armed citizenry the citizens ought to be armed as they see fit.

 

Yes, it does have something to do with your post. Your post cites the 2nd amendment in a discussion about gun control legislation. However, the 2nd amendment authorizes no legislation whatsoever.

So if you want to find any language authorizing congress to enact laws restricting the acquisition and possession of firearms, you will have to look elsewhere in the constitution.

And when you find such language, perhaps you would like to share it with the rest of us.

 

What part of the 2A language says that you have a right to weapons commonly used by law abiding citizens?

 

This part: "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

 

Don't see it. That partial quote of the 2A is talking about bearing arms. But thanks for sharing your opinion.

 

No. It's talking about our right to keep and bear arms. You omitted the word right in your response above.

You asked about the right to weapons, did you not? Oh yeah, here it is: "What part of the 2A language says that you have a right to weapons..."

 

There you go. After Heller, you don't have the right to keep and bear arms.

You have the right to have weapons that the Supremes say are commonly used by law abiding citizens. Whatever that means. Which is whatever the Supremes decide they want it to me.

 

Have you found the language in the constitution that allows congress to enact gun control legislation yet?

 

Did you not read my response the first time I posted it?