2nd Amendment: Has it changed since 1789?

That's not at all what the Constitution says.

If you want a description of a well regulated militia see Article 1 Section 8.

 

the People are the Militia. you are either, well regulated or not. it really is that simple, except to the fantastical, right wing.

- - - Updated - - -

A simple appeal to ignorance of the law, is all you have.

 

This is brilliant, BTW.

 

The founding fathers clearly understood what happens when government is more powerful than the citizenry it serves. You'd have to be a complete idiot to believe they would not have put safeguards into place in order to give the people the tools they need to repel authoritarian government. And so, they gave us the Second Amendment, after due consideration.

I wonder why those same Founding Fathers then USED that very same "well regulated militia" to put DOWN "insurrections against authoritarian government" like Shay's Rebellion and the Whiskey Rebellion...

 

nothing but propaganda and rhetoric.

the People are the Militia.

 

LMFAO@"meaningless word salads". That's the perfect description!

 

Let me give you the definition of the word AMENDMENT.

"Change in a legal document made by adding, altering, or omitting a certain part or term."

http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/amendment.html

The Second AMENDMENT was ADDED to the Constitution in 1791. The Constitution was ratified in 1789.

Article 1 Section 8 applies to militias called into service and has no bearing on the Right to keep and bear Arms. More than 100 statutes, court rulings, and statements by the people that wrote / supported / enacted the Second Amendment have been introduced by various posters in the course of this thread. Would you like to revisit them?

 

Now you're talking out both sides of your mouth. We've been telling you that all along. There are two different things in the Second Amendment: a well regulated Militia AND "the Right of the people to keep and bear Arms."

 

The founding fathers realized that even THEY were not unique, perfect, or above reproach.

I've never seriously researched the Shay's Rebellion and the Whiskey Rebellion (and neither have you), so I don't know all the legal issues that were on the table NOR what steps those who resorted to rebellion took. IF those who began the rebellion did not exhaust all of their nonviolent legal and political avenues of redress, they might not have been legally justified in what they did. IF the government overstepped their boundaries, they were wrong regardless of the outcome of the fight.

Having the Right to keep and bear Arms does not mean that you will prevail in every fight. And, Lesh, with literally hundreds of documents from the people that wrote / debated / enacted the Second Amendment, you're now stuck with explaining away their thousands of words that disagree wholly with your position.

- - - Updated - - -

Yeah, NOBODY can appeal to your ignorance of the law, can they?

 

So why doesn't say "the right of the militia to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"? It doesn't say that, it says that the right of the people shall not be infringed.

 

in the movie the Patriot by Mel Gibson, everyone had to be armed first before they could be well regulated to defend against england.

you cannot pick and choose who will be armed for a well regulated militia during a time of oppression, the people must be armed at the ready to be well regulated later on.

 

This has been legally argued and the finding is the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed upon protects we the people from being infringed on.

 

Full Automatic Firearms, also called Machine Guns are not Illegal, Civilian transferable Machine Guns must have a Manufacture date before 1986, An M-16A2 will cost over $ 30,000 plus a $200 Tax.

 

They are heavily regulated...in other words...infringed upon

 

What is your point? Are you trying to argue those are "arms" the people have an infringeable the right to "bear" after Heller? How about hand grenades, shoulder fired SAMs, LAWs, rocket propelled grenades

 

Those are called "Destructive Devices" and are subject to a $200 Tax for each Grenade or Rocket, as well as the Weapon that fires it.

I am arguing nothing, I simply responded to another poster Iriemon that said; Machine Guns are Illegal.

 

So they are not "arms"? Isn't a handgun a "destructive device"? It is if you point it at someone and pull the trigger.

Where can I buy a new M-16?

 

Has it changed? I would say yes or at least the interpretation of it has. I grew up in the 1950's when the only gun control law on the books was you had to have a federal permit to own a machine gun. I would say the second amendment has been infringed on many times over with all the gun control laws we have on the books today. So have they worked?

Back when I grew up there was only one mass shooting for the entire decade of the 1950's. How many do we have this decade, so many I don't even bother to count. So my question to you is, are gun control laws an attempt to cover up what has gone wrong with our society since the 1950's when no gun control laws were needed and with that lone exception of a federal permit for a machine gun? None existed.

Personally, I think all these gun control laws are nothing more than a bandaid to cover up the ills of our society. Passing a gun control is much easier than trying to find out the root causers of why there are so many mass shootings and take the steps to eliminate the causes. Passing a gun control law makes those who passed them or it feel good. They can say we done something. But have they really when no one has touched the causes of all these mass shootings?

Maybe those who pass all these gun control laws don't want to know or find out what is the cause behind all these mass shooting? There's no need, we'll just pass another gun control law and guess what? These mass shootings will continue and continue. That is until we start digging deep, digging deep into our society to find out what went wrong and what the causes are.

 

Lol @ prevue of the States, it is under the pervue of anything....

prevue; an advertisement or a blurb or trailer to a motion picture show.

purview; the range of operation or authority or control of an entity.

 

No, by definition of the BATFE / ATF Handguns are not Destructive devices, and are not subject to a $200 Tax.

Any Transferable Machine Gun must be Pre 1986.... here is a listing of Transferable guns

http://www.onlythebestfirearms.com/nfa1.html

 

No, it is not a dependent clause, it is an independent clause, you must have failed many classes,

"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."

Those are two clauses, two entities, "The Militia" and "The People" The People have Rights, and can be members of the Militia or not, The People have Rights to free speech, lawful assembly, the Right to keep and bear Arms etc...

 

There is a huge difference between the devices you listed !!!!

A Thermonuclear Device is capable of obliterating a vast area of Land depending on yield of Nuclear fissionable material and construction and a delivery system, a relatively low yield device 20-30 Kilotons could destroy a five mile circle of destruction, many weapons today are measured in Megatons of destructive power !!

A carpet bomb scenario, as what was dropped in Vietnam on the Ho chi Minh trail, this is a massive bombing campaign, High Explosive Bombs or Incendiary Bombs or Napalm Bombs or combinations of each or all.

A Battle Tank consists of a heavily Armored treaded vehicle and a main turret mounted gun, as well as other weapons, some Tanks have reactive Armor.

An RPG is a Rocket Propelled Grenade, the Russian version is interesting, however, I prefer Our AT-4....

An M16-A2 is the current issue select fire weapon.

 

And again: Automatic Weapons are not Illegal; Civilian transferable Machine Guns must be pre-1986, they pay a $200 Tax....... A Transferable M-16 starts at $ 30,000 U.S.

 

That's a rather specious argument. While it may be true from a purely legal standpoint, the regulations enacted, and the prohibitive costs involved in owning automatic weapons, virtually assures that only a tiny fraction of citizens will ever own one.

 

Yeah but what's the difference in principle relevant to their legality?

That the force is directed in a firearm could be a possible difference in principle. Explosives are not directed, and so are ill-suited to self defense.

Therefore the prohibition of RPGs and bombs could be permissible. You are saying that the individual interest in owning such weapons for innocuous reasons (collecting, shooting melons in the country, etc) is outweighed by the state's public safety interest because the non-directed nature of these weapons is unacceptable.

But might a similar argument be made concerning full auto NFA licensed weapons and even semi-automatic rifles? Might the rapid fire rate be comparable to the non-directional nature of bombs and nukes?

Basically, the issue I see is that we need to categorically separate bombs and nukes from firearms, rather than just doing so in degree - because then you are no longer making a rights claim and introduce all sorts of arbitrary uncertainty about where that line should be drawn exactly.