The "right" to bear arms

If someone tries to break into your home, or carjack you how do you stay safe? How long do the cops usually take to get there?

 

Why stop there? Lets give them tanks and landmines too.

 

After reading the Amendment in it's entirety, it looks to me like "A well regulated Militia, shall not be infringed" The statements added in between were modifiers, as the "being necessary to the security of a free State" and "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms" were put in there to specify the reasons for the 2nd Amendment. The right of the people to bear arms is added because, at the time, we had to federal military, only state voluntary units. They also didn't foresee the advancement of weaponry, where the average citizen could acquire fully automatic and weapons of mass destruction, and the existence of a federal army.
This is one part of the constitution that was greatly affected by advances in technology.
It also didn't address wire tapping or cable stealing...................

 

We also didn't have social media. Should we remove the 1st amendment because the founders didn't count on 24 hr news and anyone, anywhere being able to publish their stupidity? We've already let the the state bastardize the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances so why stop there? Just get rid of all of the rights and let the state decide what's best for us.

 

Criminal control. You on the other hand want to control everybody.

 

you can buy a tank, or a fighter jet.

 

Guns are like tools. Different guns are good at doing different things. As examples, a shotgun can do certain things better than a rifle, like shooting ducks. A rifle can do things better than a shotgun, like shooting a deer at 200 yards. A large caliber handgun, like a 44 magnum, can protect you from a bear, but it is impractical as a concealed personal defense weapon because of its size.

If we passed a law saying you could have only one hammer and one flathead screwdriver, but no other tools, you would agree that your ability to have and use tools had been “infringed”.

This is what you’re suggesting with your thought that a “two gun” rule would not be an infringement on the right.

You probably know someone who has tools that are rarely used, if ever, and tools that are redundant, like the socket set they’ve had for 25 years and the socket set given to them last Christmas. But if we passed a law saying that you could not own more than one copy of any tool or that you could not have a tool that you rarely used, we would agree that that law was infringing on your right to own tools. Wouldn’t we?

So ….

That’s what “infringed” means, and the 2A says that the government may not infringe upon the right to keep and bear arms (plural). I would say the meaning is quite clear.

 

Lmao seriously? I suppose that everything after freedom of religion in the first amendment were just modifiers too.

it’s obvious that the second amendment was meant for the state to have a militia and the people to bear arms both of which shall not be infringed and that assessment is backed by a law grad/senator at the time of ratification that goes by the name of Tench Coxe. I suggest you read his comments on the second. He leaves a perfect example of what the 2nd meant back then and still means today being it has never been amended.

 

Im talking the modern stuff.

 

https://www.controller.com/listings/for-sale/turbine-military-aircraft/10072
http://www.exarmyvehicles.com/offer/tracked-vehicles

 

I'm not sure what triggered you, I wasn't talking about all that stuff. I was only saying that the constitution was written in the 1780's, at least the original parts, and they didn't have the knowledge or even inkling about how technology would affect things, so the rest of the laws we have come from our experiences as the technology changed and we advanced (some may argue that) in knowledge and inventions.
Sometimes the constitution has to be amended, like giving women and black people the right to vote, which they were not in the original.
Talk about a slippery slope with that First Amendment! I wasn't prepared to near that right now, but restrictions to free speech are much more impactful on our democracy than the 2nd amendment.

 

Thanks for the tip on Tench Coxe. I had never heard about him, but looked it up and read some of his writings, and it was both interesting and informative.
That said, you started off "Lmao, seriously?" which I assume indicated I had typed something you disagreed with, but I don't see anything you typed or in the information about Coxe that contradicted what I typed.
All I was saying that sometimes the Constitution doesn't fit the modern world because of changes in our society and/or government.

 

It's not rocket science no matter how you parse or spin it...The 2nd amendment reads ".....the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." It does not say the right of the people to keep and bear arms used for personal protection and hunting, or licensed arms, or unconcealed arms, or no more than two arms, or registered guns with serial numbers imprinted, or keep and bear small arms, or arms that are weaker than the military, or only 100 bullets (musket balls???), or only if a person is over 18 years old (what, do you think 17 tear olds back then didn't hunt or protect families???) shall not be infringed.

I put some effort into it and disagree with your contentions mainly because they are completely inane.

 

I’m impressed you looked his writings up. Most don’t so I will tip my hat to your willingness to research. The part I disagreed with was that everything between the states rights and shall not be infringed was a modification. It was clearly written with the intent of both the state and the people. But I still respect your approach and I apologize if I interpreted your comment wrong.

 

Not to mention that it's factually false that most mass shooters acquired their guns legally.

Most mass shooters were mental defectives who were ignored.

 

I work with robotics, and if we add rules to the programming elements, or instructions, we call them modifiers, or additional rules to apply while executing that part of the program.
I didn't intend the word modifier to mean anything else than what I said. A way to modify, or further explain, the original statement, which in it's original structure, was a part that could be left out and still retain the context of the statement. Example: I was, as an electronic technician, working for a large company, unhappy with the working conditions. The test is if you can remove them and still retain context, which seems to me like one can.
I still don't think that anyone in that time era had any idea we would advance weapons to the level we have, and only stating that occasionally, the Constitution needs to be tweaked or changed to correct things that are out of date, like women and blacks having the right to vote.
The way it's stated is not clear, and things have changed greatly since then, like the weapons themselves, bullets, the fact that very few Americans have to rely on hunting for sustenance.
Just to be clear, I'm not against the 2nd amendment, just that it needs to be changed. Local and state laws have been written, from complete bans to no bans.
I think we need a Federal rule on it so it can be more efficiently and fairly regulated.
By the way, I also understand but partially disagree with the rules for felons.

 

There is a federal rule. That rule is what the constitution prescribes. That no state or federal government has the power to disarm the public. In fact that’s a quote from Tench Coxe in one of his explanations of the second. So until the constitution is amended all gun control is unconstitutional. I believe certain weapons should only be left to the state such as rocket launchers and so on. But the power of any hand held rifle or pistol, single shot, semi auto, or full auto should remain in the hands of the people.

But the problem with modifying the second is the left wants to limit pretty much all semi autos so I would never side with changing the second as written due to their extreme position.

 

I personally believe there is a great deal of "wiggle room" there, that we could compromise, but the people at the extremes don't want to compromise.

 

in fact the history of the so called “right to bear arms” did not derive from our founders. Our founders were well educated people and knew about the history of this right. All the way back to the Roman Empire this right was spoke about by scholars and politicians alike. Aristotle even has quotes on this “god given right”.

This right has seen the advancement through history from sword and shield, to musket, to repeater, to cannons, to the Gatling Gun, and so on. So the idea that they had no idea how weaponry advanced is a historic lie.

moreover, the thing our founders done with this long known right that was so revolutionary was they enshrined it into our constitution while other countries only allowed it by law. Which they later done away with by law as well. A constitution is much harder to bypass which is also found in many quote from people who were jealous of this move even outside of our own borders.

The history of the second is worth study. It’s very interesting. Another good read is a book called “the second amendment primer”.

 

I didn't say that they didn't know how weapons had advanced at that point, I said there was no way for them to know, 200+ years later, how the weapons would be advanced. Just your run-of -the-mill semi-automatic would blow their minds.
For example, guns that can shoot around corners. Or ammunition that could be programmed to shoot a target behind a wall without penetrating the wall.
Or a handheld missile that can take out an armored vehicle.
I could go on and on, but I think you get the picture. Our founding fathers were very smart, wise, dedicated people. Their patriotism was, and still is in my opinion, unparalleled in today's society.
But to say the Constitution never will need tweaking doesn't hold water.

 

How many mass shootings did you have in the 25 year period before 1996?

 

Please go read DC v Heller.

 

Disarmed ones; that's true.

 

Correction, it is

The right to bear arms

 

in a well regulated militia... which today is the National Guard.