Bitcoin Forum
December 07, 2016, 12:38:05 PM *
News: To be able to use the next phase of the beta forum software, please ensure that your email address is correct/functional.
 
   Home   Help Search Donate Login Register  
Poll
Question: What do you think of firearms?
BAN THEM ALL!!! - 5 (11.1%)
Increase cost, tax, and ownership restrictions. - 2 (4.4%)
Maintain some reasonable restrictions for safety. - 8 (17.8%)
Only semiauto weapons w/ more than 8 rd. capacity and class 3 weapons have any reason to be regulated. - 4 (8.9%)
Issue NATO grade assault rifles upon completing elementary school. - 17 (37.8%)
For those who want a rational pro-gun option: The US gov't reserves the right to ban dangerous criminals from gun ownership. Open or concealed carry is an option so long as you are qualified. Firearm taxes should be reduced, at least for American-made one - 9 (20%)
Total Voters: 45

Pages: « 1 2 [3]  All
  Print  
Author Topic: Second amendment ftw or gtfo?  (Read 3159 times)
mcorlett
Donator
Sr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 308



View Profile
June 19, 2012, 06:13:22 PM
 #41

Actually, the 2nd amendment only allows the police to have guns. If I may:

"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."

In other words, the right of the people's police force to have weapons. Not only that, it allows ANY weapons. So really we should be getting rid of this amendment, or we could wind up getting shot for not calling a police officer "Master".
THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED

1481114285
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481114285

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481114285
Reply with quote  #2

1481114285
Report to moderator
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1481114285
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481114285

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481114285
Reply with quote  #2

1481114285
Report to moderator
1481114285
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481114285

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481114285
Reply with quote  #2

1481114285
Report to moderator
silverbox
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 910


View Profile
June 19, 2012, 06:24:07 PM
 #42

Actually, the 2nd amendment only allows the police to have guns. If I may:

"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."

In other words, the right of the people's police force to have weapons. Not only that, it allows ANY weapons. So really we should be getting rid of this amendment, or we could wind up getting shot for not calling a police officer "Master".

Wrong.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller

Decision
 
The Supreme Court held:[43]
 (1) The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2–53.

(a) The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms. Pp. 2–22.

(b) The prefatory clause comports with the Court’s interpretation of the operative clause. The “militia” comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. The Antifederalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to disable this citizens’ militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, so that the ideal of a citizens’ militia would be preserved. Pp. 22–28.

(c) The Court’s interpretation is confirmed by analogous arms-bearing rights in state constitutions that preceded and immediately followed the Second Amendment. Pp. 28–30.

(d) The Second Amendment’s drafting history, while of dubious interpretive worth, reveals three state Second Amendment proposals that unequivocally referred to an individual right to bear arms. Pp. 30–32.

(e) Interpretation of the Second Amendment by scholars, courts and legislators, from immediately after its ratification through the late 19th century also supports the Court’s conclusion. Pp. 32–47.

(f) None of the Court’s precedents forecloses the Court’s interpretation. Neither United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542 , nor Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 252 , refutes the individual-rights interpretation. United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174 , does not limit the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes, but rather limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by the militia, i.e., those in common use for lawful purposes. Pp. 47–54.
Pages: « 1 2 [3]  All
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Sponsored by , a Bitcoin-accepting VPN.
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!