" The Court then explained that the Framers included the Second Amendment to ensure the effectiveness of the military."
Originally Posted by whywesteppin
Originally Posted by JChambers
According to this strange interpretation, if I start a militia then I should be able to have fully automatic weapons, grenades, rocket launchers, etc. without any infringement. This is necessary to the security of a free state.Or maybe the First Amendment only applies to militias as well. That would seem to be the case, considering this interpretation of the wording. It certainly is a black and white impenetrable law. I'd like to see how people would react to stricter regulations on freedom of speech. You can argue for stricter gun regulations, but don't pretend that the Constitution doesn't clearly state that the rights of THE PEOPLE shall not be infringed. The Bill of Rights is not a handbook for militias. It enumerates specific rights that cannot
be infringed upon by the government.
If it's so clear cut how did this happen:
"In 1939 the U.S. Supreme Court considered the matter in United States v. Miller. 307 U.S. 174. The Court adopted a collective rights approach in this case, determining that Congress could regulate a sawed-off shotgun that had moved in interstate commerce under the National Firearms Act of 1934" The Court then explained that the Framers included the Second Amendment to ensure the effectiveness of the military."
Even in its most liberal interpretation of the 2nd Amendment (Heller 2008), the Supreme Court still stated: "... the right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose".
Unless you're claiming you have a better understanding of Constitutional Law than the Supreme Court does, I'm going to disagree with you on all this.
This is hilarious to me. So in every other section of the Bill of Rights, they are talking about the common man,but in this 2nd one (which is only second in the document to the right of free speech), they are strictly talking about the military?
Look at your quote again. It actually solidifies my stance:
"because the evidence did not suggest that the shotgun "has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated milita..."
So it would have been completely acceptable, without regulation, had it been part of a "well regulated militia".
I know the current government's interpretation of it.The text is very clear.The Supreme Court is heavily politicized.It could be argued that the National Firearm Act itself is unconstitutional. Let's not pretend that the Supreme Court has always upheld the Constitution and the rights protected by it. The Constitution holds more power than any court in the land. It doesn't tell us what we can do, it tells the government what it absolutely cannot do. It also wasn't meant to be a guideline of the only
rights that we have as human beings. It's purpose has become mangled through the years because of increased governmental power.If I can see with my own two eyes that grass is green, a bunch of old government Justices aren't going to convince me that it is blue, no matter how many times they meet up or how many pages of legalese are written. We are also clearly protected against unreasonable search and seizure by the Fourth Amendment, yet the Supreme Court has ruled that a dog barking is probable cause for a search because drugs may be nearby. Drug dogs have less than a 50/50 chance at positive hits.,
Nearly all of our rights can be stepped on under the guise of an absolutely unconstitutional drug war.The Constitution was written for the people
.It is sad that you believe that a law degree and court appointment are required to understand it. This unfortunately seems to be a common belief in this country. No wonder we have lost so many rights along the way and fallen victim to such a strong reliance on the state for everything.
"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."
Straight to the point. The reason that the first part is there is to emphasize the importance of this right, not to limit it. To victims of the current police state, "well regulated" might seem to mean control by the government. We are so used to everything being regulated for us by Big Brother, that we have missed the fact that the term may have actually meant something completely different back when the document was created.
"The following are taken from the Oxford English Dictionary, and bracket in time the writing of the 2nd amendment:
1709: "If a liberal Education has formed in us well-regulated Appetites and worthy Inclinations."
1714: "The practice of all well-regulated courts of justice in the world."
1812: "The equation of time ... is the adjustment of the difference of time as shown by a well-regulated clock and a true sun dial."
1848: "A remissness for which I am sure every well-regulated person will blame the Mayor."
1862: "It appeared to her well-regulated mind, like a clandestine proceeding."
1894: "The newspaper, a never wanting adjunct to every well-regulated American embryo city."
The phrase "well-regulated" was in common use long before 1789, and remained so for a century thereafter. It referred to the property of something being in proper working order. Something that was well-regulated was calibrated correctly, functioning as expected. Establishing government oversight of the people's arms was not only not the intent in using the phrase in the 2nd amendment, it was precisely to render the government powerless to do so that the founders wrote it."http://www.constitution.org/cons/wellregu.htm
It seems clear that "well regulated" was not included to refer to governmental regulations at all.
This further expounds upon the wording and its meaning and purpose in the document:
"We begin this analysis by examining how the term “regulate” was used elsewhere in the Constitution. In every other instance where the term “regulate” is used, or regulations are referred to, the Constitution specifies who is to do the regulating and what is being “regulated.” However, in the Second Amendment, the Framers chose only to use the term “well regulated” to describe a militia and chose not to define who or what would regulate it.
It is also important to note that the Framers’ chose to use the indefinite article “a” to refer to the militia, rather than the definite article “the.” This choice suggests that the Framers were not referring to any particular well regulated militia but, instead, only to the concept that well regulated militias, made up of citizens bearing arms, were necessary to secure a free State. Thus, the Framers chose not to explicitly define who, or what, would regulate the militias, nor what such regulation would consist of, nor how the regulation was to be accomplished."http://bearingarms.com/well-regulated/Edited by JChambers - 10/12/15 at 10:50pm