The Second Amendment Was Never Meant to Protect an Individual’s Right to a Gun

[TLR Is Mental Poison]

Nah the idea that an intruder should be allowed to burglarize and victimize you is just crazy.

An intruder can still burglarize and victimize you if you have your gun by your nightstand. Do u spend every minute in your home with a gun in reach or on you?

Not to mention the odds of an intruder burglarizing and victimizing you decrease every minute and have been for decades, and there is no proof that that is due to gun ownership.

2nd Amendment was meant to ensure the people could get arms to form militias to keep the govt in check, not arm up to play up to some paranoid vigilante fantasies. Looking to prevent crime as it is happening is pretty stupid.... if we really believed that to be effective we would just arm up and do away with laws and law enforcement.

 

[ghostwriterx]

"Well regulated" at the time meant "properly equipped."

Especially when not taken out of context and actually read in the sentence: “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, people need to have at their disposal the equipment necessary to keep their own government in check and/or discourage foreign invaders. (It doesn't really matter which of those two interpretations you pick, they lead to the same result).

Are you implying that was the only definition of "well regulated" at the time? You have sources to back that up?

I'm curious, what do you think the 2nd amendment was supposed to mean if you don't believe that? Keep in mind the Bill of Rights, all 10 amendments, were written to protect individual and state rights, not to take rights away from people. The left interpretation would render the 2nd amendment irrelevant, which is a no-no in Constitutional Law 101.

I'm curious why you believe the framers felt it necessary to include language referring to a "well regulated militia"?
Look at how the 1st amendment was worded.

 

[TLR Is Mental Poison]

"Well regulated" at the time meant "properly equipped."

Especially when not taken out of context and actually read in the sentence: “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, people need to have at their disposal the equipment necessary to keep their own government in check and/or discourage foreign invaders. (It doesn't really matter which of those two interpretations you pick, they lead to the same result)

I'm curious, what do you think the 2nd amendment was supposed to mean if you don't believe that? Keep in mind the Bill of Rights, all 10 amendments, were written to protect individual and state rights, not to take rights away from people. The left interpretation would render the 2nd amendment irrelevant, which is a no-no in Constitutional Law 101.

If that was the purpose of the 2nd amendment, then its invalid anyway. What good are some rifles and handguns against drones, nuclear bombs and high level surveillance? That ship sailed long ago bro.

And yea, your "interpretation" is bullshyt. Next to no gun owners are part of any formal militia, so again those same gun owners can't point to the Constitution to justify gun ownership deregulation.

 

[ill]

An intruder can still burglarize and victimize you if you have your gun by your nightstand. Do u spend every minute in your home with a gun in reach or on you?

Not to mention the odds of an intruder burglarizing and victimizing you decrease every minute and have been for decades, and there is no proof that that is due to gun ownership.

2nd Amendment was meant to ensure the people could get arms to form militias to keep the govt in check, not arm up to play up to some paranoid vigilante fantasies. Looking to prevent crime as it is happening is pretty stupid.... if we really believed that to be effective we would just arm up and do away with laws and law enforcement.

If you feel fine being a victim and not resorting to any defensive maneuvers thats perfectly cool breh. Thats your life and you're free to do with it what you want. If I have the opportunity to defend my own life in a worst case scenario, I'm going to take it.

I don't sit around hoping to blow someones head off if they break in but I do want the opportunity to defend my life, family, and property in the most effective way possible if that one in a million situation happens. Its the same thing as having a baseball bat bat by the door, just more effective. You don't need vigilante justice to protect your own life. Thats some nonsense right there. Goes right back to my first post. "Oh its cool breh steal everything you want and traumatize me for life and hopefully that good old justice system that no one believes in will fix it".

 

[ghostwriterx]

IMO the right to bear arms in America is crucial to the decentralization of power, and defense of liberty.

Especially laughable in light of today's Tamir Rice ruling. 12 year old boy shot dead in an open carry state, "right to bear arms" sure didn't defend his liberty.

 

[ghostwriterx]

You really think the 2nd amendment defends the people's "right" to revolt against the government that articulates this right?

 

[DEAD7]

I like how you replaced "well regulated" with "well armed".

My bad...

 

[DEAD7]

You really think the 2nd amendment defends the people's "right" to revolt against the government that articulates this right?

Yes.

 

[Brown_Pride]

If that was the purpose of the 2nd amendment, then its invalid anyway. What good are some rifles and handguns against drones, nuclear bombs and high level surveillance? That ship sailed long ago bro.

And yea, your "interpretation" is bullshyt. Next to no gun owners are part of any formal militia, so again those same gun owners can't point to the Constitution to justify gun ownership deregulation.

"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."

Now maybe i'm reading this wrong, but THE RIGHT of the people exists without the second amendment. the Second amendment simply says that THAT RIGHT should not be infringed because it interferes with the ability of a state to form a well regulated militia.

It never says that in order to own a gun you need to be in a militia.
So to hit the high points as I read them.
THE RIGHT to own a gun exists regardless of the second amendment.
The second amendment limits the government's ability to do away with THE RIGHT people have to guns.
The second amendment also points out that a well regulated militia is necessary.

I'd then consider THE RIGHT to gun ownership to be inalienable. Right?

Strictly speaking from a constitutional point right now, we can discuss gun control, and pragmatism in a minute. Question is this.

Do we have A RIGHT to own guns as citizens? Yes or no?

 

[TLR Is Mental Poison]

If you feel fine being a victim and not resorting to any defensive maneuvers thats perfectly cool breh. Thats your life and you're free to do with it what you want. If I have the opportunity to defend my own life in a worst case scenario, I'm going to take it.

I don't sit around hoping to blow someones head off if they break in but I do want the opportunity to defend my life, family, and property in the most effective way possible if that one in a million situation happens. Its the same thing as having a baseball bat bat by the door, just more effective. You don't need vigilante justice to protect your own life. Thats some nonsense right there. Goes right back to my first post. "Oh its cool breh steal everything you want and traumatize me for life and hopefully that good old justice system that no one believes in will fix it".

When is the last time you had to "defend your life?" I know a lot of gun owners. Only time they've ever had to draw was at the shooting range to fire at a target.

Bottom line crime has never been lower or easier to avoid. If you have the money to get a CCP and a firearm and do regular training, you can live somewhere that won't require a constant need to "defend your life family and property" in the first place. It's been years since there was a murder in my neighborhood and other crimes are similarly low. Prevention and avoidance are better defenses against crime than guns.

 

[TLR Is Mental Poison]

Now maybe i'm reading this wrong, but THE RIGHT of the people exists without the second amendment. the Second amendment simply says that THAT RIGHT should not be infringed because it interferes with the ability of a state to form a well regulated militia.

It never says that in order to own a gun you need to be in a militia.
So to hit the high points as I read them.
THE RIGHT to own a gun exists regardless of the second amendment.
The second amendment limits the government's ability to do away with THE RIGHT people have to guns.
The second amendment also points out that a well regulated militia is necessary.

I'd then consider THE RIGHT to gun ownership to be inalienable. Right?

Strictly speaking from a constitutional point right now, we can discuss gun control, and pragmatism in a minute. Question is this.

Do we have A RIGHT to own guns as citizens? Yes or no?

We may just be interpreting this differently, but if being in a militia weren't the point of bearing arms I don't see why they should have mentioned it. Why bring it up if it's not related?

I think citizens have the right to bear arms... as part of being in "well regulated militias" to keep the govt in check. That makes a ton of sense in the context of when the BoR was written.

 

[tmonster]

well why don't they just make a new amendment?
I'm saying a technicality ain't gonna solve this
a real understanding of the philosophical problem with this scene below as a potential normative of the social/civil space is the only solution

 

[ADevilYouKhow]

#alllivesmatter

Baby blue font

 

[ill]

When is the last time you had to "defend your life?" I know a lot of gun owners. Only time they've ever had to draw was at the shooting range to fire at a target.

Bottom line crime has never been lower or easier to avoid. If you have the money to get a CCP and a firearm and do regular training, you can live somewhere that won't require a constant need to "defend your life family and property" in the first place. It's been years since there was a murder in my neighborhood and other crimes are similarly low. Prevention and avoidance are better defenses against crime than guns.

When was the last time one of your gun owning friends made you feel threatened by their guns?
Why do you care what people do in the privacy of their own homes in order to protect their own families and property?
Would you tell a person that keeps a baseball bat by the door that its pointless and they should let the burglary happen and hope the police can sort it out later?

You're absolutely right that crime rates have dropped and are continuing to drop. But guess what? Gun violence has followed the same downward trajectory.....

And IMO its highly disingenuous to say that anyone that can afford a gun and a CCP can afford to live in a nice neighborhood. I don't think it quite works like that. A $300 gun and a $100 CCP doesn't mean you can afford a 500k home in a gated community.

 

[ghostwriterx]

Yes.

That's Trump level delusion breh.


U.S. Constitution - Article I, Section 8
Clause 15:

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;