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

[Brown_Pride]

Is this really constitutional to some of you, or do you just want to have guns?

I think it's constitutional and I want to have guns. Pragmatism tells me that what I want and sometimes what's constitutional need to change.

 

[rantanamo]

So you want the constitution to change to get what you want?

 

[DEAD7]

@ some of the responses in this thread this thread.

The framers believed in an individual right to keep and bear arms, but that's not why the second amendment is there.

The second amendment is there because the bill of rights is a list of things a (potentially) tyrannical government would try to do -- and indeed, had already done throughout history -- to try to run roughshod over its people. The bill of rights is not a random list of ten things, and it's not a list of the top ten most important individual rights... it's a specific type of list with a specific logic behind it.

 

[Mess World]

Militias dont to go against the Government, they fight on the side of the Government(look at US history ) Name one case where they went against them? And im not talking about the civil war because they were going against the confederacy or Union.

So all that talk about they need guns for the Gov is is BS, they need guns to eradicate other races besides white

 

[MeachTheMonster]

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".

So the only way to not be a victim is to own a gun?

 

[MeachTheMonster]

I don't think it's really a matter of interpretation as it is understanding.
THE RIGHT invoked in the 2nd amendment isn't defined in the second amendment. The second amendment doesn't specifically say, people have the right to own guns. It says the government shall not infringe on THE RIGHT of people to bare arms. Meaning this. People have a right to arms and the government can't infringe on that right.

Again, the second amendment doesn't GIVE people anything, it limits the government from infringing on that which is a natural right, the right to defend ones self. The second amendment, if it does anything, states that there is need for well regulated state militias.

So if the second amendment doesn't give the right, then where does the right come from, and why is the second amendment used to defend the right?

 

[MeachTheMonster]

How do people form militias if guns are banned?

They wouldn't be banned. You'd need to prove your eligibility for the weapon.

 

[714562]

A trash article meant to appeal to emotion. Heller has some shortcomings, but this article addresses absolutely none of them. Also, they keep mentioning the NRA, as if to imply that the opinion in Heller was somehow influenced by it, without actually providing a causal link between the two.

This author is really talking about the "well-established meaning" of the Second Amendment? Heller was a matter of first impression. There was no "well-established meaning" before SCOTUS told you what the meaning was.

 

[Domingo Halliburton]

If you read some of the founding fathers' writings it was definitely meant as an individual's right to own a gun.

 

[Brown_Pride]

So if the second amendment doesn't give the right, then where does the right come from, and why is the second amendment used to defend the right?

Good question. My theory is this...
The right exist because there's nothing explicitly stating it doesn't. From what I've gathered there is no mention in the constitution about the right of gun ownership prior to the second amendment mentioning the right. The second amendment doesn't state that people have a right to own a gun, it says that the right of people to own a gun should not be infringed upon...to me that means the right exists outside of the second amendment as it presumes there is a right and that it should not be infringed upon. The right to own a gun then, is simply the right to own things, it's the right to have personal property.

?

As for why it's used to defend the right to own guns....cant say I rightly know. I suppose because it's easy to say, "see it says in the second amendment that we have a right to gun ownership..."

When I read the second amendment, like i said before, it has little to do with defining gun rights and more to do with defining the ability for a state to form a militia.

 

[MeachTheMonster]

Good question. My theory is this...
The right exist because there's nothing explicitly stating it doesn't. From what I've gathered there is no mention in the constitution about the right of gun ownership prior to the second amendment mentioning the right.

Meaning this "right" can be taken away at anytime just like other "rights" have been?

The second amendment doesn't state that people have a right to own a gun, it says that the right of people to own a gun should not be infringed upon...to me that means the right exists outside of the second amendment as it presumes there is a right and that it should not be infringed upon. The right to own a gun then, is simply the right to own things, it's the right to have personal property.

There's plenty of personal property that is illegal to possess. Why are guns so special in this regard?

As for why it's used to defend the right to own guns....cant say I rightly know. I suppose because it's easy to say, "see it says in the second amendment that we have a right to gun ownership..."

When I read the second amendment, like i said before, it has little to do with defining gun rights and more to do with defining the ability for a state to form a militia.

So as usual the constitution is used as a convenient catch all, when intelligent reasoning fails

 

[Brown_Pride]

Meaning this "right" can be taken away at anytime just like other "rights" have been?

well technically all rights can be taken away via the law no? Tweak the constitution here, amend that there, and it's now illegal to print certain things. There's also the idea of limits on free speech, a la the don't yell fire in a crowded theater, so yeah rights are subject to scrutiny and are by no means 100% guaranteed 100% of the time.

There's plenty of personal property that is illegal to possess. Why are guns so special in this regard?

Agreed. Not really the point i'm trying to make right now. My point is that there IS in fact a right to gun ownership, be it because of the second amendment or simply because it is there. In terms of constitutionality i'm just saying the founding father referenced our right to gun ownership, they did a piss poor job of defining that right, my argument is simply because the didn't feel they had to, likely because it was assumed and because the didn't have to foresight to see what it would become.

So as usual the constitution is used as a convenient catch all, when intelligent reasoning fails

That's what i'm trying to avoid right now, but I feel when reasoning it's good to start with definitions and parameters. I'm simply saying, and have been saying, that the right to own a gun does in fact exist and it is supported by the constitution, nothing more, nothing less.

My thought was lets set some ground rules and then we could discuss, intelligently, the issue of gun control.

It seams there's a fundamental problem though when some people don't even view the right to own guns as a right at all.

What about you? Is the right to own guns a right at all?

 

[MeachTheMonster]

well technically all rights can be taken away via the law no? Tweak the constitution here, amend that there, and it's now illegal to print certain things. There's also the idea of limits on free speech, a la the don't yell fire in a crowded theater, so yeah rights are subject to scrutiny and are by no means 100% guaranteed 100% of the time.



Agreed. Not really the point i'm trying to make right now. My point is that there IS in fact a right to gun ownership, be it because of the second amendment or simply because it is there. In terms of constitutionality i'm just saying the founding father referenced our right to gun ownership, they did a piss poor job of defining that right, my argument is simply because the didn't feel they had to, likely because it was assumed and because the didn't have to foresight to see what it would become.


That's what i'm trying to avoid right now, but I feel when reasoning it's good to start with definitions and parameters. I'm simply saying, and have been saying, that the right to own a gun does in fact exist and it is supported by the constitution, nothing more, nothing less.

My thought was lets set some ground rules and then we could discuss, intelligently, the issue of gun control.

It seams there's a fundamental problem though when some people don't even view the right to own guns as a right at all.

What about you? Is the right to own guns a right at all?

For me rights and laws are fluid. What may be the law/right one day could easily change the next day.

As of today. Yes American citizens have the right to own guns, but that doesn't mean that right can't/shouldn't be taken away.

I personally don't think guns should be banned. I just think the arguments people use against any type of conversation about better controlling the guns are usualy shytty and disingenuous.

 

[fscballin]

And yet it doesn't mention the idea of personal self defense at all, it mentions militias and the security of the "state":


"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."

You conveniently left out

"No bill of attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed."


Close thread

 

[Brown_Pride]

For me rights and laws are fluid. What may be the law/right one day could easily change the next day.

As of today. Yes American citizens have the right to own guns, but that doesn't mean that right can't/shouldn't be taken away.

I personally don't think guns should be banned. I just think the arguments people use against any type of conversation about better controlling the guns are usualy shytty and disingenuous.

Then we are 100% on the same page. See now real discussion can begin. I hate when people hide behind the constitution, particularly in the case of gun control, that their whole argument is often contingent on an AMENDMENT, which essentially means, "some shyt we decided to throw in", fully disregarding the whole purpose the amendment mechanism was created in the first place, to fix shyt as time changed.

We have a gun control issue in this country, while that doesn't do away with all the violence or all the mass shootings it simply is good smart business. You should have a right to guns IMHO, but there should be limitations as well.