7
7
0
First off, I support our 2nd Amendment rights to own weapons. I do want regulations in place just like our regulations on other licensed property such as cars, but at the core, I support our Bill of Rights and am a liberal member of the ACLU.<div><br></div><div>How do you interpret the 2nd Amendment?</div><div><br></div><div>Please don't quote anything from the NRA or your favorite gun rights advocate. I want to hear your opinions on the subject. Here is the text of the Amendment:</div><div><br></div><div>"<span style="color: rgb(37, 37, 37); font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 21px;">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.</span>"</div><div><br></div><div>Some people quibble about the comma, some link the right to keep and bear arms to the well regulated militia. Some say it means we can keep weapons to deter tyrants. There are a lot of interpretations, I want to hear yours. Do you feel it means weapon ownership should be absent any regulations? Why or why not? Do you think we can/should be able to own fully automatic weapons? Explosive weapons? Speak your mind and let's discuss!</div>
2nd Amendment
Weapons
Firearms and Guns
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 41
25
25
0
Why not look at what the founding fathers had to say about the right to bear arms and get an idea of what they had in mind:
"A free people ought to be armed."
- George Washington
"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms."
- Thomas Jefferson
"The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes.... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man."
- Thomas Jefferson (quoting 18th century criminologist Cesare Beccaria)
"A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercises, I advise the gun. While this gives moderate exercise to the body, it gives boldness, enterprise and independence to the mind. Games played with the ball, and others of that nature, are too violent for the body and stamp no character on the mind. Let your gun therefore be your constant companion of your walks." - Thomas Jefferson
"The Constitution of most of our states (and of the United States) assert that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed."
- Thomas Jefferson
"Arms in the hands of citizens may be used at individual discretion in private self defense."
- John Adams
"I ask sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people except for a few politicians."
- George Mason (father of the Bill of Rights and The Virginia Declaration of Rights)
"Americans have the right and advantage of being armed, unlike the people of other countries, whose leaders are afraid to trust them with arms."
- James Madison
"To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them."
- Richard Henry Lee
Should I keep going? Don't take my weapons. There is NO room for interpretation of this amendment. And it also doesn't say it should require background checks, limit the magazines, or any of that other crap.
"A free people ought to be armed."
- George Washington
"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms."
- Thomas Jefferson
"The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes.... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man."
- Thomas Jefferson (quoting 18th century criminologist Cesare Beccaria)
"A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercises, I advise the gun. While this gives moderate exercise to the body, it gives boldness, enterprise and independence to the mind. Games played with the ball, and others of that nature, are too violent for the body and stamp no character on the mind. Let your gun therefore be your constant companion of your walks." - Thomas Jefferson
"The Constitution of most of our states (and of the United States) assert that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed."
- Thomas Jefferson
"Arms in the hands of citizens may be used at individual discretion in private self defense."
- John Adams
"I ask sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people except for a few politicians."
- George Mason (father of the Bill of Rights and The Virginia Declaration of Rights)
"Americans have the right and advantage of being armed, unlike the people of other countries, whose leaders are afraid to trust them with arms."
- James Madison
"To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them."
- Richard Henry Lee
Should I keep going? Don't take my weapons. There is NO room for interpretation of this amendment. And it also doesn't say it should require background checks, limit the magazines, or any of that other crap.
(25)
(0)
MAJ Robert (Bob) Petrarca
Are we talking he 2nd Constitutional Amendment with this photo or the 2nd Marriage Commandment - Thou shalt never leave the toilet seat up? Either way, the eyes have it!
(2)
(0)
10
10
0
To understand the Second Amendment, I also look at the mindset and historical context that the Founding Fathers were working from. They had just won a war to gain freedom from what they felt was an oppressive monarchy. In my view they were afraid that someday some how things would go wrong and to allow people to protect themselves from not only the threats of the day since the country was pretty much a wild frontier in many areas, law enforcement wasn't an option they wanted the people to protect themselves, which also worked to keep the government honest since the people were back then at least as well armed as the government and probably outnumbered the government.
To use some of the quotes of Thomas Jefferson "When governments fear the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny."
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."
This leads me to conclude that it was intended as the check and balance on the government by the people, because after all that they went through led them to be distrustful of government even as they were creating it.
To use some of the quotes of Thomas Jefferson "When governments fear the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny."
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."
This leads me to conclude that it was intended as the check and balance on the government by the people, because after all that they went through led them to be distrustful of government even as they were creating it.
(10)
(0)
SPC (Join to see)
Why is this even debated? "Shall not be infringed!" its simple! You have your divine right to protect yourself, and if you choose not to do so with a rifle or gun, than thats your choice as well. As for me, I would rather have it and not need it than need it and not have it!
(3)
(0)
CW3 Kevin Storm
Be careful quoting Jefferson:
Every constitution, then, and every law, naturally expires at the end of nineteen years. If it be enforced longer, it is an act of force, and not of right. It may be said, that the succeeding generation exercising, in fact, the power of repeal, this leaves them as free as if the constitution or law had been expressly limited to nineteen years only. In the first place, this objection admits the right, in proposing an equivalent. But the power of repeal is not an equivalent. It might be, indeed, if every form of government were so perfectly contrived, that the will of the majority could always be obtained, fairly and without impediment. But this is true of no form. The people cannot assemble themselves; their representation is unequal and vicious. Various checks are opposed to every legislative proposition. Factions get possession of the public councils, bribery corrupts them, personal interests lead them astray from the general interests of their constituents; and other impediments arise, so as to prove to every practical man, that a law of limited duration is much more manageable than one which needs a repeal." --Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, 1789. ME 7:459, Papers 15:396
Every constitution, then, and every law, naturally expires at the end of nineteen years. If it be enforced longer, it is an act of force, and not of right. It may be said, that the succeeding generation exercising, in fact, the power of repeal, this leaves them as free as if the constitution or law had been expressly limited to nineteen years only. In the first place, this objection admits the right, in proposing an equivalent. But the power of repeal is not an equivalent. It might be, indeed, if every form of government were so perfectly contrived, that the will of the majority could always be obtained, fairly and without impediment. But this is true of no form. The people cannot assemble themselves; their representation is unequal and vicious. Various checks are opposed to every legislative proposition. Factions get possession of the public councils, bribery corrupts them, personal interests lead them astray from the general interests of their constituents; and other impediments arise, so as to prove to every practical man, that a law of limited duration is much more manageable than one which needs a repeal." --Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, 1789. ME 7:459, Papers 15:396
(0)
(0)
SSG Gerhard S.
It is not our job to interpret the 2nd amendment. The intent was made clear by those who argued for its inclusion. Any further machinations to limit it's meaning are simply trying to squeeze some meaning out of the words that aren't there.
Indeed, those who argued against it did so with the idea that the right of the people to be armed was SO self evident, that including this language in the bill of rights was superfluous. Lucky for us, the cautious among the framers won out.
Indeed, those who argued against it did so with the idea that the right of the people to be armed was SO self evident, that including this language in the bill of rights was superfluous. Lucky for us, the cautious among the framers won out.
(0)
(0)
9
9
0
I think it truly was intended, and still is today, to allow people to arm themselves in the event that they needed to fight an invader or their own government. Keeping in mind that the constitution was written by a government and by people who were tired of their governmental persecution and tyranny.
Further, I've heard the argument that "it won't happen in America". Nobody is immune from tyranny. Look through history and you will find even the greatest nations have had issues and such struggles.
SO, unarmed people cannot form a well regulated militia if they have no access to arms. What we see when a government wants to limit or do away with these rights, is EXACTLY why this amendment was written. Governments try to "policy" people into submission by attempting to control EVERYTHING and taking away people's ability to succeed or fail on their own.
On a side note and for example, our society has become so lackadaisical in responsibility that you can literally walk away from real life and still receive a paycheck and healthcare. What sort of incentive is there to succeed? In an effort to fund this, the government(s) demand more tax money...and people get mad.... and then they take more.... and the cycle repeats itself.
A system that commands dependents, stays in power.
Further, I've heard the argument that "it won't happen in America". Nobody is immune from tyranny. Look through history and you will find even the greatest nations have had issues and such struggles.
SO, unarmed people cannot form a well regulated militia if they have no access to arms. What we see when a government wants to limit or do away with these rights, is EXACTLY why this amendment was written. Governments try to "policy" people into submission by attempting to control EVERYTHING and taking away people's ability to succeed or fail on their own.
On a side note and for example, our society has become so lackadaisical in responsibility that you can literally walk away from real life and still receive a paycheck and healthcare. What sort of incentive is there to succeed? In an effort to fund this, the government(s) demand more tax money...and people get mad.... and then they take more.... and the cycle repeats itself.
A system that commands dependents, stays in power.
(9)
(0)
Sgt (Join to see)
Agree, a double standard for everything. However, I don't put a lot of stock into such lawsuits as they will likely not pan out. Anyone can sue anyone else for anything, just depends on if the court accepts it and/or sides w/ the plaintiff.
I'm curious what will happen in this instance what, if anything, will be paid out. As I've always understood it, Fire and Police Depts don't have any legal obligation to risk their own safety in the course of their work. I know this goes against the common understanding of public services.
He may win part of the suit, however, for negligence IF they endangered him more, in the course of their actions.
I've heard people, not from America, criticize the amount of silly policies that American society has. Your examples are a perfect case in point of contradictions.
I'm curious what will happen in this instance what, if anything, will be paid out. As I've always understood it, Fire and Police Depts don't have any legal obligation to risk their own safety in the course of their work. I know this goes against the common understanding of public services.
He may win part of the suit, however, for negligence IF they endangered him more, in the course of their actions.
I've heard people, not from America, criticize the amount of silly policies that American society has. Your examples are a perfect case in point of contradictions.
(1)
(0)
LTC (Join to see)
there's also Good Samaritan laws in most states that protects people from lawsuits....this lawyer's interpretation of mistake=negligence is pretty close-minded and the mistake only=negligence if it can be proven that a harm occurred. I would argue that in this case(w/o knowing all the facts) there was no harm committed or, at least, none can be proven satisfactorily....his medical bills sounds pretty inflated and i can't imagine what injuries he would have sustained that cost that much. Of course if he's arguing trauma I'd argue he created his own trauma when he drove into the water covered roadway. In any event, I'll lay odds he gets nowhere and Good Samaritan laws will kick in and make this another waste of time and money...too bad we don't charge the loser fees for losing a court case
(1)
(0)
SSG (Join to see)
Sir, I agree. My wife and I have been discussing this. We both are sickened at all these ridiculous lawsuits. While Good Samaritan laws are in place in many areas, people will STILL sue. These lawsuits need to be dismissed with extreme prejudice and the plaintiff made to pay ALL court costs to include fees for the defendants. Maybe it'll help to stem this pandemic of suing at the first sign of issues, as well as these greedy shysters.
(2)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google