View Poll Results: What Does the 2nd Amendment Actually Say?

Voters
51. You may not vote on this poll
  • You can have any gun you want and no one can stop you.

    17 33.33%
  • You can have any ARM you want. Why stop at guns? Knives, grenades, nunchucks, tanks...it's all good!

    10 19.61%
  • Yeah, you can have a gun, but there are limits to that right, like every other right.

    21 41.18%
  • You can have a gun so you can join in a militia instead of having a standing army.

    10 19.61%
  • You can have an 18th century single-shot firearm and no one can stop you.

    8 15.69%
  • You and your gun cannot be singled out by the government, it has to follow it's own laws

    8 15.69%
  • As a principle you should have the right to a gun, but we're not going to explain how.

    4 7.84%
  • It's purposefully vague.

    5 9.80%
  • Other

    10 19.61%
Multiple Choice Poll.
Page 5 of 18 FirstFirst ... 3456715 ... LastLast
Results 41 to 50 of 176

Thread: What Does the 2nd Amendment Actually Say?

  1. #41
    Sage
    Guy Incognito's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Last Seen
    12-02-17 @ 07:43 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    11,216

    Re: What Does the 2nd Amendment Actually Say?

    Quote Originally Posted by Willie Orwontee View Post
    And since the Court first spoke of the right to arms and the 2nd Amendment some 140 years ago, they have never wavered from the fact that the right is not granted, given, created or established by the 2nd (since it was possessed by the people before the Constitution was established and no aspect of the right was surrendered to government via the Constitution) so it is deemed a "pre-existing right' and thus is not in any manner dependent on the Constitution for its existence.
    I completely agree with that, and I've been saying that all along. What's important is the fact that the right to own and use guns is a natural right, that is one of innumerable natural rights found outside the constitution. The second amendment related to the militia, and the phrase "keep and bear arms" was a term of art referring to militia serve. Personal, individual gun ownership had NOTHING to do with the original meaning of the second amendment.

    Therefore, when people try to argue that the right to own guns in found in the second amendment it is WRONG and/or DISHONEST, as I am sure you will agree.

  2. #42
    Advisor aberrant85's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    SF Bay Area
    Last Seen
    10-04-15 @ 04:01 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    594

    Re: What Does the 2nd Amendment Actually Say?

    Quote Originally Posted by TurtleDude View Post
    if you remove the issue from the context of politics, there would be no real dispute.

    the problem is, the left has decided that gun control is a good tactic to harass the right and to pretend that democrats are doing something about crime So democrats and liberals have pretended that the second amendment really doesn't say what it obviously does in order to justify gun control schemes as not being unconstitutional
    I think the responses of the poll suggest that what the 2nd Amendment really says is in dispute.

  3. #43
    warrior of the wetlands
    TurtleDude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Ohio
    Last Seen
    Today @ 04:12 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    180,703

    Re: What Does the 2nd Amendment Actually Say?

    Quote Originally Posted by aberrant85 View Post
    I think the responses of the poll suggest that what the 2nd Amendment really says is in dispute.
    I think most of those who pretend it says something other than the obvious are those who want to restrict our gun rights and want to pretend their actions are not unconstitutional. Its sort of like FDR pretending that the COMMERCE CLAUSE allowed the 1934 NFA



  4. #44
    warrior of the wetlands
    TurtleDude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Ohio
    Last Seen
    Today @ 04:12 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    180,703

    Re: What Does the 2nd Amendment Actually Say?

    Those who claim that the amendment is only applicable to 18th century arms cannot be taken seriously and should be dismissed as children for example

    and for those who say the right is subject to restrictions, they need to tell us what part of the constitution actually gave the federal government the power to restrict the right



  5. #45
    Advisor aberrant85's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    SF Bay Area
    Last Seen
    10-04-15 @ 04:01 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    594

    Re: What Does the 2nd Amendment Actually Say?

    Quote Originally Posted by TurtleDude View Post
    Those who claim that the amendment is only applicable to 18th century arms cannot be taken seriously and should be dismissed as children for example

    and for those who say the right is subject to restrictions, they need to tell us what part of the constitution actually gave the federal government the power to restrict the right
    But certainly if you want to talk about the intent of the founding fathers you must accept that they wrote the 2nd amendment in the context of the 18th century. They wouldn't have had any idea about how it would be applied in the future.

  6. #46
    Advisor Willie Orwontee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Cradle of Liberty (obs.)
    Last Seen
    10-07-17 @ 01:50 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    381

    Re: What Does the 2nd Amendment Actually Say?

    Quote Originally Posted by Guy Incognito View Post
    I completely agree with that, and I've been saying that all along.
    No, you have been saying that the right, without any consideration of its origin or nature, is qualified and conditioned by the declaratory clause of the 2nd Amendment. You can not argue that the right is pre-existing the Constitution, never has any aspect of it been conferred to government and thus fully retained by the people ("What's important is the fact that the right to own and use guns is a natural right, that is one of innumerable natural rights found outside the constitution. ")and then proceed to argue, ("The second amendment related to the militia, and the phrase "keep and bear arms" was a term of art referring to militia serve. Personal, individual gun ownership had NOTHING to do with the original meaning of the second amendment").

    Quote Originally Posted by Guy Incognito View Post
    Therefore, when people try to argue that the right to own guns in found in the second amendment it is WRONG and/or DISHONEST, as I am sure you will agree.
    True that the right is "not found" in the Amendment because it does not in any manner depend on the 2ndA to exist. You OTOH are "WRONG and/or DISHONEST" in saying that no protection for the individual right to keep and bear arms is found in the 2nd Amendment . . . because that is the Amendment's only operation, to declare that the right shall not be infringed. That is the only language in the 2nd Amendment that has ever been recognized as having any action.



    Supreme Court, 1876: "The right there specified is that of "bearing arms for a lawful purpose." This is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed, . . ."

    Supreme Court, 1886: [quoting the 1876 case but exchanging the language of the indictment for the text of the 2nd Amendment] "the right of the people to keep and bear arms is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The Second Amendment declares that it shall not be infringed, . . . "

    Supreme Court, 2008: "it has always been widely understood that the Second Amendment, like the First and Fourth Amendments, codified a pre-existing right. The very text of the Second Amendment implicitly recognizes the pre-existence of the right and declares only that it “shall not be infringed.” As we said in . . . 1876 , “[t]his is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The Second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed … .”



    So, the only thing that can be taken away from a reading of the 2nd Amendment is that the 2nd Amendment declares that "it" shall not be infringed. The "it" of course is, "the right of the people to keep and bear arms". The right itself does not in any manner depend on what the 2nd Amendment says (or doesn't say), because the right pre-exists the Constitution.

    This means it is illegitimate to do what you are doing, imparting a "militia" conditioning or qualification on the right to arms with your inventive misconstruction of the 2nd Amendment.

    So, the questions I would like to be answered are, what don't you understand about 137 years and counting of SCOTUS saying the right to arms is in no manner dependent upon the 2nd Amendment and how do you justify holding the opinion that the right does depend on the 2nd, in such offensive opposition to longstanding determinations of the Supreme Court?
    I already have a license to own a gun; it's called a birth certificate.

  7. #47
    Sage
    Guy Incognito's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Last Seen
    12-02-17 @ 07:43 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    11,216

    Re: What Does the 2nd Amendment Actually Say?

    Quote Originally Posted by Willie Orwontee View Post
    No, you have been saying that the right, without any consideration of its origin or nature, is qualified and conditioned by the declaratory clause of the 2nd Amendment.
    Who the **** are you to tell me what I've been saying when you obviously haven't read a goddamn thing I've written? You are wrong, and a liar, and if you are a man of any honor I await your retraction and apology for slurs against my character.

    The second amendment is irrelevant to an individual right to possess and own weapons, as you yourself demonstrated with several quotes from caselaw. Which is why I maintain that the second amendment's original meaning relates only to a militia right.
    Last edited by Guy Incognito; 09-15-13 at 07:55 PM.

  8. #48
    Advisor Willie Orwontee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Cradle of Liberty (obs.)
    Last Seen
    10-07-17 @ 01:50 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    381

    Re: What Does the 2nd Amendment Actually Say?

    Quote Originally Posted by aberrant85 View Post
    But certainly if you want to talk about the intent of the founding fathers you must accept that they wrote the 2nd amendment in the context of the 18th century. They wouldn't have had any idea about how it would be applied in the future.
    You are demanding we accept an absurd premise . . . You need to understand that the framers wrote the 2nd Amendment within the context of the Lockean rights theory the founders / framers embraced.

    They did not believe the 2nd (or any of the provisions that recognize and secure original, fundamental, pre-existing rights) actually did anything but redundantly forbid the federal government to exercise powers never granted to it. The 2nd does not create, give, grant or establish the right to arms thus it can not be read to qualify or condition the right.

    Without a n amendment granting the government new power to regulate the personal arms of the private citizen there is nothing that needed to be considered vis-a-vis how the 2nd would be "applied" in the future.

    Please, re-read ernst barkmann's post 36 above quoting Virginia's Constitution ratifying statement. That was how the framers demanded we consider the Constitution in the future, that is the context of how rights are to be treated until a power is granted to government by a new amendment giving a new power to government:

    " . . . the powers granted under the Constitution, being derived from the people of the United States, may be resumed by them whensoever the same shall be perverted to their injury or oppression; and that every power not granted thereby remains with them, and at their will. That, therefore, no right of any denomination can be cancelled, abridged, restrained, or modified, by the Congress, by the Senate or House of Representatives, acting in any capacity, by the President, or any department or officer of the United States, except in those instances in which power is given by the Constitution for those purposes; and that, among other essential rights, the liberty of conscience and of the press cannot be cancelled, abridged, restrained, or modified, by any authority of the United States."

    Let's parse that simple statement:


    1. The powers of government emanate from the people.
    2. The powers not surrendered but retained are considered rights (exceptions of powers not granted) and shall always remain inviolate and can not be cancelled, abridged, restrained, or modified, by the Congress or the President, or any department or officer of the United States, until a new power is given by amendment to the Constitution for those purposes.
    3. Since those powers conferred by the people are only lent to the government, when government perverts its powers and violates the principles of its establishment, those powers may be taken back by the people (rescinding their consent to be governed utilizing the retained right to bear arms if necessary).

    Guy's disingenuous statement that he agrees that the right to arms is a pre-existing right but then saying that the right secured by the 2nd is only for the militia is arguing in opposition to all the above principles.

    How can the government condition and qualify something it has never possessed? How can the government give back to the "people" a "right" they never parted with?


    The framers certainly had a precise idea of how the 2nd Amendment should be applied in the future . . . the fundamental structure of the entire Constitution forces it and an understanding of that demands we denounce theories like Guy's and his inventive misconstructions / misrepresentations.
    I already have a license to own a gun; it's called a birth certificate.

  9. #49
    Mixed Government advocate
    Master PO's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    93,000,000 miles from Earth where its very Hot
    Last Seen
    11-30-17 @ 01:52 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    31,331

    Re: What Does the 2nd Amendment Actually Say?

    stated by South Carolina representative Mr. Scott, during the congressional debate on the Bill of Rights...Aug 1789

    "This would lead to the violation of another article in the constitution, which secures to the people the right of keeping arms, and in this case recourse must be had to a standing army."

    Amendment II: House of Representatives, Amendments to the Constitution

    2nd amendment
    The prohibition is general. No clause in the Constitution could by any rule of construction be conceived to give to congress a power to disarm the people. Such a flagitious [*criminal] attempt could only be made under some general pretence by a state legislature. But if in any blind pursuit of inordinate power, either should attempt it, this amendment may be appealed to as a restraint on both.---William Rawle, , who in 1791 was appointed as United States district attorney in Pennsylvania by G. Washington

  10. #50
    Advisor Willie Orwontee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Cradle of Liberty (obs.)
    Last Seen
    10-07-17 @ 01:50 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    381

    Re: What Does the 2nd Amendment Actually Say?

    Quote Originally Posted by Guy Incognito View Post
    Who the **** are you to tell me what I've been saying when you obviously haven't read a goddamn thing I've written?
    I've read everything you have written; don't get upset that I see and understand the constitutional incongruities in what you have written better than you do.

    Quote Originally Posted by Guy Incognito View Post
    You are wrong, and a liar, and if you are a man of any honor I await your retraction and apology for slurs against my character.
    Get over yourself and try making a reasoned, sourced argument that attempts to prove me wrong.

    Quote Originally Posted by Guy Incognito View Post
    The second amendment is irrelevant to an individual right to possess and own weapons, as you yourself demonstrated with several quotes from caselaw. Which is why I maintain that the second amendment's original meaning relates only to a militia right.
    It is redundant, not irrelevant and certainly most relevant in a post Slaughterhouse Cases / selective incorporation rights climate.

    Your position demands you twist and conjure into being things that don't exist, while you purposefully ignore things that do exist.

    The right of the people to keep and bear arms does exist . . . a "militia right" belonging to the states or the people does not exist.

    There is no such thing as a "militia right" because the process and means of calling up and organizing, training, drilling and deploying the citizenry as militia is a power conferred to the federal government through Art I, § 8, cl's 15 & 16. There is no "right" to be claimed by any entity (state or private citizen) for any aspect of militia activity (for as long as the government is deemed by the people to be acting within the confines of Constitution).

    See, this demonstrates the pure folly of your argument . . . You claim the 2nd protects an immunity from federal power that no state has ever imagined and SCOTUS has consistently ignored for 193 years and counting . . .
    I already have a license to own a gun; it's called a birth certificate.

Page 5 of 18 FirstFirst ... 3456715 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •