Second Amendment Decision (user search)
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
April 27, 2024, 08:11:08 PM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  General Politics
  Political Debate (Moderator: Torie)
  Second Amendment Decision (search mode)
Pages: [1]
Poll
Question: Do you agree with the decision by the Supreme Court that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to bear arms, and that the DC gun ban was unconstitutional?
#1
Democrat: Yes
 
#2
Democrat: No
 
#3
Republican: Yes
 
#4
Republican: No
 
#5
independent/third party: Yes
 
#6
independent/third party: No
 
Show Pie Chart
Partisan results

Total Voters: 28

Author Topic: Second Amendment Decision  (Read 5701 times)
John Dibble
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 18,732
Japan


« on: June 30, 2008, 10:14:33 AM »

"The people" refers to the militia. Back then, everyone was part of a militia.

Then I suppose "the people" in amendments I, IV, and X also refer to the militia? Of course not. You are correct in pointing out that back then the people were considered the militia, but "the people" still means "the people". The first part of the Second Amendment is explanatory of at least one reason why the right of the people to keep and bear arms should not be infringed, but it is not the part of the amendment that states the law itself. It's a justification for the amendment, nothing more and nothing less. If the Second Amendment was rewritten to be compliant with modern vernacular, it would be something like this:

"The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed because a well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state."

Militias were very informal during the time the amendment was implemented - they weren't actually regulated by the government, rather they were just local groups ready to fight when an emergency came up. By protecting the right of individual people to keep and bear arms, civilians could (and still can) form militias when necessary, among other things.
Logged
John Dibble
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 18,732
Japan


« Reply #1 on: July 19, 2008, 10:32:48 PM »

John,

You are essentially correct, but the definition of militia is conterminous with those eligible to cast a vote in a state election (i.e. at this point, adult citizens who have not been convicted of an ad hominem felony or treason, and who have not been found mentally incompetent by a court of law).

As such, it is both a right and an obligation!

Note how the Stone Mountain ordinance has to the best of my knowledge never even been challenged in court!

I'm not quite certain which ordinance you are referring to. Could you be thinking of Kennesaw?

As far as gun ownership being an obligation, that's rather debatable. While there is a mandate for household owners to have a gun, there are exceptions - felons and the disabled of course, but notably those with religious objections. That's basically why it hasn't been challenged in court. Anyone who doesn't want to comply has an easy out. Even a hardcore atheist could say he doesn't want to own a gun on moral grounds and it would probably be allowed to slide. There's not much room to challenge it given it's not really forced on you to any great degree.

My stance on most basic rights are that you are free to choose not to exercise them if you wish. There are times when you might feel that you have a moral obligation to exercise one of your rights, but that's a matter of perspective and others wouldn't necessarily feel the same given the same situation.
Logged
Pages: [1]  
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.025 seconds with 15 queries.