You might find this article interesting. Here are some of the highlights if you don’t wish to go to the site. Still it is linked at the bottom of this post. “The framers and adopters of the Second Amendment were generally ardent supporters of the idea of well-regulated liberty. Without strong governments and effective laws, they believed, liberty inevitably degenerated into licentiousness and eventually anarchy. Diligent students of history, particularly Roman history, the Federalists who wrote the Constitution realized that tyranny more often resulted from anarchy, not strong government while the founding generation certainly esteemed the idea of an armed population, they were also ardent supporters of gun regulations. All of the colonies – apart from Quaker-dominated Pennsylvania, the one colony in which religious pacifists blocked the creation of a militia – enrolled local citizens, white men between the ages of 16-60 in state-regulated militias. The colonies and then the newly independent states kept track of these privately owned weapons required for militia service. Men could be fined if they reported to a muster without a well-maintained weapon in working condition. There was no general right of armed travel when the Second Amendment was adopted, and certainly no right to travel with concealed weapons. Such a right first emerged in the United States in the slave South decades after the Second Amendment was adopted. The market revolution of the early 19th century made cheap and reliable hand guns readily available. Southern murder rates soared as a result. the Founders engaged in large-scale disarmament of the civilian population during the American Revolution. The right to bear arms was conditional on swearing a loyalty oath to the government. Individuals who refused to swear such an oath were disarmed.” https://theconversation.com/five-types-of-gun-laws-the-founding-fathers-loved-85364
The only time I ever owned a weapon was when I lived in Chicago. I finally gave it up after I was told of the very real danger of it discharging and easily piercing the common wall and injuring a neighbor. I calculated my risk from crime and judged it to be less a concern. I simply took it to the police station and surrendered it as it was registered to me.
Her most people that's all you need. Guns are weapons that are meant to kill things and that includes you. But some people don't know how to be smart about it maybe they've never handled guns. And the people I thought were mostly young people who may have never even thought about shooting guns.
It's still that way. If you fill out a 4473 there is a question on that form whether or not you renounce your citizenship. Since the country is established in people are born citizens the oath is inherent. Further the right to bear arms is not specific to just in your homestead. It says the right for the people not the militia but the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. if you're infringing on someone's right to keep and bear arms while traveling you are violating the Second Amendment.
To me this amendment, presumably second in importance, was written in a haphazard way. If I had it shown to me for the first time, I would likely construe it’s meaning to be that states need militias and militias need people to do militia stuff so it is the militia whose gun rights are most preeminent. “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.” Some state-ratified versions omitted the first or final commas, such as Maryland's 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. The ratification acts from New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, and South Carolina contained only one comma, but with differences in capitalization. Pennsylvania's act states. 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. The ratification act from New Jersey has no commas. 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.
Bear in mind that, at the time of the ratification of the united states constitution, the phrase "well regulated" meant "in good working order" and had absolutely nothing to do with regulations and restrictions on the legal exercising of a constitutional right.
But it did heavily qualify that this was being done for militias. Very badly written and sloppy and I think this amendment needs to be legally revisited.
As written, it stipulates that the right to bear arms is predicated upon the importance of militias. It should have been written to protect individual gun rights if that was the intention of the founders mentioning it’s value to the militias as well.
The united state supreme court ruled otherwise in the Heller decision, and reaffirmed it in the McDonald and Caetano decisions. Legal firearms ownership has absolutely no connection to a supposed duty in serving in the militia. Rather it is the militia that is entirely continent and predicated on legal firearms ownership.
The US Supreme Court also affirmed the right to own slaves (Dred Scott) and to forcibly sterilize women deemed to be imbeciles (thanks Holmes) The US Supreme Court Is capricious in it’s decisions and dependent upon the mores of it’s prevailing political climate. Even the right to free expression or even of the military’s right to quarter soldiers in your house could be abridged on their say so and what force could stop them and at what price?
Does such serve to change the fact that three separate rulings have affirmed and reaffirmed the message? Is the above meant to cast dispersion on the validity of rulings by the united state supreme court, and suggest that both the public and government should be free to disregard certain rulings at their own discretion, on the basis that they do not like what was said, or otherwise believe the ruling was wrong?
I’m only saying that the US Supreme Court makes decisions based on the political exigencies of the moment. They decided against and for the death penalty in less than 10 years! For one example.
We should think for ourselves and question what we are told. Hollow point ammo and common sense would keep you and your neighbors safe if you chose to have a gun. Of course, I respect your choice up to the point of you trying to force it on others.
Fair enough. I raised my kids to know how to safely handle a firearm. Too many kids come across a gun at a friends house or worse, find one discarded in public. A neighbor had 2 boys and they were never allowed to watch any TV show that had a gun, or play with any toy that resembled a gun. When they came to my home and saw the toy guns in the toy box, the first thing they did was grab them, aim them at each others faces, pulled the trigger, and yelled "You're dead"
We are agreed on the right to own a firearm. In the inner city or in rural areas it will likely be one’s best protection. I just didn’t think it was a good choice for me living in the suburbs as I was.
~ Today nobody is safe from the radical leftist "progressive" type that feed their anger and self-loathing depression by attacking others - usually in a group. Sad but true ...
“Well-regulated” modifies “militia”. The Constitution grants powers to government. The Bill of Rights restricts the powers of government. The Constitution granted Congress the power to organize, arm and discipline the militia in Article 1, Section 8, Clause 16. Congress, using this authority, has passed five Militia Acts since ratification of the Bill of Rights to regulate the militia. Current law on militia regulation is 10 USC 246. U.S. Code § 246.Militia: composition and classes (a)The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard. (b)The classes of the militia are— (1)the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and (2)the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia. The Second Amendment can only limit the power of government, not expand it. That limitation was expressed in the clause "the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Nothing in the Bill of Rights limits the rights of the people.
I actually support gun rights in the US but the second amendment as written protects gun rights specific to militias. This is very similar to the Swiss demanding it’s citizens keeping rifles at home as they can be called upon to defend the country if need be. For what it’s worth I think that a bill of rights was never necessary as the US constitution clearly laid out the limitations of government and ascribing certain rights freed the government to remove rights not strictly given in these 10.
