2nd Amendment Upheld

drankin

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17538139/

Can you believe that the contending judge said that the 2nd Amendment did not apply to Americans in DC because it's not a "state"? Is that nuts or what? What other Constitutional rights don't apply to Americans there according to this judge????

BobG

I can believe it. The second amendment is all one sentence, and a pretty convoluted sentence at that. It sure sounds like it refers to the state's right to maintain their own separate army separate from the federal government - in other words, the National Guard.

As to Washington DC, maintaining a federal district, distinct from the states, to house the National capitol has always created a few problems on how to handle residents of Washington DC. Washingon DC isn't represented in the Senate and it only has 3 non-voting delegates in the House of Representatives.

kyleb

I agree that it is rather awkwardly phrased, but it quite plainly declares "the right of the people to keep and bear arms", so I am at a loss as to how anyone can read it to suggest people are not afforded that right. Surely our forefathers knew of previous societies where an armed minority oppressed an unarmed populace, and acknowledged the need to protect against such imbalances of power in order to protect "the security of a free state"? We can't rightly regulate a militia from the wrong end of their guns.

russ_watters

What people...?

And are you suggesting that the 2nd Amendment says militias should not be regulated or are you disagreeing with it saying they should?

drankin

And are you suggesting that only the people in the National Gaurd should bear arms since that can be construed as the regulated militia that the Amendment refers to?

I believe, just my opinion (I'm no historian), that everyone was armed back then. It went without saying. And that the Amendment was refering to the ability of an organized militia to also be allowed to be armed, but regulated. So as not be an organized threat against a Constitutional US.

Ki Man

i'm pretty sure in 1778 they actually had uses for their guns and used them more wisely. unless queen elizabeth decides to take out an old grudge on us, i dont think someone walking by the whitehouse will need a handgun to blow the brains out of a mugger anytime soon

Ki Man

I think what they were trying to prevent is a government that can just come snatch away all of the peoples means of resistance, and this was probably a safegaurd to keep the government from becoming a second england

kyleb

Exactly, militias should be regulated, and an unarmed populace is in no position to accomplish that.

turbo

At the time that our constitution was written, people were expected to own firearms and to maintain adequate ammunition for same. This is today interpreted as a "right" by those determined to limit our access to arms. This is a very narrow and short-sighted interpretation. When our nation was born, male citizens of majority were required to serve England, and they comprised a citizen militia that were compelled to fight the French, the Indians, etc, as the Crown saw fit. The Constitution was drawn up in this spirit and clearly addressed the need of ordinary citizens to be armed in the defense of our country, lest we lose control of it. It's not a bad idea.

russ_watters

I am only suggesting that it is not as clear-cut as some people like to see it. It is poorly worded.

For my personal opinion: No, it isn't a bad idea(see: Switzerland), though it may be out of date. Regardless, to me, "well regulated" would mean that while everyone can/should/whatever have a gun, the government still needs to make sure they use them safely/responsibly. That seems to me to fit with the spirit of this badly written one-liner, but allows for taking into account that guns today are a real safety/crime problem.

Apost8

Although D.C. citizens are required to pay Federal Income Taxes, they do not have voting representation in either the House or Senate (i.e. Taxation Without Representation).

drankin

Guns are a safety/crime problem? Maybe you meant to say that people with guns are a safety/crime problem? If that latter is what you meant, maybe we should look at what people you are refering to. Saying that guns are a problem doesn't make a lot of sense. Cars are a problem too if we apply that logic. If we go too far with it, breathing becomes a problem. You know the debate, you know stances, I'm sure you've been down this road before :)

kyleb

How do get from "well regulated milita" to regulating everyone? And how do you suppose we can insure our militias remain regulated while lacking the means to match them at arms?

out of whack

A group of colonists separated from England and had to fight armed soldiers in order to boot the king's men off the shore. Obviously it was a good thing that they were not deprived of the weapons that allowed them to do this. In the spirit of the freedom they have just gained, they put it in their constitution that citizens can preserve the means to do to their government what they just did to the king if it becomes necessary. Wasn't it the spirit at the time, to enable the population to overthrow their government by force if it becomes necessary to do so? As in: treat us fairly, we are armed.

russ_watters

No need to play that game, drankin - your driver's license is for you, not your car.

russ_watters

It is in the same sentence and as someone else pointed out, everyone was part of the militia. ??? You are suggesting that the only way the government can exercise authority is if it has the biggest guns? Besides being contradictory to what you are saying about the 2nd amendment - yikes!

russ_watters

Could a citizen army effectively fight a modern military? Would it need to? If a high fraction of the population wanted to revolt, wouldn't it follow that the military would agree with them?

And as I pointed out in another thread, by some people's loose definitions of "revolution", we have one about once a decade anyway. No need for guns.