Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

2nd Amendment Upheld

  1. Mar 9, 2007 #1
    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????
     
  2. jcsd
  3. Mar 10, 2007 #2

    BobG

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper

    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.
     
    Last edited: Mar 11, 2007
  4. Mar 10, 2007 #3
    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.
     
  5. Mar 11, 2007 #4

    russ_watters

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    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?
     
  6. Mar 11, 2007 #5
    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.
     
  7. Mar 11, 2007 #6
    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
     
  8. Mar 11, 2007 #7
    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
     
  9. Mar 12, 2007 #8
    Exactly, militias should be regulated, and an unarmed populace is in no position to accomplish that.
     
  10. Mar 12, 2007 #9

    turbo

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    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.
     
  11. Mar 12, 2007 #10

    russ_watters

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    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.
     
    Last edited: Mar 12, 2007
  12. Mar 12, 2007 #11
    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).
     
  13. Mar 12, 2007 #12
    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 :)
     
  14. Mar 12, 2007 #13
    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?
     
  15. Mar 12, 2007 #14
    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.
     
  16. Mar 12, 2007 #15

    russ_watters

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    No need to play that game, drankin - your driver's license is for you, not your car. :biggrin:
     
  17. Mar 12, 2007 #16

    russ_watters

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    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!
     
  18. Mar 12, 2007 #17

    russ_watters

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    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.
     
  19. Mar 12, 2007 #18
    Russ just doesn't like guns. He doesn't need a good reason either. I can respect that.
     
  20. Mar 12, 2007 #19
    I was just pondering the reasons for the amendment. This is often debated.

    I guess the English didn't expect the citizen army to effectively fight them, but they did. And a high-enough fraction of the population wanted this, but they still had to fight the military. I guess the situation would be comparable to W or another president deciding to be president for life because "we are still at war". If he did that, the population might want to forcefully dislodge him even if the military supported him.

    As it reads, other than the militia scenario, the right to bear arms does not seem intended for personal freedom but as a check against despots. And such a check require an organized militia, not maverick cowboys. I don't know what percentage of armed Americans are part of a militia.
     
  21. Mar 12, 2007 #20
    Drankin suggested that everyone was armed back then, which is generally true. However, who besides you is making the stretch to suggest everyone was part of "the militia", or even that there was some singular "the militia" at that time, and how did you come to those conclusions?

    I am suggesting that an armed citizenry is necessary to insure the security of a free state. In other words; a government can exercise whatever authority it wants when it's militias have the biggest guns, as a comparably unarmed populace is inherently unfit defend it's freedom against an armed faction determined to oppress them.
     
    Last edited: Mar 12, 2007
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?



Similar Discussions: 2nd Amendment Upheld
  1. Amendment XXVIII? (Replies: 180)

  2. 14th Amendment Hubbub (Replies: 278)

Loading...