Slashdot Mirror
Second Amendment Questioned
dheera writes "Attorneys in Washington, DC question the scope of the Second Amendment in the first case in nearly 70 years, citing that the right to bear arms only applies to 'a well regulated militia.' 'We interpret the Second Amendment in military terms,' said Todd Kim, the District's solicitor general."
... do you guys (/girls) have the right to walk around town with a japanese sword hanging on your belt?
For the perfect anti-Unix, write an OS that thinks it knows what you're doing better than you do and let it be wrong.
In the phrase "A well regulated militia" regulated = equipped.
The idea was that in the event of tyranny or invasion the people could form up and defend themselves. We are guaranteed the right to pursue life, liberty, and happiness. To pursue life one must be able to defend it. That is why we are guaranteed the right to keep and bear arms.
By now I would have expected the noise about gun control to die down. It's a losing issue for democrats, and gun ownership may well be the only thing that recently stopped the USA from falling into fascist totalitarianism.
The resistance in Iraq and Afghanistan has access to automatic weaponry and rocketry. American civilians don't, and many advocates for the Second Amendment don't try to claim that anyone has a right to arms so powerful.
Each state (and Washington DC) should able to interpret "well regulated militia" itself. A well regulated militia in Texas might be any private citizen wanting own a firearm. In New York, a well regulated militia might be the national guard only with no private ownership of firearms. If you want to want to own guns, you would have to live in a gun friendly state.
I think solves the underlying problem nicely. Firearms are a problem in major urban centers but not a big problem in rural states. Each state crafts its own rules. There will be states with tight rules and loose ones.
But lets pretend, just for a second.
If what they claim is true, then by definition:
See the problem? Every male above the age of 18 is registered with Selective Service and is therefore a member of the militia of the U.S., by whichever definition you wish to use for the word.
So in effect, even if what they were claiming were true, which it's clearly not, then they are simply arguing that women cannot own guns! That's the only people who their claim would effect.
Actually, that's not true. If their claim were true, then it would be unconstitutional to prohibit convicts from owning a firearm, because they are still part of the Selective Service regardless of their legal status, and "the right...shall not be infringed." Honestly, that means it's unconstitutional for the courts to restrict their right to bear arms, even with the correct interpretation of the amendment. Strictly reading the letter of the Constitution, you can take away their right to breathe, before you can forbid them from carrying a firearm, even while they are encarcerated. But even bending it a little, as soon as they are released, they, by Constitutional right, should be permitted^H^H^Hhave the unrevokable right to purchase a gun from the closest pawnshop, should they wish. And, in fact, for just that reason, they are able to "restore" their right after any parole time they might still be serving.
Drop me a line at:
Key ID: 0x54D1D809
Well said.
I find most vocal gun rights advocates leave out the "well regulated militia" clause if the second amendment. I've always been amazed at how poorly that amendment parses. My reading is the same as yours - citizens may have firearms so that they mey function as part of an organized "militia," or protective group. All of the functions which militias performed two hundred years ago have been taken over by standing govenrmental bodies. In fact, the writing most likely applies to the state national guards - you don't get much more of a well-regulated militia than that.
I still believe in the right to own firearms, and have owned several in my lifetime, though none in operational condition at the moment, but I don't agree that the constitution gives the sweeping endorsement it once did.
I'm sure there will be those who ignore reality and say that without personal firearms we are at the mercy of the federal government. I've got bad news for them - there isn't a consumer-led army in the world that could take over the US govenrment, on US soil, defended by the US military. (That is, of course, ignoring the possibility that most/all of the military turns against the CIC and standing legislatures - but then we woouldbe fighting with the military, not against it.)
Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
They don't tax virtual earnings. What has been indicated that they might tax are real earning in virtual environments (i.e. games).
Stupidity is like nuclear power, it can be used for good or evil. And you don't want to get any on you.
Mod the parent up, this person gets it. Having studied on the "Founding Fathers" off and on for the last 65+ years, I am absolutely amazed at the miss-interpretation that has been given force of law over the last 100 years, rendering our original Republic an ever more tyranical place to live. Boggles the mind. Only when one recalls Ben's reply about a "Democracy being a very bad form of government, but all the others are so much worse" does it come into a clearer focus. Unforch, the space between is being narrowed inexorably. By lowering democracy toward the "so much worse" category. At some point, the last box (ammo) Ed Howdershelt wrote about in his famous saying about the boxes (soap, ballot, jury, & ammo)to defend liberty, will be opened and used. I believe it was Jefferson who said relative to the tree of liberty needing refreshed with the blood of patriots and tyrants from time to time, adding "Lord help us if we go 20 years without it". Its been about 40 now since the race riots were a pandemic. Read into that what you will, I'm too old & tired to argue with anyone who hasn't read his history.
--
Cheers, Gene
4 Washington, DC
5 Philadelphia, PA 6 Dallas, TX 7 Nashville, TN 8 Charlotte, NC 9 Columbus, OH 10 Houston, TXI think the bigger division is in regards to issue (B): Is the ability to own, carry, trade, manufacture, modify, and transport firearms an important right?
For example, Long Island, NY is a very anti-gun place. Very few Long Islanders hunt, and gun enthusiasts are few and far between. The typical Long Islander will only encounter a gun during a crime, and so, guns carry a very negative opinion. The prevailing view on LI is, if it makes us safer, we don't need guns.
On the other hand, Denver, CO is a very pro-gun place. Hunting is popular, and many gun enthusiasts live there. The typical Coloradian has been exposed to guns in friendly social settings, and so, they do not carry as negative a stigma. The prevailing view in CO is, the 2nd Amendment is an innate right, granted to man by the Creator directly.
I think the best one-liner on gun laws is as follows: if guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns. However, I know from experience that anti-gun voters will roll their eyes at that little gem.
To them I say: consider marijuanna. Marijuanna has been illegal throughout my entire lifetime (born 1980) and yet, I have known casual marijuanna smokers in Colorado and in Long Island. They are criminals, each and every one of them, but they are not persuaded by the law. Some cite cultural or spiritual reasons, others simply like it, but they all agree: bugger off with your rules, this is what FREEDOM is all about.
As my grandpappy used to say: true freedom is the freedom to make mistakes.
- Zaphod (100% pro-2nd Amendment, despite the fact I've never used a firearm)
barack to the future?