2nd Amendment - a quick survey

[zoogs]

On the topic of the 2nd amendment, a pop quiz: in what century was it established that the 2nd amendment protects an individual's right to own guns?

(I saw it brought up in another thread, but wanted to split this poll into a new one. Just curious. Please vote before reading the answers.)

Spoiler

(answer)

 

[funhusker]

Oops, I answered quickly as to when the 2nd Amendment was written. As I think about the question, has the government ever established an "individual's" right to own a gun?

edit: well, I'll be......Learn something new everyday. Interesting.

 

[BigRedBuster]

Depends on who you ask.

If you ask conservative gun owners, they will say it's the way the founding fathers wanted it.

If you ask liberals scared of guns, they will say it's a myth made up by the NRA.

 

[cm husker]

I submitted my vote. How do you find the answer? I assume you're asking for the period during which the SCOTUS ruled on the issue?

 

[VectorVictor]

In all honesty, the Supreme Court hasn't upheld the myth that the second amendment is for individual gun ownership, unless there's been a case in the past few years I've overlooked?

Last I checked, the Supreme Court has always interpreted the second amendment the way the Founding Fathers truly intended (the real Founding Fathers, not the mythical ones the NRA and conservative extremists have cooked up to support their zealotry) in that gun ownership rights are extended to states via militias only (e.g. National Guard--a militia regulated by State and Federal powers), and that it has nothing to do with individual citizens owning guns.

 

[cm husker]

In all honesty, the Supreme Court hasn't upheld the myth that the second amendment is for individual gun ownership, unless there's been a case in the past few years I've overlooked?

Last I checked, the Supreme Court has always interpreted the second amendment the way the Founding Fathers truly intended (the real Founding Fathers, not the mythical ones the NRA and conservative extremists have cooked up to support their zealotry) in that gun ownership rights are extended to states via militias only (e.g. National Guard--a militia regulated by State and Federal powers), and that it has nothing to do with individual citizens owning guns.

You may have missed a couple of cases: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/06/28/AR2010062802134.html

Anyway, speaking of "real founding fathers" none were progressive, even in theory. Almost all were classical liberals or conservative. Understanding your other positions, I would warn against appealing to their authority.

For the record, I think it's silly that we have a constitutional amendment regarding the private ownership of a single type of product. But whatever.

 

[VectorVictor]

In all honesty, the Supreme Court hasn't upheld the myth that the second amendment is for individual gun ownership, unless there's been a case in the past few years I've overlooked?

Last I checked, the Supreme Court has always interpreted the second amendment the way the Founding Fathers truly intended (the real Founding Fathers, not the mythical ones the NRA and conservative extremists have cooked up to support their zealotry) in that gun ownership rights are extended to states via militias only (e.g. National Guard--a militia regulated by State and Federal powers), and that it has nothing to do with individual citizens owning guns.

You may have missed a couple of cases: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/06/28/AR2010062802134.html

Anyway, speaking of "real founding fathers" none were progressive, even in theory. Almost all were classical liberals or conservative. Understanding your other positions, I would warn against appealing to their authority.

For the record, I think it's silly that we have a constitutional amendment regarding the private ownership of a single type of product. But whatever.

That's a single case there, and it was helmed by Alito, which we know didn't exactly have a grasp on what the Founding Fathers intended, let alone reality or the reason law deals in precedent and not activism.

And it's not silly, considering the impact private gun ownership had at the time. If the U.S. Constitution/Bill of Rights were crafted by the Founding Fathers in 2016, I would suspect there would be mentions regarding rights of personal digital/electronic communication, intellectual property, private gun ownership, and other specific items.

That would be after the Founding Fathers got over the initial shock of time travel and learned how to use a computer, at any rate.

 

[cm husker]

It's the second case. And it affirms the earlier DC case. Did you read the article?

 

[Saunders]

In all honesty, the Supreme Court hasn't upheld the myth that the second amendment is for individual gun ownership, unless there's been a case in the past few years I've overlooked?

Last I checked, the Supreme Court has always interpreted the second amendment the way the Founding Fathers truly intended (the real Founding Fathers, not the mythical ones the NRA and conservative extremists have cooked up to support their zealotry) in that gun ownership rights are extended to states via militias only (e.g. National Guard--a militia regulated by State and Federal powers), and that it has nothing to do with individual citizens owning guns.

So the 2nd amendment is the only collective right...

 

[NUance]

1791.

I can't understand why the Supreme Court claimed that, "(t)he right to bear arms is not granted by the Constitution" in Cruikshank. LINK. The right to bear arms seems clear on its face from reading the 2nd Amendment.

The wording of the second Amendment reads: "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." I don't see how this can be construed to be anything other than the right to bear arms.

 

[Moesker]

 

[Saunders]

1791.

I can't understand why the Supreme Court claimed that, "(t)he right to bear arms is not granted by the Constitution" in Cruikshank. LINK). The right to bear arms seems clear on its face from reading the 2nd Amendment.

The wording of the second Amendment reads: 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. I don't see how this can be construed to be anything other than the right to bear arms.

The next argument is "Oh, well they only had slow loading muskets" even though it was the defacto arm of the time.

I'm sure the people who use that argument only believe the 1st Amendment only applies to vocal speech and newspapers printed on a Gutenberg press.

(And for the record, I'm for strengthening our current laws, and making sure we stop/punish actual criminals, not treat every citizen like one.)

 

[cm husker]

1791.

I can't understand why the Supreme Court claimed that, "(t)he right to bear arms is not granted by the Constitution" in Cruikshank. LINK). The right to bear arms seems clear on its face from reading the 2nd Amendment.

The wording of the second Amendment reads: 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. I don't see how this can be construed to be anything other than the right to bear arms.

Playing devils advocate, the "people" is only used in two of the first eight amendments. It's not necessarily clear that it wasn't meant to refer to "people" collectively.

Beyond that, I'm not sure one should just read out the introductory clause "a well regulated militia..." because we know the Founders understood the use of active voice (see amendments V, VI, VII and VIII - e.g., "Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.")

Therefore, it follows that if the Founders intended it to be an individual right, why didn't they draft it as "Congress shall make no law infringing upon a person's right to keep and bear Arms" or even just use the existing language but lop off the front?

What does the first part mean under your interpretation?

 

[BigRedBuster]

OK...the founding fathers were in the process of fighting against the government they didn't like. Everything in the constitution is protecting the PEOPLE/public against the government. There is nothing in the constitution or the Bill of Rights that grants more power to the government over the people.

So....looking at the second amendment, it makes no sense to me that they were meaning only a "well regulated militia" (meaning the National Guard). The National Guard is the government. They are a branch of our government's military. How in the world is the second amendment granting rights of any kind if it is only pertaining to a branch of the US military?

That defies logic.