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.
Question for the commenters: why is developing a nuclear weapon illegal? Isn’t it an arm? What about NDAs? Don’t they infringe on the 1st Amendment?
For Kindle and with free ePub version. Only $9.49 Great reading.
Here is what Gary Shapiro CEO of the Consumer Electronics Association (CEA) said: Dvorak's writing sings with insight and clarity. Whether or not you agree with John's views, he will get you thinking and is never boring. These essays are worth the read!
Subscribe to Main Blog feed here:
Subscribe to Comments too (below):
Bad Behavior has blocked 5614 access attempts in the last 7 days.
“Question for the commenters: why is developing a nuclear weapon illegal? Isn’t it an arm?”
Precisely YES. According to both the intent and text of the 2nd amendment Owning your own pocket nuke is perfectly Legal. The problem is that government has gotten into the habit of pretending the constitution says what ever they hell the want on a whim since FDR.
So instead of rewriting the 2nd amendment to cover nukes and such government just plays pretend it says whatever the hell they want.
BTW that goes for both the right and the left they’re both fascist scum and ignore the constitution on a whim.
When was the last time a guy won a case against the ATF because of his 2nd amendment rights?
In order in keep the old people in check. We need to remove the guns from them, when the Obamacare is passed.
#31 Precisely, WRONG.
No freedom is absolute.
Speech is not protected in all circumstances. Speech is limited in school, or if it advocates violent overthrow of the government, or if it is intended to cause civil unrest.
Weapons, for personal use and protection, are legal. There is a cutoff at some point, though. Outside of certain jurisdictions you cannot own machine guns or other heavy weapons. Nukes are also out, logically, because what sort of militia needs them?
Guns ARE a protected and settled right under U.S. law. Period.
If D.C. had argued that concealed weapons are a danger to the public in such a highly secured and nationally important locale they would have won. D.C. is the very definition of a “special case” that could make reasonable the prohibition of an otherwise sacrosanct right. Instead they pursued a non-defensible strategy and predictably lost.
Has anyone considered that the argument was intended from the start to lose?
This may shock you but the people who wrote that almost certainly foresaw a need to remove the government they were creating at some point in time by force.
This no doubt has something to do with the often forgotten fact that they had just removed their government by force.
The militia is also anybody with a gun willing to show up and us it in time of need. I do admit the last time we had to do this was during the civil war er war between the states.
The next time depends on a lot of things we don’t know.
#21 Amen brother!
#30 Boobo, flame baiting again.
How about this one.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=MTxmk3fJJ-k&NR=1
NDA is a private contract. Speaking on an issue under NDA, is a breech of contract. No more, no less.
It’s funny that you highlighted the second half of the sentence. Why not highlight the first half and discuss if the founders really meant that states should have a regulated militia made up of individuals of that state and not have them regulate their own weapons.
Just sayin’.
“Outside of certain jurisdictions you cannot own machine guns or other heavy weapons. Nukes are also out, logically, because what sort of militia needs them?”
It depends on what the militia’s purpose is. If part of its job is to overthrow a tyrannical Federal government, then yes, it needs nukes if that government has nukes. Otherwise what’s to stop the Feds from nuking a rebel city or five when they’re close to defeat? Ever heard of Mutual Assured Destruction and nuclear deterrence? Even if it is only to repel invasion, nukes may be necessary in an extreme case. For example, if the British all become reavers and rape and cannibalize their way through Richmond, VA, nuking that city would be justified to stop the Anglo-reaver invasion in its tracks (which, considering what’s been going on in Britain, isn’t as far-fetched or sci-fi as it seems at first glance). So, therefore, there is a logical right to bear nukes in a Fundie reading of the constitution, which is overridden by the fact that reading it that way would pose such a collosal public safety hazard as to turn the constitution into a suicide pact.
In Virginia every able bodied person from the ages of 16 to 55 are considered to be a part of the Virginia Militia. The Virginia Declaration of Rights, as established by George Mason in 1776, established the Virginia militia based on these three criteria: the right to revolution, the right to group self-preservation and the right to self-defense.
Virginia has four classes of Militia. “The National Guard, which includes the Army National Guard and the Air National Guard, the Virginia State Defense Force, the naval militia, and the unorganized militia.”
To regulate the militia the Virginia Military Institute bestows rank on permanent faculty members of the institute with the cadets also being members in the unorganized militia regardless of state citizenship.
As you can see from the intent of George Mason, a well regulated militia means that there is authority in place and ready to be used if needed. It does not mean everyone must be formally organized into the militia.
George Mason is considered to be one of the Founding Fathers and along with James Madison is also the Father of the Bill of Rights. The U.S. Bill of Rights is based on the Virginia Declaration of Rights. He was instrumental in the writing of the U.S. Constitution. He was also neighbor and friend to George Washington.
Based on these facts alone you should be able to discern the true intent and meaning of the 2nd amendment.
This guy is wrong about the Supreme Court never holding for an individual right to bear arms before. It has done so many times, as an afterthought. Even in the Miller case that supposedly said militias only, Miller wasn’t part of the National Guard, but that wasn’t enough for the Supremes to settle the case. They had to detail why his weapon wasn’t suited for the National Guard.
In other cases, you have the Supreme Court saying that it’s not a violation of POW X’s rights to do Y because by that logic then the POWs right to bear arms are also violated.
Owning a nuke is OK, as long as you obtain the proper permits.
While reasonable people can disagree as to the precise meaning of the second amendment, I’m comforted by the knowledge that if or when some @sshole breaks into my house at 04:00, I will put two 255 grain pieces of copper jacketed lead into his cranium while I’m dialing 911. Call me unsophisticated, uneducated or even simple minded if you wish, but you will never have to all me a victim.
#47 Those permit forms are very difficult to obtain.
The right to bear arms was intended to prevent the government from abusing its powers by keeping the government afraid of its citizens and therefore prevent government slipping from a democracy to a monarchy (or worse).
The citizens would require arms that equaled the government’s ability. If the government is able to ‘ban’ certain arms for citizens while the government is allowed to have arms that are more powerful, then the idea of the citizens ability to uprise to maintain a free society is destroyed and so is the intent of the amendment.
What about District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S, where the Supreme Court held that the Second Amendment does indeed protect an individuals right to possess firearms.
District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S, where the Supreme Court held that the Second Amendment does indeed protect an individuals right to possess firearms.
49,
No.
You need an UNQUESTIONING military.
Ones that DIDNT READ their purpose AS TO PROTECT the citizens of the USA.
You need COPS, who think they are BOSS.
But ask 1 question.
What happens to a King/Queen/ruler of ANY SORT, when the people QUIT them?
When we MOVE out, QUIT supplying them, QUIT HELPING them..
You have 1 group standing with military and NO FOOD, NO followers, NO ASSISTANCE..
Military that will look into the eyes of THERE OWN FAMILY???
That is the power of the people. You can NOT rule in a nation that WILL NOT HELP YOU.
People have been saying for over 100 years that the government will take away guns.
People have been saying for over 150 years that the planet will become overcrowded and there will be famine and war from the lack of food and water within three generations of said prediction.
People have been saying for 2000 years that Jesus Christ is coming ANY DAY now.
The Sky is Falling! The Sky is Falling!
Cursor_
53,
WELL..
I can say a few things about that..
Over population is EASY to see, even now.
NOT much in the USA/Canada/mexico…Mostly in the Asian and middle east.
I do have a comment that could mean something to all of you.
DO YOU have the RIGHT to be self sufficient?
Which means you have the RIGHT to get your food FREE.
IS THIS A RIGHT??
Or are we to be FORCED to buy from Corps that cut every corner and MESS with our foods?
DO you have a RIGHT to hunt.
On the other side is the IDEA of personal protection OF your land and property. For you CITY FOLK, you have almost NO RIGHT.
Even in the COUNTRY, we still cant SHOOT anyone unless WE CAN PROVE they were Threatening us with BODILY DAMAGE, and it was INSIDE our homes and there was NO RECOURSE.
Most of the laws I see in Cities tend to say, YOU HAVE NO RECOURSE, and you CANT have a gun.
What I LOVE is the person that GETS a gun and has NO WHERE to practice with it.. And to fire off a GUN and miss a target means your BULLET goes threw a wall into an apartment/condo and kills SOMEONE ELSE..
They’ll have to pry my anthrax gun out of my cold dead hand.
And my bubonic plague bullets are protected by the second amendment, so suck it.
Exactly how is the ability to bear arms going to protect you from the feds? It might have done so in the 18th Century but in 2009?
We don’t need no steenking 2nd Amendment
Here’s why:
http://backwoodshome.com/articles/silveira58.html
(BTW, we don’t need any of the Bill of Rights in order to have the rights that are protected. The Bill of Rights does not grant any rights, it merely protects rights that exist regardless of government. We have a system where the power of government comes from the consent of the governed, not a system where government must consent to grant rights to the governed. This is not a small distinction. Anyway…read the link.)
The right to bear arms is a fundamental right. The 2nd Amendment does not give us that right. It only affirms our right to bear arms and prohibits the government from banning firearms. For tyranny to happen, first you need to disarm the populace. Only after the people are disarmed can you trample on their other rights without fear of repercussions.
Didn’t the SC already decide this in favor of individual rights?
At the time the Ammendment was cast, there was no such thing as a cartridge.
It could be argued that this new invention is well outside the scope of what the founding fathers had in mind.
Okay, class; who can name anything that would fit the definition of “Arms” that George Washington would have recognized?
61,
flintlocks.
Cap and powder,
There was EVEN a revolver based rifle.
Knives, swords, and large latex ducks..
“At the time the Ammendment was cast, there was no such thing as a cartridge.”
At the time the Ammendment was cast, there was no such thing as a radio, or a television, or the internet.
t could be argued that this new invention is well outside the scope of what the founding fathers had in mind.
Okay, class; who can name anything that would fit the definition of “Press” that George Washington would have recognized?
The Founding Fathers recognized this: when we need to throw off a government, and replace it with one that would secure life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, we would need to have arms, and the skill to use them, equal to or greater than the arms used by the army we’ll be fighting.
During the Revolutionary War, many militia members had arms better than those of the British Army.