Supreme court & the 2nd amendment

[turk2di]

Perhaps im simply dumb, so help me out here some of you more cerebral posters. Sometime this month, the supreme court is looking into wether the 2nd amendment gives us individual rights to bear arms or not. I thought that the Justices took an oath to uphold the constitution, not to possibly change it by their interpretation!

[JP]

I'd like to know how else you could interpret the 2nd amendment???? too weird.

[schroader]

As JP said what else could it mean. If you can read you should know what it means.

[turkeytalker]

I really won't be suprised if SCOTUS rules against gun owners in this particuliar case,even if they do rule in favor of DC's gun owners it will be worded in such a way only to muddy the clarity even more.


Hope i'm wrong.

[turkeytalker]

Sometime this month, the supreme court is looking into wether the 2nd amendment gives us individual rights to bear arms or not.


The Constitution doesn't give us any rights,it guarantees GOD given rights.

[Landguy]

Amendment II

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.


That seems pretty straight forward to me.

[redneck1377]

the way that this is worded is what confuse the high-brow,old english make more sense to me than modern english

[turkeytalker]

Others believe that the Constitution is a flexible document that provides a general framework to be applied to present day realities.


I think that anyone who thinks the Constitution gives them a right to bear arms would fit in this category^^^^^^^^^^^.

It is very important for everyone to understand what The Bill of RIGHTS really does,and that it only guarantees instead of grants.

Manmade rights can surely change,natural rights cannot.

[ptbrauch]

I think something that gets overlooked a lot in this debate is the fact that of the 10 amendments in the Bill of Rights, this is #2--only behind the freedom of speech.

And I once heard someone say that its the 2nd Amendment that guarantees the 1st.

[yote hunter]

I agree. And, given their writings, that's what the Founding Fathers meant. If you believe (as I do) that interpretation of the Constitution should be based on the original intent of the framers, then this is a settled issue. Others believe that the Constitution is a flexible document that provides a general framework to be applied to present day realities. The views of the Founding Fathers are considered, but more to inform the judicial decision, not dictate it. Under this view, the "reality" of uncontrollable gun violence allows for restrictive gun laws because the enactment of these laws doesn't impede the maintenance of a "well regulated" militia. Or, along similar lines, the only way to have a "well regulated militia" is to regulate who owns guns. Gun control advocates hang their hat on this line of thinking.

Like you, this seems pretty straight forward to me, but the fact that it's going to the Supreme Court means it's not as straight forward to some (many?). It will be good to get it settled (or resettled).


in the 1780's regulated had the same meaning as trained or practiced does today.

[turkeytalker]

in the 1780's regulated had the same meaning as trained or practiced does today.

Not only did "regulated" mean what Yote said, but also meant what was in service by the present regular army.The big gun grab in the 30's even abided by this when they banned automatics and sawed off shotguns,as they were not ordinary police weapons,I called it a gun grab didn't I?

Thats why they cant have my Ar's:D