Second Amendment

[Meshavrischika]

Is the current interpretation of the Second Amendment the correct interpretation? (upholding Washington D.C.s right to deny gun ownership to individuals and holding it as a militia group right) or does it need to change (as it appears it likely will from commentary from the Supreme Court to date)?

I feel this is an individual right, not just a state militia right.

 

[Washington]

What has this to do with ethics or morality? I think you may be in the wrong forum.

 

[Meshavrischika]

What has this to do with ethics or morality? I think you may be in the wrong forum.

I'm sure that it will come to the ethics and morality of the public having guns to begin with. that's where it's going.

Sorry it wasn't clear enough for you to infer.

 

[Washington]

I'm sure that it will come to the ethics and morality of the public having guns to begin with. that's where it's going.

Sorry it wasn't clear enough for you to infer.

Well, in that sense I guess any subject could come around to an issue of ethics or morality. But I'm curious as to what ethics or morality issue you envision as the center of a discussion of 2nd Amendment interpretation.


In any case, how about telling us why you feel

this is an individual right, not just a state militia right.

 

[Meshavrischika]

Well, in that sense I guess any subject could come around to an issue of ethics or morality. But I'm curious as to what ethics or morality issue you envision as the center of a discussion of 2nd Amendment interpretation.


In any case, how about telling us why you feel

the issue of gun control would be an applied ethical issue since there are significant groups of people both for and against gun control:

What lies behind our need to possess guns? What lies behind our desire to control gun ownership? The Virginia Tech massacre seems to have set off arguments on both sides of the issue. So, do guns save lives or end lives? What about if they do both? What then?

 

[Foolish_Fool]

I think that the second amendment pertains only to state sponsored militias and their members. You have to remember that guns are only one type of "arms". Arms is short for armaments, which is virtually any kind of weapon used in war. Everything from cannons to explosives to guns to tanks and beyond.

Personally I would like to think that the second ammendment gives private citizens the right to "own and bear arms". I'd love to drive to work in a tank with a bandolier strapped to my chest. Not only do I see the gun lobby assault rifles but I'll raise them an M1 Abrams and a crate full of C4. I have just as much of a claim to own and bear those as they do guns.

 

[allhart]

The right is ours and the changes on how much freedom is given or our privileges that are received is up in arms. lol As we all know guns don't kill people do and as for the restrictions or how many law we make. We can't make people moral only God can. The legitimacy of a law bidding citizen isn't up for debate, but our guns are getting demoralized and we are finding that our freedoms are being socialized out of existence. In an unmoral society.There is enough law in our country. We just justify the criminals right/ behaviors and demoralize the gun. Not the other way around. We should in force our laws.One law would work best for the unmoral. Have a gun in a crime automatic 10 yrs. Pull a gun in a crime automatic 20 yrs. Fire a gun in a crime automatic life imprisonment.

 

[Foolish_Fool]

The right is ours and the changes on how much freedom is given or privileges are received is up in arms. lol As we all know guns don't kill people do and as for the restrictions or how many law we make. We can't make people moral only God can. The legitimacy of a law bidding citizen isn't up for debate, but our guns are getting demoralized and we are finding that our freedoms are being socialized out of existence. In an unmoral society.There is enough law in our country. We just justify the criminals right/ behaviors and demoralize the gun. Not the other way around. We should in force our laws.One law would work best for the unmoral. Have a gun in a crime automatic 10 yrs. Pull a gun in a crime automatic 20 yrs. Fire a gun in a crime automatic life imprisonment.

Preach it! I'm tired of people demoralizing my RPG. Everytime something goes horribly wrong with one they blame the arms and not the criminal. It's not my fault that other people aren't moral enough to be trusted with one. Blasted socialists trying to child proof everything.

 

[gengwall]

Is the current interpretation of the Second Amendment the correct interpretation? (upholding Washington D.C.s right to deny gun ownership to individuals and holding it as a militia group right) or does it need to change (as it appears it likely will from commentary from the Supreme Court to date)?

I feel this is an individual right, not just a state militia right.

Not sure why you think the collective right is the "current interpretation". It seems both interpretations have supporters and detractors even in the courts. I doin't beleive we actually have a solid current interpretation which is why it is good the SC is finally going to step up and give us one.

 

[Meshavrischika]

Not sure why you think the collective right is the "current interpretation". It seems both interpretations have supporters and detractors even in the courts. I doin't beleive we actually have a solid current interpretation which is why it is good the SC is finally going to step up and give us one.

under the law (interpreted by the courts I mean)

the last one they presided over was eons ago.

 

[gengwall]

What has this to do with ethics or morality? I think you may be in the wrong forum.

This has moral implications galore. Is it moral to defend oneself, especially through force? Is it moral to resist government through arms? Is it moral for government to deprive people of their means of defense? Is it moral for states to require collective defense from the population?

All of these issues are in play with the 2nd amendment.

 

[gengwall]

under the law (interpreted by the courts I mean)

the last one they presided over was eons ago.

And Miller was inconclusive. The appealate courts have split (although predominantly toward the collective side). The laws throughout the land certainly allow non-militia gun ownership, so the collective position even if favored is not absolute. Throw into the mix state constitutions that fall on either the collective or individual side. There really is no current "blessed" interpretation of the 2nd amendment, although interpretive opinions abound.

 

[Meshavrischika]

And Miller was inconclusive. The appealate courts have split (although predominantly toward the collective side). The laws throughout the land certainly allow non-militia gun ownership, so the collective position even if favored is not absolute. Throw into the mix state constitutions that fall on either the collective or individual side. There really is no current "blessed" interpretation of the 2nd amendment, although interpretive opinions abound.

I suppose. I believe there is by default being as when you deny some individuals in some places, the spirit of it has been violated and therefore the interpretation IS against based on the idea that if it was for it, all would have access...but I'm kinda strange in the way I think too.

 

[gengwall]

I suppose. I believe there is by default being as when you deny some individuals in some places, the spirit of it has been violated and therefore the interpretation IS against based on the idea that if it was for it, all would have access...but I'm kinda strange in the way I think too.

I know what you are saying, but regulation is not necessarily infringement. Anyway, the court will strighten all that out (we can only hope).

 

[Meshavrischika]

I know what you are saying, but regulation is not necessarily infringement. Anyway, the court will strighten all that out (we can only hope).

DC's denial of citizen right to bear arms all together doesn't equal infringement?

 

[Washington]

I think that the second amendment pertains only to state sponsored militias and their members.

The amendment doesn't mention state sponsored militias so you can't assume they constitute a qualification.

Personally I would like to think that the second ammendment gives private citizens the right to "own and bear arms".

It does.

What lies behind our need to possess guns?

That, I think you'd need a psychologist to explain.

What lies behind our desire to control gun ownership?

Probably their blatant misuse, which has resulted in a considerable number of deaths and woundings.

So, do guns save lives or end lives? What about if they do both? What then?

They do both; however, I believe the number of lives they save is far exceed by the number of deaths they produce. In 2005 there were about 8,000 handgun homicides in the US. Homicides by other types of guns accounted for about 3,000 more. So, all together in 2005 about 11,000 people died in the USA because of guns. And, of course there are the many who were shot but managed to survive.

DC's denial of citizen right to bear arms all together doesn't equal infringement?

No, because I don't believe any of the gun owners met the requirements for that right.

The right is ours

And it is, as long as a person is part of a "A well regulated Militia, formed because it is necessary to the security of a free State." Meet those qualifications and a Happy Gun Ownership, to you.

 

[gengwall]

DC's denial of citizen right to bear arms all together doesn't equal infringement?

DC's law is not the be all end all of "current interpretation". But maybe when you used that phrase you were referring only to the DC law. If that is so, I'm sorry I got off track. I thought you were referring to the entirety of US legislation and jurisprudence.

 

[Meshavrischika]

DC's law is not the be all end all of "current interpretation". But maybe when you used that phrase you were referring only to the DC law. If that is so, I'm sorry I got off track. I thought you were referring to the entirety of US legislation and jurisprudence.

no, I did mean globally not just in DC.... but I was just saying DC is an infringement. That's all.

 

[gengwall]

They do both; however, I believe the number of lives they save is far exceed by the number of deaths they produce. In 2005 there were about 8,000 handgun homicides in the US. Homicides by other types of guns accounted for about 3,000 more. So, all together in 2005 about 11,000 people died in the USA because of guns. And, of course there are the many who were shot but managed to survive.

Are you including accidental shootings and suicides?

 

[Foolish_Fool]

The amendment doesn't mention state sponsored militias so you can't assume they constitute a qualification.

And it is, as long as a person is part of a "A well regulated Militia, formed because it is necessary to the security of a free State. Meet those qualifications and a Happy Gun Ownership, to you.

Perhaps "sponsored" wasn't the best term. I think you summed it up better in saying that the purpose of the militia is to protect the state.