Show of HandsShow of Hands

CaseyHolloway December 10th, 2015 3:51am

"The Second Amendment is a constitutional right. I didn't make it up, the Republican Party didn't make it up. It's in the Constitution. I think it's just as important as any of the other rights in our constitution."

15 Liked

Comments: Add Comment

Zod Above Pugetropolis
12/10/15 5:35 pm

Of course. There are no more important rights, just equally important ones.

Reply
Krystina Live and Let Live
12/10/15 1:20 pm

I think one could argue that it's even more important than many of the others.

Reply
getupbaby South City
12/10/15 1:02 pm

This is correct. It wasn't made up. So why do we ignore the fact that it's talking about a well regulated militia and not private automatic rifle ownership (not in the constitution at all).

Reply
mojorisin Missouri
12/10/15 3:38 pm

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms."
- Thomas Jefferson, Virginia Constitution, 1776

mojorisin Missouri
12/10/15 3:41 pm

"To disarm the people...[i]s the most effectual way to enslave them."
George Mason, June 14, 1778

mojorisin Missouri
12/10/15 3:42 pm

"I ask who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers."
- George Mason June 4, 1788

mojorisin Missouri
12/10/15 3:44 pm

"Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed, as they are in almost every country in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword;

mojorisin Missouri
12/10/15 3:44 pm

because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops."
Noah Webster October 10, 1787

mojorisin Missouri
12/10/15 4:16 pm

The words "well regulated" had a far different meaning at the time the Second Amendment was drafted. government.

mojorisin Missouri
12/10/15 4:16 pm

In the context of the Constitution's provisions for Congressional power over certain aspects of the militia, and in the context of the Framers' definition of "militia," government regulation was not the intended meaning.

mojorisin Missouri
12/10/15 4:16 pm

Rather, the term meant only what it says, that the necessary militia be well regulated, but not by the national

knetzere Illinois
12/15/15 11:07 pm

That part is a preface. The amendment goes no further with the militia. Just like in the 4th amendment "the right of the people to be secure in their persons..." The second states "the right of the people to keep and bear arms..."

knetzere Illinois
12/15/15 11:13 pm

As far as what the second protects no specific item is named. Arms to a caveman was a rock or pointy stick. The Romans had swords and bow. Today we have AR type rifles. What we will have tomorrow who knows. The framers however didn't say muskets. They said arms, they knew history and had seen technology progress just as we've seen tech change in our lifetimes it would be silly to think nothing new would be introduced and that they meant only the weapons of the time.

knetzere Illinois
12/15/15 11:17 pm

Your confusion with regulated probably comes from your idea of regulated as we use it today but that would go against the rest of the document. it would make no sense to suggest this referred to a power granted to the government when the purpose of the Bill of Rights was to declare individual rights and in conjunction with the constitution tell the national government how to conduct itself and just how far the scope of its power reaches

allswel Minnesota
12/10/15 11:38 am

One absolute regarding the Constitution and the Amendments is that they always were, and always will be, open to at least some level of interpretation. The writers and creators were aware of that from the start which is why they constructed the Supreme Court.

Anyone who says that they know for an absolute certainty what any particular amendment means beyond any question or doubt is not someone with whom you want to be engaged in any discussion. They are ignorant.

Reply
leftistatheist Antifa
12/10/15 11:04 am

The second amendment is too poorly written and open to interpretation. I'm for gun ownership, but the 2nd amendment is too easily interpreted as a well-regulated militia

Reply
knetzere Illinois
12/15/15 11:18 pm

I disagree that part is a preface. The amendment goes no further with the militia. Just like in the 4th amendment "the right of the people to be secure in their persons..." The second states "the right of the people to keep and bear arms..."

Highlander1 Iowa
12/10/15 8:37 am

Without the second all others would be invalid and liable to infringements.

Brrrrrrrrr
12/10/15 8:05 am

Actually, it's one of the more important ones.

Reply
EmeraldShift Liberty, Justice For All
12/10/15 7:09 am

Funny how most Democrats will consistently cite the constitution to promote equality and such, unless it involves the 2nd amendment.. "Wait, what amendment?" Yeah, it exists. Time to stop pretending that Republicans are making this stuff up. No amendment is necessarily "above" any other, and by contrast none are "below" or less important than any other.

Reply
EmeraldShift Liberty, Justice For All
12/10/15 7:12 am

Not trying to pick any fights, it just irks me to see that the majority of a group can deny simple fact. The question does not dictate the interpretation of the amendment, just saying that it exists and it's not "less" important. Makes no sense to deny that, in my opinion.

Odysseus We All Need A Fantasy
12/10/15 6:38 am

I have always maintained that our founding fathers did not intend the 2nd amendment to give Americans the right to own assault weapons. It really was all about militias at the time. The interpretation by the Supreme Court is what the public wanted.

Reply
googer11 Minnesota
12/10/15 7:06 am

Yes. Too many people don't understand the history of the time.

Odysseus We All Need A Fantasy
12/10/15 7:16 am

You're right. Only about 14% of the colonists owned guns and only half of those guns were in working condition. That means that far less than 10% of the colonists at the time of the Revolution owned a workable gun. The militias supplied the guns.

RB20 Indiana
12/10/15 7:44 am

The militia is all of the people

Highlander1 Iowa
12/10/15 8:40 am

I think you should Google the defenition of a well regulated militia. The militias and other civilians mus g be as well armed as the army in the case of tyrannical oppression or foreign invasion. Of course they didn't know what assault rifles were. The point isn't the specific weapon but the equal class of weapon as the military's.

knetzere Illinois
12/15/15 11:21 pm

Arms to a caveman was a rock or pointy stick. The Romans had swords and bow. Today we have AR type rifles. What we will have tomorrow who knows. The framers however didn't say muskets. They said arms, they knew history and had seen technology progress just as we've seen tech change in our lifetimes it would be silly to think nothing new would be introduced and that they meant only the weapons of the time.

Brandon2018 Stocks Are Overvalued
12/10/15 5:28 am

Thank you, Casey. Another politically smart American

Brandon2018 Stocks Are Overvalued
12/10/15 5:29 am

Not that their are that many of them left...

MrLucchese If curious, ask.
12/10/15 2:38 am

Very few people argue that it shouldn't be part of the constitution. It's all a matter of interpretation of the constitution and its amendments.

deist
12/09/15 9:41 pm

Just like the constitutional right to an abortion,,,,

Ebola1 Florida
12/10/15 4:13 am

Is the right to abortion guaranteed by constitutional amendment?

dfish at home
12/10/15 9:04 am

Yeah, what are you talking about?

Ebola1 Florida
12/10/15 9:46 am

Which constitutional amendment guarantees the right to an abortion?