Show of HandsShow of Hands

Mattwall1 October 13th, 2013 5:07pm

In your opinion, does the second amendment specify that you can bear arms as long as you're part of a militia (now the national guard) or does it give each individual the right to bear arms, outside of the militias of the several states?

19 Liked

Comments: Add Comment

Sean Go Devils
10/13/13 12:34 pm

Individual. SCOTUS backs me up. End discussion

Zod Above Pugetropolis
10/13/13 12:27 pm

If they had meant for this individual right to be applied only to those actively enrolled in a militia, they would have said so. The brief statement regarding the well-regulated militia merely clarifies how important this individual right is.

BeachSt Coastal Virginia
10/13/13 11:44 am

The anti federalists wanted the bill of rights because the constitution was an expansion of federal powers beyond what they ever thought real. Individuals wouldn't be able to protect themselves from this big monster they saw, only militias could.

Reply
Mattwall1
10/13/13 11:53 am

So the national guards only then?

BeachSt Coastal Virginia
10/13/13 11:56 am

Indeed. This would require citizens to "keep" arms, but bearing them in public was through a militia.

ModerateGOP26 Maine
10/13/13 11:27 am

Democrat, Republican, whatever: when you grow up in Vermont, New Hampshire or Maine, you're raised to respect your gun rights. I've just always thought of it as a fundamental right. It causes problems, but I think those have less to do with...

Reply
ModerateGOP26 Maine
10/13/13 11:28 am

... guns and more to do with the people using them. And if guns were made illegal, they'd find a way to get them and they'd still do harm. Despite considering myself rather liberal socially, I'm pretty conservative on this issue.

Mattwall1
10/13/13 11:46 am

I'm assuming you agree with me there need to be some limits and regulations? I've met people who have said no to that.

ModerateGOP26 Maine
10/13/13 12:05 pm

I support background checks and a waiting period on some higher profile guns ... Not sure where I stand on the assault rifle ban yet.

edrewiii
10/13/13 10:55 am

No question the individual held up by SCOTUS as well as many statements made by Jefferson and others about self defense before and after the Constitution.

Reply
Ebola1 Florida
10/13/13 10:53 am

The SCOTUS settled this 70 years ago when it said the Amendment applied to individuals and not militia members. It is settled law despite the continued use of this argument.

Reply
Mattwall1
10/13/13 10:56 am

I actually don't hold this argument. I figured I'd ask the question anyway.

Ebola1 Florida
10/13/13 10:59 am

It's a good question and valuable to correct some misperceptions.

rons screw politicians
10/13/13 10:34 am

It protects us from this government. We need it now more then ever!

kspells TheOtherOtherside
10/13/13 10:48 am

Rons: are you implying that guns are needed for protection from this government or just that the amendment should stand as is so we don't lose one more Right?

doctalk not all who wander r lost
10/13/13 11:02 am

Protect us? From the government? I challenge you to get out your finest 9 mm and do your best against the drones. They are practicing right now in the Middle East!

Mattwall1
10/13/13 11:09 am

Do talk, what do you think? National guard or individual?

kscott516 EB rules
10/13/13 10:27 am

How do you figure the National Guard is now the militia? The militia back then were ordinary armed citizens.

Mattwall1
10/13/13 10:31 am

The states eventually organized militias which when the national guards were created were seen as the legal successors to the organized militias if each state.

kscott516 EB rules
10/13/13 10:32 am

Eventually....but that was not the intent when the constitution was written.

Mattwall1
10/13/13 10:34 am

Technically they were still organized though. I don't follow that line personally, but I figured I would ask the question, that said the constitution isn't a dead document, but I'm guessing that's one place we differ on.

AngryAngel Oswego, IL
10/13/13 10:14 am

At the time, if you were old enough to carry a gun, you were in a militia. Nowadays, anyone who is responsible should be allowed to own a gun.

Reply
dkspartan Bay Area
10/13/13 10:10 am

I believe it allows people to own guns, but it also puts limitation and regulations on what you can own

MJSeals Legal Eagle soon
10/13/13 10:08 am

As i read it. It says AS a state militia, meaning anything who owns a gun is part of the state militia

CalTexHawk spiral arm
10/13/13 10:45 am

Several states required that all guns be registered so that they could quickly call up those with weapons and form the militia at a moments notice. I'd love to see the reaction if a state did that and sent all those with guns to Afghanistan.

Mattwall1
10/13/13 10:47 am

Falter: thumbs up. I don't have the emoticon, otherwise I would've done that.

MJSeals Legal Eagle soon
10/13/13 10:57 am

Cal tex the state militia is supposed to protect the state, not the nation

Mattwall1
10/13/13 11:00 am

Not quite. The states had some control over the militia, but not what you're saying, if you're saying they could use it against the federal government.

Mattwall1
10/13/13 11:01 am

To quote the constitution, congress may: To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;