Skip to main content

View Diary: Dear Gun Folks... (304 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Read the 2nd don't paraphrase it. (7+ / 0-)

    You have the right to join the regulated militia.  It's called the National Guard.  Go sign up with your 20 guns.

    "Love One Another" ~ George Harrison

    by Damnit Janet on Thu Feb 21, 2013 at 09:53:55 AM PST

    [ Parent ]

    •  I have read the whole thing. (6+ / 0-)

      You don't need to be in a militia to own firearms. It's an individual right, not a group one.

      Republicans cause more damage than guns ever will. Share Our Wealth

      by KVoimakas on Thu Feb 21, 2013 at 10:01:36 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  2A (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      PavePusher

      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.

      Noah Webster similarly argued:

      Before a standing army can rule the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretence, raised in the United States.

      Noah Webster, An Examination into the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution (1787), Reprinted in Pamphlets on the Constitution of the United States, Published During Its Discussion by the People, 1787–1788, at 56 (Paul L. Ford, ed. 1971) (1888)

      There is the Second Amendment

      •  Times Have Changed (4+ / 0-)
        Before a standing army can rule the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretence, raised in the United States.
        That was then, this is now.

        "We will find fulfillment not in the goods that we have, but in the good we can do for each other." ~ RFK

        by paz3 on Thu Feb 21, 2013 at 12:24:47 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  And (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          PavePusher

          State and federal courts historically have used two models to interpret the Second Amendment: the "individual rights" model, which holds that individuals hold the right to bear arms, and the "collective rights" model, which holds that the right is dependent on militia membership. The "collective rights" model has been discarded by the U.S. Supreme Court, in favor of the individual rights model.

          In Heller and McDonald the U.S. Supreme Court supported the individual rights model, under which the Second Amendment protects the right to keep and bear arms much as the First Amendment protects the right to free speech. Under this model the militia is composed of members who supply their own arms and ammunition. This is generally recognized as the method by which U.S. militias have historically been armed

          The signification attributed to the term Militia appears from the debates in the Convention, the history and legislation of Colonies and States, and the writings of approved commentators. These show plainly enough that the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. 'A body of citizens enrolled for military discipline.' And further, that ordinarily when called for service these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time

          The question of a collective rights versus an individual right was progressively resolved with the 2001 Fifth Circuit ruling in United States v. Emerson, in the 2008 Supreme Court ruling in District of Columbia v. Heller, and in the 2010 Supreme Court ruling in McDonald v. Chicago. These rulings upheld the individual rights model when interpreting the Second Amendment. In Heller, the Supreme Court upheld the Second Amendment as protecting an individual right
           01,08,10. That now enough?

          Just saying

    •  You do know... (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      theatre goon, KVoimakas

      that the NG did not exist at the time the Constitution, and later the Bill of Rights, were authored and ratified, yes?

      Your hate-mail will be graded.

      by PavePusher on Thu Feb 21, 2013 at 09:11:04 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site