Ted Nugent discusses the 2nd Amendment

[Ban Hammer 14,574]

I have finally read the 2nd amendement, and some interesting discussions on what it means in the context of when it was written. Those who believe that it enforces the individual's right to own a gun seem to be connecting some rather distant dots. However, I have a lot more research and reading to do on this subject. In the meantime, I shall continue to carry a plastic bag in my pocket at all times!

yeah i can see how that would happen

"the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed."

what's so difficult to understand about that again?

[natty bumppo 297]

I have finally read the 2nd amendement, and some interesting discussions on what it means in the context of when it was written. Those who believe that it enforces the individual's right to own a gun seem to be connecting some rather distant dots. However, I have a lot more research and reading to do on this subject. In the meantime, I shall continue to carry a plastic bag in my pocket at all times!

yeah i can see how that would happen

"the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed."

what's so difficult to understand about that again?

Finally read the document ? Good for you

Edited October 13, 2007 by Natty Bumppo

[Peikko 1,575]

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.

Whether this provision protects the individual's right to own firearms or whether it deals only with the collective right of the people to arm and maintain a militia is strongly debated.

What you quote is incomplete and there is strong judicial argument to support the case that if you take it in its historical context, the preamble is essential to the understanding of the part people quote.

However, as I have said, this is not me making this up, I am merely reading up on it and I am interested in learning more.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I have finally read the 2nd amendement, and some interesting discussions on what it means in the context of when it was written. Those who believe that it enforces the individual's right to own a gun seem to be connecting some rather distant dots. However, I have a lot more research and reading to do on this subject. In the meantime, I shall continue to carry a plastic bag in my pocket at all times!

yeah i can see how that would happen

"the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed."

what's so difficult to understand about that again?

At the time it was written, arms would probably have been understood to mean black powder muskets, pistols and swords.

If we take that definition to include modern weapons, then Steven's nuclear weapon example probably isn't all that far off.

Also that while you may CCH a pistol, I could still conceivably be arrested for carrying a sword in a public place. Are my rights to bear a sword and/or own a nuclear weapon, or indeed a very large bomb still covered under the definition of 'arms', and if so - why are they being infringed?

[natty bumppo 297]

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.

Whether this provision protects the individual's right to own firearms or whether it deals only with the collective right of the people to arm and maintain a militia is strongly debated.

What you quote is incomplete and there is strong judicial argument to support the case that if you take it in its historical context, the preamble is essential to the understanding of the part people quote.

However, as I have said, this is not me making this up, I am merely reading up on it and I am interested in learning more.

when you discover the meaning of militia ... let us know ...

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

I have finally read the 2nd amendement, and some interesting discussions on what it means in the context of when it was written. Those who believe that it enforces the individual's right to own a gun seem to be connecting some rather distant dots. However, I have a lot more research and reading to do on this subject. In the meantime, I shall continue to carry a plastic bag in my pocket at all times!

yeah i can see how that would happen

"the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed."

what's so difficult to understand about that again?

At the time it was written, arms would probably have been understood to mean black powder muskets, pistols and swords.

If we take that definition to include modern weapons, then Steven's nuclear weapon example probably isn't all that far off.

Also that while you may CCH a pistol, I could still conceivably be arrested for carrying a sword in a public place. Are my rights to bear a sword and/or own a nuclear weapon, or indeed a very large bomb still covered under the definition of 'arms', and if so - why are they being infringed?

Because sword and bomb makers don't have an NRA equivalent.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I have finally read the 2nd amendement, and some interesting discussions on what it means in the context of when it was written. Those who believe that it enforces the individual's right to own a gun seem to be connecting some rather distant dots. However, I have a lot more research and reading to do on this subject. In the meantime, I shall continue to carry a plastic bag in my pocket at all times!

yeah i can see how that would happen

"the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed."

what's so difficult to understand about that again?

At the time it was written, arms would probably have been understood to mean black powder muskets, pistols and swords.

If we take that definition to include modern weapons, then Steven's nuclear weapon example probably isn't all that far off.

Also that while you may CCH a pistol, I could still conceivably be arrested for carrying a sword in a public place. Are my rights to bear a sword and/or own a nuclear weapon, or indeed a very large bomb still covered under the definition of 'arms', and if so - why are they being infringed?

Because sword and bomb makers don't have an NRA equivalent.

Yep.

[natty bumppo 297]

I have finally read the 2nd amendement, and some interesting discussions on what it means in the context of when it was written. Those who believe that it enforces the individual's right to own a gun seem to be connecting some rather distant dots. However, I have a lot more research and reading to do on this subject. In the meantime, I shall continue to carry a plastic bag in my pocket at all times!

yeah i can see how that would happen

"the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed."

what's so difficult to understand about that again?

At the time it was written, arms would probably have been understood to mean black powder muskets, pistols and swords.

If we take that definition to include modern weapons, then Steven's nuclear weapon example probably isn't all that far off.

Also that while you may CCH a pistol, I could still conceivably be arrested for carrying a sword in a public place. Are my rights to bear a sword and/or own a nuclear weapon, or indeed a very large bomb still covered under the definition of 'arms', and if so - why are they being infringed?

and ... to plug you theory into another amendment ... freedom of speach protection ... there goes the internet, radio, TV, etc.

you can't have it both ways ...

Also that while you may CCH a pistol, I could still conceivably be arrested for carrying a sword in a public place. Are my rights to bear a sword and/or own a nuclear weapon, or indeed a very large bomb still covered under the definition of 'arms', and if so - why are they being infringed?

suggest reading back a few posts Bear ... Carry ... Can you carry a "nuclear weapon or very large bomb"?

Darn ... you must be a very strong person ..

[Peikko 1,575]

A well regulated militia, or an unregulated militia?

Seriously, reading extractions on the internet, while interesting, just isn't going to be enough. I am going to have to go to the library and get out some material.

At the end of the day, it doesn't matter what I conclude, but at least I will know something about it.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

and ... to plug you theory into another amendment ... freedom of speach protection ... there goes the internet, radio, TV, etc.

you can't have it both ways ...

Assuming of course that those rights are absolute and unconditional. I don't believe that they are.

Bear ... Carry ... Can you carry a "nuclear weapon or very large bomb"?

Darn ... you must be a very strong person ..

I can "bear" a belt of C4, connected to a dead man's trigger. Of course, I don't imagine it will make me too popular on the subway.

You're the one that wants to mindlessly nitpick over how guns are the same as kitchen knives and plastic bags - how's about some of your own medicine in return? What I wrote is ridiculous - so are the pages of $hit you posted about mass murderers and drink drivers.

"Arms" is a loose definition by any standard.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

"Arms" is a loose definition by any standard.

I bear two arms at all times. My right arm and my left arm.

[natty bumppo 297]

A well regulated militia, or an unregulated militia?

Seriously, reading extractions on the internet, while interesting, just isn't going to be enough. I am going to have to go to the library and get out some material.

At the end of the day, it doesn't matter what I conclude, but at least I will know something about it.

The term militia (civilian military service and duty) has migrated over the years … and is generally now refered to as the National Guard

(Note: there are many other words that have undergone the same type of transition ... from older meanings .. to "modern" meanings)

Civilian vs National Guard ...

One thing to consider … the National Guard is a nothing more than an extension of the federal army. It is not a State army, it is federally funded and controlled with only a smidgen of State control. (Here is where a few VJ National Guardsmen can add more info. So the question of … is the National Guard the militia … well it is federally funded and controlled .... Just ask the troops serving overseas).

[Peikko 1,575]

Anyone read 'A Well Regulated Militia' by Saul Cornell? I think that is going to be on my list of things to read.

[bgreed 0]

OK I have explained this in another thread here apparently one that was not read very closely by a number of you.

1. The second amendment is not nor has it ever been about self defense or hunting. At the time of

its writting no one would have ever questioned your right to self defense or the practice of hunting.

It is about the citizenry being able to protect itsself from and abusive government and if necessary

over throw that government and replace it with one that serves the people. See the Federalist

papers along with writtings by Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, George Wahington, well you get

the idea.

2. Well regulated as in "well regulated militia" is about all of those in the militia having the same type

firearm. And in this case as the militia was an adjunct to the regular military they were to have

the same firearm as the regular standing army. The reason for the term "regulated" as in the

same so that in time of need there would not be a mish mash of different calibers and accessories

need to be supplied.

3. Who is the militia? "It is the people" According to U.S. Code it is all males between the ages of 18

and 60.

4. "To keep and to bear" means exactly what was discussed up thread. It means weapons that a

single person or Squad "as in infantry" might use. However in the case of personal self defense

most of these aren't practical, so the hangun is the weapon of choice. Unless you happen to be

really good with a knife (solves the whole CCW problem)

5. So everyone wonders what to do to stop gun violence. Last thing is the need for more laws

liscensing testing etc. There are already more than 50,000 gun regulatory laws on the books now

What needs to happen is the enforcement of the laws currently on the books. This means

Mandatory sentencing for violent crime without parole. Currently the plea bargin rules and repeat

violent offenders are continously put back on the street. And violent doesn't necessarily mean

you killed someone. Also The ending of the state mental hospital system has put a lot of

marginally functioning people out on the streets who would back in the day been in an institution.

Finally the bleeding heart has got to stop (poor Johnny grew up in a poor enviroment so he has

anger issues and we should feel sorry for him) A crime is a crime and needs to be punished.

6. So yes you should be able to own that M-16, FN-FAl, HK91, AK-47, .30cal or .50cal Machine gun.

Though none of these would be my choice for personal protection on the street. Give me my

custom 1911-A1 commander in 45ACP thank you.

[Peikko 1,575]

If you were right, that this was a closed case and your definition the only one out there, that would indeed close the argument. However, you are only presenting one of the intepretations and indeed making some assumptions on the back of it.

Of course, I value your c ontribution.