Know your second amendment rights

[0121stockpicker]

A thread for any patriot looking to cut through all the emotion and misinformation out there and learn the FACTS about the second amendment and the workings of the constitutional process as it relates to the second amendment.

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

Upgraded Night Vision Monocular Digital Infrared Monocular Telescope for 100% Darkness with 8X Zoom - Grab it through Amazon!

[jerseyben]

Stockpicker, some might say that every election (4 years) there is a revolution in this country. Your thoughts?

 

[Chadeaux]

A thread for any patriot looking to cut through all the emotion and misinformation out there and learn the FACTS about the second amendment and the workings of the constitutional process as it relates to the second amendment.

Usually an informative thread starts out with "information", rather than just an invitation. So, wow us with your important information.

 

[Treasure_Hunter]

To all. Keep thread strictly on 2nd if it turns political it will be locked...

 

[0121stockpicker]

Usually an informative thread starts out with "information", rather than just an invitation. So, wow us with your important information.

Open thread for anyone to post factual information or ask questions. Plenty of other 2nd threads filled with politics, misinformation, opinions and rants. Don't you think its good to have a place that people can go to just discuss fact and to learn their rights?

 

[0121stockpicker]

Question - can the 2nd amendment be constitutionally amended/repealed

Answer - YES. The 2nd Amendment can be changed by the same process that amendments to the Constitution itself are made. Article 5 provides for amending the Constitution. Since the Constitution itself can be amended and since the 2nd amendment is a part of the Constitution, then it can be amended as well. Many people believe the 2nd cannot be touched because it id part of the Bill of Rights. this is incorrect, the BoRs is just a name given to the first ten amendments. They have no special status.

 

[302guy]

“On every question of construction (of the Constitution) let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit of the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed.”

Thomas Jefferson

There is no argument on the second. We all know what it says and what it means. The lawyers who try to wrestle more into it, or to detract from it are just idiots trying to make a name for themselves. Even they know what it means. It's simple,
"MOLON LABE". Leonidas said it when the Persians told them to relinquish their weapons. It means simply "Come and Take"

I hate politics.

 

[0121stockpicker]

“On every question of construction (of the Constitution) let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit of the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed.”

Thomas Jefferson

There is no argument on the second. We all know what it says and what it means. The lawyers who try to wrestle more into it, or to detract from it are just idiots trying to make a name for themselves. Even they know what it means. It's simple,
"MOLON LABE". Leonidas said it when the Persians told them to relinquish their weapons. It means simply "Come and Take"

I hate politics.

Couldn't agree more 302!! But for better or worse its the game we all find ourselves playing so be better learn the rules as well as we can.

And unfortunately "we" all don't know what it means. Our FF left most of the constitution wife open for interpretation and reinterpretation and reinterpretation.

So for those of you who want to defend what you consider to be your second amendment rights you must make sure that your representative knows how YOU interpret the 2nd. Best

 

[0121stockpicker]

Question - is an amending or repealing the second the only way to change current gun laws?

Answer - NO. A lot of hype and fear mongering out there about repealing the second amend. While possible and constitutional it is EXTREMELY difficult to do so. The more likely action is the supplementing and interpreting of existing constitutional law. This has been happening continuously for decade and decade through a variety of laws and "acts" at the federal and state level. This is by far the most likely course of action for additional "gun control" no "doing away with the second amendment".

One does not need to amend the constitution to create of change in constitutional law - it is far more often interpreted and supplemented. See below.

The United States Constitution can be changed through the amendment process. Constitutional amendments are added to it, altering its effect. The first ten amendments, ratified by three-fourths of the states in 1791, are known as the Bill of Rights. The Constitution has been amended seventeen additional times (for a total of twenty-seven amendments). Principles of the Constitution, as amended, are applied in courts of law by judicial review.

The Constitution guides American law and political culture. Its writers composed the first constitution of its kind incorporating recent developments in constitutional theory with multiple traditions, and their work influenced later writers of national constitutions. It has been amended over time and it is supplemented and interpreted by a large body of United States constitutional law.

 

[packerbacker]

All I can say is, imho, if the 2nd amendment gets amended, it will be done with legal hocus pocus and will be meaningless to me. I'm proud to be American not just because I was born here, I'm proud of who we are and who we WERE! Just read it in its simplest form, that's how it was written; so it could be understood without question. We need to adjust our society, and government, to mirror the constitution, not the other way around. If you took a microscope to Mother Teresa, some would conclude she was a bad person for giving the meak false hope. Take the constitution out from under the microscope, read it and live by it. Pretty simple.

 

[0121stockpicker]

If only it was so simple. Unfortunate that's not reality and a good thing to. There was plenty of crap in the original constitution that needed to be changed. I assume you believe it's a good thing that others besides land owning white males can now vote correct? Are you glad your friend BO can only serve 2 terms - well that's a constitutional amendment. Again amendments are few and far between, real legal change is from the interpretation of the doc - the massive body of constitutional law that fills a library.

The fact that it is a living breathing doc that can change with times is what makes it do great. That's why the FFs created it that way and that's why it has lasted the test of time.

Do don't fear the amending, keep a close eye on the myriad of laws that come about which are crating around an interpretation of the second.

Just saying its wrong or it can't happen won't prevent it from happening. Be informed on the process is the only way to protect your rights. Best.

 

[0121stockpicker]

All I can say is, imho, if the 2nd amendment gets amended, it will be done with legal hocus pocus and will be meaningless to me. I'm proud to be American not just because I was born here, I'm proud of who we are and who we WERE! Just read it in its simplest form, that's how it was written; so it could be understood without question. We need to adjust our society, and government, to mirror the constitution, not the other way around. If you took a microscope to Mother Teresa, some would conclude she was a bad person for giving the meak false hope. Take the constitution out from under the microscope, read it and live by it. Pretty simple.

One does not need to amend the 2nd to create of change in constitutional law - it is far more often interpreted and supplemented. See below.

The United States Constitution can be changed through the amendment process. Constitutional amendments are added to it, altering its effect. The first ten amendments, ratified by three-fourths of the states in 1791, are known as the Bill of Rights. The Constitution has been amended seventeen additional times (for a total of twenty-seven amendments). Principles of the Constitution, as amended, are applied in courts of law by judicial review.

Fearmongers (often powerful special interest groups looking for your money) throw around the "repeal or amending" to scare patriotic gun owners. This is not how it will happen. It will be a bunch of different small laws at the federal and state level that erode you right - not take them away in one fell swoop - too obvious.

Best.

 

[dejapooh]

I think you hit the nail on the head when you said that the FF left much of the Bill of Rights (in fact, most of the constitution) up for interpretation. For example, the First Amendment allow for freedom of speech, but that freedom is limited by moderation installed after the fact. Your freedom of speech is absolute except for yelling fire in a crowded theater (as the classic example shows). There are many ways the absolute freedom of speech is modified. Students may not speak in ways that disrupt the ability of schools to teach. Freedom of assembly often requires those who wish to assemble to get permission and a permit. No freedom in the Bill of Rights is absolute. They all have moderation. Except the Second Amendment in the eyes of the NRA and their most strident members.

 

[0121stockpicker]

I think you hit the nail on the head when you said that the FF left much of the Bill of Rights (in fact, most of the constitution) up for interpretation. For example, the First Amendment allow for freedom of speech, but that freedom is limited by moderation installed after the fact. Your freedom of speech is absolute except for yelling fire in a crowded theater (as the classic example shows). There are many ways the absolute freedom of speech is modified. Students may not speak in ways that disrupt the ability of schools to teach. Freedom of assembly often requires those who wish to assemble to get permission and a permit. No freedom in the Bill of Rights is absolute. They all have moderation. Except the Second Amendment in the eyes of the NRA and their most strident members.

This is why I think it's important to educate people on the the second amendment and the broader process works. Way too many people speaking nonsense on both sides. I think it's valuable to have a place with unbiased fact. Wish I could find a newspaper or news show that was also unbiased and just reported the truth/facts.

Thanks for you contribution.

 

[GrizLeeBear]

There is no argument on the second. We all know what it says and what it means.

Actually, few know what it actually says. Back in the Ninties those who do not favor gun rights inserted an extra comma in the printing of the 2nd amendment. The proper, as passed, verbage is:

"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"

There is no second comma between 'arms' and 'shall'. Yet people post it with the modern version all the time. By pushing the comma they tried to imply the right was not as secure. Tgheir attempt failed in the Supreme Court, but the extra comma still shows up. You can verify this by searching the internet.

 

[worldtalker]

If I'm wrong correct me,but,if Martial Law is instituted,'through executive order'the Constitution becomes Null and Void. GodBless Chris

 

[0121stockpicker]

Actually, few know what it actually says. Back in the Ninties those who do not favor gun rights inserted an extra comma in the printing of the 2nd amendment. The proper, as passed, verbage is:

"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"

There is no second comma between 'arms' and 'shall'. Yet people post it with the modern version all the time. By pushing the comma they tried to imply the right was not as secure. Tgheir attempt failed in the Supreme Court, but the extra comma still shows up. You can verify this by searching the internet.

Actually there were many copies of the constitution made and sent around to all the states. Differences have been found in both punctuation and the capitalization of certain word. It is generally accepted by constitutional scholars that there were simple typo and stylized differences with no nefarious intent.

Obviously now that we are not handwriting everything or using ancient type press setting, it would be impossible to "change" the constitution in modern times. What you refer to above was an instance of someone using a different old version and that being copied pasted around the Internet as things often are. It would have absolutely no bearing what so ever on constitutional law. Thanks for this interesting example.

 

[packerbacker]

picker, I don't require education on the second. I also do not need someone else's opinion on what they THINK it means. I also know how the constitution can be changed. I'm stating that, if the 2nd is changed to remove my right to bear arms as "I" see it, the change is a travesty, plain and simple. We consider ourselves the country with the most freedoms but, if we start giving them up we might as well burn our constitution. It is a worthless piece of paper once rights start getting restricted. Once we have rights equal to England's subjects we will have had a revolution for nothing. Then where will it stop? When we have LESS rights than the Brits we should all move back to England. Yeah, yeah, yeah.....you can't holler "Fire" in the theater but, as I've said before, they don't gag me when I enter the theater. If more rights are granted by an amendment, all the better, but when you start reducing those rights, that's tyranny.

 

[GrizLeeBear]

Do a little more research and you will find there was an actual intent to change the meaning in the late eighties and early ninties. If I remember, it was Sarah Brady and her bunch that made the attempt. It was publicized at the time.

 

[302guy]

We do not need more restriction, more legislation. Anyone that thinks we do needs to reevaluate what they think America is about. I am a huge history fan, and one of my favorite Fathers is Thomas Jefferson. He was wise beyond his years. He once said that we should create only laws that increase liberty and bolster individual social responsibility.
So in this situation what do we need?
Education. National firearms education whether you own a gun or not. Upon successful completion of say a 40 hour course dealing with the laws, and the handling of firearms. At 18 you get your open carry permit. And every five years you take a proficiency exam. This puts the responsibility on the individual while at the same time increasing liberty. It also give a professional or two 40 hours to rack your slide and see what's down your barrel.
It's the same as a drivers license. I want some assurances that someone has checked out the nuts on the road with me and has checked to make sure they have the basic knowledge and skills to negate the roadways without killing me or my family. It doesn't stop unlicensed drivers from getting behind the wheel, or keep drunks off the road. Because you can't force someone to be responsible.
So why not institute an educational program? No need to register our firearms unless we want to insure them. We have drivers education, sex education, drug education... we still have underage pregnancy, teenage drug abusers, and teenagers dying on the roadways. We don't outlaw rubbers, cars and.. oh wait...DRUGS are illegal. But the numbers decrease. Look how many kids stay away from cigarettes, look how many adults have quit. You want sensible legislation that is in keeping with our Constitutional rights, there it is.