The Bastardization of the Second Amendment

[ImmortalFlame]

Rioters proceed without expecting to be shot.
As soon as shots are fired, they flee.
This is the case even in riots which are a reaction to an earlier shooting.

Examples?

 

[Revoltingest]

Examples?

That will take some time....finding new stories which specifically mention that aspect.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Aye, it's an odd argument that the 2nd of only 10 amendments in the Bill Of Rights
is the singular amendment which grants a right to government instead of individual
citizens.

The Tenth Amendment also grants rights to (or acknowledges rights of?) government.

The Sixth Amendment also grants rights to government in cases where a government is a party to a lawsuit.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

They never intended to have a standing army like we do now, that is why they saw a need for the right to form a militia.

That and to put down slave revolts.

 

[Revoltingest]

The Tenth Amendment also grants rights to (or acknowledges rights of?) government.

Aye, I like this one because it conveys rights to state governments, & limits powers of the fed over us.
It still fits my theme that the Bill Of Rights is about us....not (federal) government.

The Sixth Amendment also grants rights to government in cases where a government is a party to a lawsuit.

Really?
Ref.....

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.[1]

What rights does it grant government?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Aye, I like this one because it conveys rights to state governments, & limits powers of the fed over us.
It still fits my theme that the Bill Of Rights is about us....not (federal) government.

Conveying the right to state governments to regulate firearms would also fit in with that theme.

Really?
Ref.....

What rights does it grant government?

I may have gotten the number wrong. Which one grants the right to a jury trial for civil cases worth over a certain amount?

 

[Revoltingest]

Conveying the right to state governments to regulate firearms would also fit in with that theme.

Aye, & under the Incorporation Doctrine, the states must also observe the Bill Of Rights.
There is some resistance to this here & there though.

I may have gotten the number wrong. Which one grants the right to a jury trial for civil cases worth over a certain amount?

The right to a jury trial is still a right of citizens.
(Note that the fed has been trying to abridge this right.)

Are you arguing that the Bill Of Rights is also designed to secure rights for the federal government?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Aye, & under the Incorporation Doctrine, the states must also observe the Bill Of Rights.
There is some resistance to this here & there though.

The right to a jury trial is still a right of citizens.
(Note that the fed has been trying to abridge this right.)

It's the right of any party to a lawsuit (if the value in question is big enough).

Are you arguing that the Bill Of Rights is also designed to secure rights for the federal government?

No, I'm not. You're the one making an argument (which referred to the more general "government" when you originally made it, not the more specific "federal government") and I'm questioning it.

 

[Revoltingest]

It's the right of any party to a lawsuit (if the value in question is big enough).

Yes.
It's also a right in all criminal proceedings...according the Constitution.
The USSC has subverted this to some extent though (the Petty Offense Doctrine).

No, I'm not.

Oh, good.

 

[Skwim]

I'm not sure why the Second Amendment would even be necessary if it was just referring to the military or the National Guard.

Thing is, as I understand its history, the amendment was written so as to insure citizens could repel invaders, deter a tyrannical government, and to suppress an insurrection by slaves. And because in practicality these threats no longer exist, I don't see the Second Amendment as relevant and necessary.

Even countries where the citizens don't have any rights at all would still have the "right" to arm their own military forces.

I think you're contradicting yourself here.

Every sovereign nation has such a right, even if it's not specifically delineated in the law or constitution. The Constitution already gives Congress the power to raise armies, which would imply the right to provide them with weapons.

Yup. Although we're talking about an individual's right to own a firearm.

.

 

[Revoltingest]

Thing is, as I understand its history, the amendment was written so as to insure citizens could repel invaders, deter a tyrannical government, and to suppress an insurrection by slaves. And because in practicality these threats no longer exist, I don't see the Second Amendment as relevant and necessary.
.

Could it be that those threats don't exist in part because of the 2nd Amendment?

But the tyrannical government is no longer a threat you say?
A great many Hillary voters would argue with you....cuz Trump is Hitler, you know.
Anyway, the 2nd Amendment hasn't been repealed, so obsolete or not, it still exists.

 

[Skwim]

Could it be that those threats don't exist in part because of the 2nd Amendment?

No. They don't exist because the nation has a military that protects it from invasion. Because of the passage of the 13th Amendment that abolished slavery. And because the governmental controls an armed force so mighty that mere firearms in the hands of an untrained populace wouldn't stand a chance of deterring a tyrannical government.

.

 

[Revoltingest]

No. They don't exist because the nation has a military that protects it from invasion. Because of the passage of the 13th Amendment that abolished slavery. And because the governmental controls an armed force so mighty that mere firearms in the hands of an untrained populace wouldn't stand a chance of deterring a tyrannical government.
.

Civil unrest is a situation not solvable with bombers, subs or ships.
Ever notice that the military uses small arms in many conflicts?

 

[Stevicus]

Thing is, as I understand its history, the amendment was written so as to insure citizens could repel invaders, deter a tyrannical government, and to suppress an insurrection by slaves. And because in practicality these threats no longer exist, I don't see the Second Amendment as relevant and necessary.

I think you're contradicting yourself here.

Yup. Although we're talking about an individual's right to own a firearm.

.

Yes, but if it's for those purposes outlined above, why would it actually need to be an individual right?

 

[Skwim]

Civil unrest is a situation not solvable with bombers, subs or ships.
Ever notice that the military uses small arms in many conflicts?

And who do you think is better prepared to engage in a small arms confrontation, the US military or a group of ticked-off armed citizens?

Yes, but if it's for those purposes outlined above, why would it actually need to be an individual right?

It doesn't. As it stands the Second Amendment is useless. . . . . . .other than under its "Scalia ruling" it's deemed to give individuals the right to own firearms to defend oneself against personal assault.

..................

'Cause you never know when you won't have time to reload.

.​

.

 

[Revoltingest]

And who do you think is better prepared to engage in a small arms confrontation, the US military or a group of ticked-off armed citizens?

That would depend upon circumstances.
In a slowly developing situation, civilians would increasingly arm themselves.
They would outnumber soldiers, & have the advantage of being embedded in society.
An attacking army would have great difficulty engaging such an enemy without
offending the general populace. And dissent in the ranks would be trouble.

It doesn't. As it stands the Second Amendment is useless. . . . . . .other than under its "Scalia ruling" it's deemed to give individuals the right to own firearms to defend oneself against personal assault.

..................

'Cause you never know when you won't have time to reload.
.​

​

Interpretation evolves.
I take a more historical intent view, ie, the right to militarily capable small arms.
Perhaps some day you'll win, & the USSC will take our right by fiat.
Or not.

I can post pix too....

 

[esmith]

So, let's take all of you that disagree with my, and others right to legally own a firearm and move you to say CA, then you will be allowed to further the anti-gun policies of this state and change the name to the Peoples Republic of Kalifornia. Then pass laws (that the SCOTUS has agreed to) that make the ownership of firearms by any citizen of the new PRC illegal and anyone crossing into your utopian paradise with a firearm be subject to 50 lashes with a wet noodle; citizens would only receive 10 lashes if found to be violating the law. .

 

[tytlyf]

So, let's take all of you that disagree with my, and others right to legally own a firearm and move you to say CA, then you will be allowed to further the anti-gun policies of this state and change the name to the Peoples Republic of Kalifornia. Then pass laws (that the SCOTUS has agreed to) that make the ownership of firearms by any citizen of the new PRC illegal and anyone crossing into your utopian paradise with a firearm be subject to 50 lashes with a wet noodle; citizens would only receive 10 lashes if found to be violating the law. .

?

Who wants to take away your right to own a firearm? If you've been paying attention, people don't want felons and terrorists to be able to purchase a weapon.

 

[Skwim]

So, let's take all of you that disagree with my, and others right to legally own a firearm and move you to say CA, then you will be allowed to further the anti-gun policies of this state and change the name to the Peoples Republic of Kalifornia.

Personally, I agree you have a legal right to own firearms, as needy and stupid as it may get.

....

"Of course I'm wearing underpants. Why do you as . . . . . . . oops! . . . Heh, heh, . . . Well so what?"

.​

 

[esmith]

Personally, I agree you have a legal right to own firearms, as needy and stupid as it may get.
...

So are you saying that I am stupid and needy? May the fleas of a thousand camels infest your skivvies.