The 2nd is part of the US Constitution and was initially adopted in 1791 to limit what the federal government could do to regulate militias of states and guns. States are not mentioned in the 2nd amendment, meaning literally speaking states could outlaw guns in their territory in 1791.
Only in 2010 did the SCOTUS decide that states may also not infringe on the people’s right to keep and bear arms applying the wording of the 14th amendment adopted in 1868 to incorporating 2nd amendment rights.
In 1939 the SCOTUS said there is a relationship between the militia and the type of guns protected. The SCOTUS said there must be a reason why the framers stuffed the militia and the people’s right to keep and bear guns in the same sentence. They concluded that the reason is the people’s right is related to the militia. It aims to make sure the people can keep arms useful to a militia and in common use. In Miller (1939) it said “i]n the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a [sawed-off] shotgun . . . has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument.”
In 2008 (Heller) the SCOTUS held “Miller's holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those "in common use at the time" finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. ” In Heller the SCOTUS thus affirmed not all weapons are protected but only those commonly used by the people such as handguns, bolt action rifles or semi autos... while machine guns or destructive weapons such as grenade launchers can be restricted because they are not in common use and thus not required by a well regulated militia.
If you want to slide&bait you have to keep it small, nobody is going to read that.
Noah Wood
The bullshit being, at the time that amendment was written and adopted, you were allowed to have anything the military was allowed. It should be that way now, but noooooo....
Camden Jones
This is wrong. In 1791 each state had the right to outlaw any weapon they deemed fit. The 2nd amendment in itself limits the federal government only to impose federal law.
Mason Bennett
>States are not mentioned in the 2nd amendment, meaning literally speaking states could outlaw guns in their territory in 1791. This is already nonsense.
Austin Walker
>People are not mentioned in the law prohibiting murder, meaning literally speaking people can murder whoever they want. This is your logic.
Adam Moore
That is not my logic and you know that or you are unable to read properly. What is clear and is not even controversial is that in 1791, the 2nd amendment was written to prohibit the US government to make laws infringing on the people's rights. It said nothing about states making such laws. States were only limited in the same way the US government was limited through the 14th amendment passed in 1868 designed to protect black soldiers returning home to Southern states to being fucked over by the states there.
Julian Johnson
>This is already nonsense.
Then read McDonald v. City of Chicago
On June 28, 2010, the Court in McDonald v. City of Chicago, 561 U.S. 3025 (2010), held that the Second Amendment was incorporated, saying that "[i]t is clear that the Framers and ratifiers of the Fourteenth Amendment counted the right to keep and bear arms among those fundamental rights necessary to our system of ordered liberty."[225] This means that the Court ruled that the Second Amendment limits state and local governments to the same extent that it limits the federal government.[16] It also remanded a case regarding a Chicago handgun prohibition. Four of the five Justices in the majority voted to do so by way of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, while the fifth Justice, Clarence Thomas, voted to do so through the amendment's Privileges or Immunities Clause.[226]
Justice Thomas noted that the Privileges or Immunities Clause refers to "citizens" whereas the Due Process Clause refers more broadly to any "person", and therefore Thomas reserved the issue of non-citizens for later decision.[227]
After McDonald, many questions about the Second Amendment remain unsettled, such as whether non-citizens are protected through the Equal Protection Clause.[227]
In People v. Aguilar (2013), the Illinois Supreme Court summed up the central Second Amendment findings in McDonald:
Two years later, in McDonald v. City of Chicago, 561 U.S. ___, ___, 130 S. Ct. 3020, 3050 (2010), the Supreme Court held that the second amendment right recognized in Heller has been applicable to the states since 1868 through the due process clause of the fourteenth amendment.
Josiah Phillips
>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. This says nothing about the states or federal government, as you well know.
Cooper Richardson
>This says nothing about the states or federal government, as you well know.
It is in the US constitution. Do you understand that there is a reason the 14th amendment had to apply protections in the US constitution to the states in 1868?
"Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. NO STATE SHALL make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
Tell me, oh mighty jurist, why the hell did they have to bind the states in the 14th, if they were already bound by the 2nd in 1791? You do understand not a single person argues the 2nd in itself applies to the states?
Christian Green
Laws apply to the states. >why the hell did they have to bind the states in the 14th probably because states tried to weasel their way around the law.
Liam Reyes
Are you seriously arguing the US constitution binds the states in areas where the states are not mentioned? Do you know how retarded that statement is?
It is like arguing that when the Grundgesetz speaks of the Bundesrepublik it actually means Bavaria... not even a Kleinkind makes these kinds of interpretations. Just because a dog lives in a barn with horses, doesn't mean the regulations for the horses apply to the dog.
Gabriel Barnes
You dont understand the Constitution or the Amendments. They're not saying the government gives you these rights. There God given rights. For speech, liberty, self defense. And states made there own Constitutions with gun ownership in them
Ok, lad, even if they are God given rights, the SCOTUS still is allowed to say what those rights mean. And Congress in conjunction with 3/4th of the states is allowed to change these "God given" laws... so doesn't seem to me that they are that "God given" after all.
Charles Fisher
No you don't. Semi-auto double barrel rifles with magazines are a bit like pic related. They are absolutely useless.
If you want a double-barrel rifle, just buy a bear-killer.
>whether you like it or not, this post is factually correct
thanks, a reasonable and knowledgeable poster in the wilderness of Sup Forums
Gavin Martin
No. Not at all. Explosives weren't in common usage because the citizens weren't in a state of war. It's a bullshit retarded arguement to make. The military uses explosives for wartime purposes. Add to that, explosives were prohibitively expensive and you see why citizens didn't use them. The same goes for automatic weapons, nuclear weapons, weaponized aircraft and biological weapons.
Thomas Walker
You don't understand the bill of rights
these are recognized inalienable rights
it doesn't have to mention states, because the conclusion is that any governance that infringes on rights outlined in said 'bill of rights' is illegitimate. It doesn't even limit this to the bill of rights, recognizing there are additional natural rights beyond those first 10.
Charles Cooper
>The military uses explosives for wartime purposes.
Yes, the military does. True. But you do know what a militia is, right? A militia is a para-military force made up of civilians which come together to protect states and communities with commonly used weapons that civilians can acquire and keep. This is what the 2nd amendment is protecting - the right of the states to keep functioning militias, which also means that all people must be able to keep guns at home, or otherwise how could they take their guns and take to the woods to fight in the militia?
Explosives are not common among the people. You do not need the militia members to keep those at home for the militia to work. You can keep them at certain militia depots or within certain militia leaders. Meanwhile, if you were to restrict semi-auto rifles, then you fuck up the militia as a whole, because a functioning militia cannot work if all semi-auto rifles are stored at some central militia depot - people would have to take to the woods unarmed and could be killed by commies or Canadians without resistence.
In other words, the SCOTUS has a point when interpreting what the 2nd amendment means and was intended to do. You cannot disregard what a militia is when reading the 2nd - for Christ's sake the militia and the people's right is in the same freaking sentence!
>nuclear weapons Are you seriously suggesting that militias cannot work if nuclear weapons are kept at central places and not handed out to all militia members?
Nathaniel Hall
>tannerite legal to own in my state
>hardware stores are everywhere >boom
Jace Ross
>these are recognized inalienable rights They can be changed by amending the constitution, so they are not "inalienable".
>it doesn't have to mention states That would mean you are essentially ignoring the plain meaning of the constitution. That is a big no-no. You cannot just ignore that the constitution specifically mentions the states in the 14th amendment. You cannot interpret the constitution in a way to make the Frames look retarded for including statements about the states which are not necessary.
Logan Scott
Dude I can go down to walmart right now and buy the "banned" rifle I shit you not. Also you can own almost anything pre 1850
Evan Rodriguez
its a niggardly interpretation. The operative clause of the second amendment is clearly "the Right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed" the earlier portion about a well regulated militia is establishing the reasoning for the need for the citizens to have fire arms.
It also turns out that militias are supposed to be a counter weight to oppression, to be fully capable of bearing arms against the government, and winning. Otherwise whats the point?
Hunting and pleasure shooting doesn't have anything to do with militias. So we can extrapolate that any weapon the government would use, the civilian population has the legal right to access, in order to have the ability to fight the government or whatever other tyranny.
Lucas Long
The constitution makes no provision for arms depots for miltias, unless you are counting the national guard, but that is a function of the state, not the people.
probably because the assault weapon ban is no longer in effect, you mongrelized retard.
Most states have different gun laws no less.
On top of that, you probably are not buying that specific rifle, big stores avoid anything that might be remotely non compliant, because lawsuits suck balls.
Ian Butler
>The constitution makes no provision for arms depots for miltias, unless you are counting the national guard, but that is a function of the state, not the people.
The constitution says: "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."
The SCOTUS has said that is all fine and dandy, but "dangerous and unusual arms" are not covered in it. Why? Because you need to read the whole sentence. There must be a reason why the Frames put the militia and the right of the people to keep and bear arms in one sentence.
It is very much the same thing as interpreting the 8th amendment "Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted." The death penalty is seen as not cruel or unusual if it is done by shooting, hanging, gassing, poisoning, electrocution etc. You could argue that the death penalty is unconstitutional, but SCOTUS said no, it isn't unusual or cruel. Similarly, the SCOTUS says the "right of the people" has to be construed in some way. What right? What people?
Matthew Gonzalez
>It also turns out that militias are supposed to be a counter weight to oppression, to be fully capable of bearing arms against the government, and winning. Otherwise whats the point?
In 1791 it wasn't really the US government in Washington which the states were very concerned about, but the British and Spaniards and Indians. Look it up. The states said "we cannot wait for Washington to send soldiers, if invaded, we need to protect ourselves". It is very much the discussion in the EU today when states like Greece say "we cannot wait for Brussels to act, if Turkey invades". Nobody in the EU (except retards) says "we need soldiers to protect against Brussels".
Hudson Hernandez
Wrong. The bill of rights in general is a broad sweeping list of things the citizens have the right to. States cannot: >force you to testify against yourself >Make you let Soldiers/gov officials stay at your house >Tell you to be quiet >Search your house without a very good reason or a warrant. >set you on fire And yes they were specified these rights. These forst ten ammendments were written because England was doing all ofthis in the colonies.
Liam Sanders
So what you are saying is that if a bunch of Sup Forumstards move to a low population state like Wyoming and want to develop a theocracy we can? Since the ban on the establishment of a state religion only effects the US government? Gentlemen we may have found a solution to the ethnostate problem.
Jaxson Bell
That is sexy as fuck
Lucas Stewart
that's fucking beautiful
would buy/10
Wyatt Perry
the 'people' are the 'state', were you born yesterday?
>This is what the 2nd amendment is protecting - the right of the states
No; the right of the people.
Ayden Cooper
The bill of rights does not grant rights, it affirms them. Every man has the right to own weapons, every man who has those rights stripped is a slave, and government that denies these rights is tyranny.
