Why do people ignore 3/4 of the 2nd Amendment?

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by Michael Goff, May 17, 2013.

  1. Michael Goff macrumors G4

    Michael Goff

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2012
    #1
    Everyone keeps talking about how they have a right to bear arms, but that's at the end of it. It's almost like they forget the whole thing, which goes:

    "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."

    I'm no part of a well regulated militia, you're likely not, Sue down the street isn't, my parents aren't.

    Yet everyone thinks the second amendment means "guns for everyone!", and I just don't get it.
     
  2. anonymouslurker macrumors regular

    Joined:
    May 16, 2012
    #2
    Because SCOTUS ruled in DC v. Heller that "well regulated militia" was interpreted to mean any individual.
     
  3. Mac'nCheese macrumors 68030

    Mac'nCheese

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2010
    #3
    I asked the same question a few weeks ago. The answer I got was something along the lines of since we have the right to have a militia, we need the right to bear arms. However, we don't have to be in a militia to exercise the right to bear arms. I can't find that post right now, the poster put it a lot better then I just did.
     
  4. Michael Goff thread starter macrumors G4

    Michael Goff

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2012
    #4
    Okay.

    That makes less than no sense to me. How is it well regulated if it's everyone and there's no regulation? :confused:

    Circular logic at its finest.
     
  5. Shrink, May 17, 2013
    Last edited by a moderator: May 18, 2013

    Shrink macrumors G3

    Shrink

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2011
    Location:
    New England, USA
    #5
    It's the same folks, saying the same stuff, over and over and over...and nobody ever convinces anybody of anything.

    Just seems to me to be a totally useless exercise in futility at this point. :)
     
  6. anonymouslurker macrumors regular

    Joined:
    May 16, 2012
    #6
    Read the ruling, straight from the horse's mouth.
     
  7. Mac'nCheese macrumors 68030

    Mac'nCheese

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2010
    #7
    Not really. Circular would be we need gun rights because we need a militia. Why do we need a militia? Because we have to protect our gun rights. This poster was explaining that you don't have to be in a militia to have gun rights.
     
  8. citizenzen macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2010
    #8
    In a 5 to 4 decision.

    Please don't act as if that decision couldn't easily have swung the other way.

    One vote is all it would take to fundamentally change the way we interpret the 2nd Amendment.

    One vote.
     
  9. anonymouslurker macrumors regular

    Joined:
    May 16, 2012
    #9
    He asked a question, I provided the answer.

    That is all.
     
  10. glocke12 macrumors 6502a

    glocke12

    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2008
    #10
    What part of "shall not be infringed" is so difficult to comprehend ?
     
  11. ucfgrad93 macrumors P6

    ucfgrad93

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2007
    Location:
    Colorado
    #11
    There are regulations.

    • Background checks
    • Convicted felons can't own guns
    • Waiting periods
    • Age restrictions to purchase
     
  12. Zombie Acorn macrumors 65816

    Zombie Acorn

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2009
    Location:
    Toronto, Ontario
    #12
    Because when most people read that sentence they logically figure out that a militia couldn't possibly be formed without civilians having the right to bare arms.

    And then there were liberals.
     
  13. ThisIsNotMe macrumors 68000

    Joined:
    Aug 11, 2008
    #13
    Why do liberals interpret interstate commerce as intrastate commerce?
     
  14. Shrink macrumors G3

    Shrink

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2011
    Location:
    New England, USA
    #14
    And then there are the completely predicable posts.:D
     
  15. Sydde macrumors 68020

    Sydde

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2009
    #15
    The way I understand it, the "well regulated" in "well regulated militia" meant "well trained". Given that, one could infer that the text calls for proper training for firearm ownership, in much the same way that you need a license to drive a car or fly a plane.
     
  16. lostngone macrumors demi-god

    lostngone

    Joined:
    Aug 11, 2003
    Location:
    Anchorage
    #16

    Do you think a "well regulated militia" should be allowed to own any firearm or not? Right now as it stands a corporation has more legal rights when it comes to firearm rights then a militia.
     
  17. Peace macrumors Core

    Peace

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2005
    Location:
    Space--The ONLY Frontier
    #17
    Why didn't the forefathers just write in "well trained" instead of "well regulated" Then ?
     
  18. lostngone macrumors demi-god

    lostngone

    Joined:
    Aug 11, 2003
    Location:
    Anchorage
    #18
  19. Peace macrumors Core

    Peace

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2005
    Location:
    Space--The ONLY Frontier
    #19
  20. lostngone macrumors demi-god

    lostngone

    Joined:
    Aug 11, 2003
    Location:
    Anchorage
    #20

    Your loss.
     
  21. Eraserhead macrumors G4

    Eraserhead

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2005
    Location:
    UK
    #21
    Maybe language has changed?
     
  22. Eraserhead macrumors G4

    Eraserhead

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2005
    Location:
    UK
    #22
  23. skunk macrumors G4

    skunk

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2002
    Location:
    Republic of Ukistan
    #23
    Given the source, I thought it would be a piece in favour of universal armament, but in fact it argues against unfettered gun ownership.
     
  24. ugahairydawgs macrumors 68020

    ugahairydawgs

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2010
    #24
    You could say the same for a lot in this country. A lot of legislation barely passes Congress or barely holds up to judicial muster. Does not change what is the law of the land.
     
  25. rdowns macrumors Penryn

    rdowns

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2003
    #25
    True.

    Wish anti-abortion and anti-ACA people would realize this.
     

Share This Page