Reply to Does anyone else find it upsetting that people are walking around in Target with guns?

Forum Index » Off-Topic

Reply to "Does anyone else find it upsetting that people are walking around in Target with guns?"

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]Nope, not at all. More "ordinary citizens" should be armed, instead of being so terrified of guns as you are. The problem is that a lot of good people are too scared to take classes and get themselves familiar with firearms, so the proportion of criminals/nutjobs who are armed to the good people who are armed is way out of whack.

Me? I have a concealed carry permit, and I don't usually carry a gun on me, because I have young children, but I like to know I'm allowed. Also, I am educated about how to use the firearm should I ever need to, and therefore not afraid. I like to think that evens the playing field a little bit.  [/quote]

-1.

You must also be a Republican.[/quote]

Actually no, I'm an independent. But thanks for playing.[/quote]

I'm a democrat, and I agree with PP.  An armed populace leads to lower crime.

Also, I believe in the bill of rights -- all ten amendments.[/quote]

But the Bill of Rights was drafted at a time when colonists were fighting against imperial tyranny. The wanted to make sure the colonists would be armed against the government, not against other citizens.[/quote]

This a common misinterpretation of the second amendment.  The prefatory clause does not limit the right protected by the  operative clause.

The second amendment protects an individual right of self-defense using firearms.  This includes defending oneself against other citizens.

The second amendment contemplates that once a sufficiently large number of individuals are capable of self-defense using firearms, they become capable of acting collectively in defense of the state.

This was clarified by the Supreme Court in DC v. Heller:

Held:

1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2–53.

(a) The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms. Pp. 2–22.

(b) The prefatory clause comports with the Court’s interpretation of the operative clause. The “militia” comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. The Antifederalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to disable this citizens’ militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, so that the ideal of a citizens’ militia would be preserved. Pp. 22–28.

(c) The Court’s interpretation is confirmed by analogous arms-bearing rights in state constitutions that preceded and immediately followed the Second Amendment . Pp. 28–30.

(d) The Second Amendment ’s drafting history, while of dubious interpretive worth, reveals three state Second Amendment proposals that unequivocally referred to an individual right to bear arms. Pp. 30–32.

(e) Interpretation of the Second Amendment by scholars, courts and legislators, from immediately after its ratification through the late 19th century also supports the Court’s conclusion. Pp. 32–47.

(f) None of the Court’s precedents forecloses the Court’s interpretation. Neither United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542 , nor Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 252 , refutes the individual-rights interpretation. United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174 , does not limit the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes, but rather limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by the militia, i.e., those in common use for lawful purposes. Pp. 47–54.[/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics