Literal meaning of 2nd amendment

This is a discussion on Literal meaning of 2nd amendment within the The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion forums, part of the Related Topics category; This might be a tad simple for historians. But I find it rather difficult to BEAR anything from a birthday cake to a firearm if ...

Page 4 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast
Results 46 to 60 of 87
Like Tree163Likes

Thread: Literal meaning of 2nd amendment

  1. #46
    VIP Member Array Ghost1958's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    Kentucky
    Posts
    5,599
    This might be a tad simple for historians. But I find it rather difficult to BEAR anything from a birthday cake to a firearm if its locked up someplace else.
    As far as pretending there is or will be resistance to a gun grab one would have to be living in a hole in ground not to be aware that there will be. Sheriffs associations, whole states passing legislation to nullify and state specifically in writing what that resistance will be. New York gun owners already defying the new gun regs there. REGARDLESS of what dictator minded politician or court says.
    When a government or court positions itself against a clearly stated right in the Constitution either by stupidity or interpretation to serve its purpose those laws and rulings are illegal null and void. The only question is will the people roll over once again and take it? From what I read in the news etc this time the line has been reached. JMO

  2. Remove Ads

  3. #47
    VIP Member
    Array TX expat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Kansas City
    Posts
    3,669
    Quote Originally Posted by Hopyard View Post
    Thank you for what I think is one of the best posts on this issue so far, ever.
    My guess is that when the case is ruled on by The Supremes (and my guess is worthless of course), they will
    uphold the right to carry subject to various regulations; as they did with the right to have guns in the home.

    If I am right, then NY's new law would be fully constitutional; as too would Arizona's more free-wheeling approach.
    By recognizing the right while acknowledging that there is such a thing as reasonable regulation, and by allowing the
    states and local governments the authority to determine what those regulations should be---provided they don't cross
    the red line into "infringement," The Supremes will enable our lawmakers to move forward in a more coherent and
    sensible path, as fits their own state's needs.

    I think this is the direction it is going, and the likely outcome. I don't see The Supremes as likely to impose
    "constitutional carry" on all of the states, nor do I see them as ruling in a way that would make concealed carry
    impossible.
    Ah yes. Nothing like a little "reasonable restriction" to make infringement sound not so bad. chip, chip, chip, chip...
    OD*, ccw9mm, DontTreadOnI and 5 others like this.
    NRA Life Member

    "I don't believe gun owners have rights." - Sarah Brady

  4. #48
    VIP Member Array suntzu's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    TX/NH
    Posts
    5,813
    Quote Originally Posted by TX expat View Post
    Ah yes. Nothing like a little "reasonable restriction" to make infringement sound not so bad. chip, chip, chip, chip...
    Reasonable restriction is not letting a 5 year old to carry a loaded gun in public. Perhaps not allowing folks to own a nuclear weapon.
    TX expat, ccw9mm and bigmacque like this.
    Then I heard the voice of the Lord saying, “Whom shall I send? And who will go for us?”
    And I said, “Here am I. Send me!”

    Isaiah 6:8

  5. #49
    VIP Member Array cmdrdredd's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    South Florida
    Posts
    2,037
    Quote Originally Posted by suntzu View Post
    Reasonable restriction is not letting a 5 year old to carry a loaded gun in public. Perhaps not allowing folks to own a nuclear weapon.
    Or asking people to keep what they have away from people they know would be unfit to handle them.

    I don't know how I feel about filing for the tax stamp for a suppressor or full auto weapon.
    No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms.
    -Thomas Jefferson

    Laws are restrictive but sometimes necessary to maintain a civil society. Rights are nonrestrictive but are always necessary to maintain a free society.

  6. #50
    Member Array linuss's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    DFW
    Posts
    301
    Quote Originally Posted by tuft View Post
    nowhere does it state that we have the right to privately buy, own, and possess guns at our homes for an indefinite period of time. It says we have the right to keep and bear arms.
    Quit reading it with 21st century definitions of words as you're reading it wrong.

    At the time of writing, keep meant own, and bear meant carry. That's the definition to go off of.

    It talks about a militia bearing arms, but it doesn't actually state that everyone has the right to buy a gun and privately keep it in their home forever.
    It says NOTHING about the militia bearing arms.

    It says 'the right of the people to keep and bear arms'. No where else in the Constitution does the words 'the people' mean ANYONE or ANYTHING other than individuals.

  7. #51
    VIP Member Array ccw9mm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    26,012
    Quote Originally Posted by linuss View Post
    It says NOTHING about the militia bearing arms.

    It says 'the right of the people to keep and bear arms'.
    And, the militia is us, we the People, at least those adults capable of bearing arms.
    Your best weapon is your brain. Don't leave home without it.
    Thoughts: Justifiable self defense (A.O.J.).
    Explain: How does disarming victims reduce the number of victims?
    Reason over Force: The Gun is Civilization (Marko Kloos).
    NRA, GOA, OFF, ACLDN.

  8. #52
    Member Array Jackster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Southern Ohio
    Posts
    134
    Yes, the 2A mentions a militia. And it also says, " the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
    Simple. To the point. It does not say, that the right of the militia shall not be infringed, but it DOES say the right "of the people...".
    If people were required to keep arms in a central location, don't you think that would be an infringement???

    I ASS-U-ME that you graduated high school. Was a graduation requirement that you pass a CIVICS course? If that was a requirement, did you study the US Constitution, or sleep through the class, as I saw other students do?

  9. #53
    VIP Member
    Array TX expat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Kansas City
    Posts
    3,669
    Quote Originally Posted by linuss View Post
    Quit reading it with 21st century definitions of words as you're reading it wrong.

    At the time of writing, keep meant own, and bear meant carry. That's the definition to go off of.

    It says NOTHING about the militia bearing arms.

    It says 'the right of the people to keep and bear arms'. No where else in the Constitution does the words 'the people' mean ANYONE or ANYTHING other than individuals.
    Brother, you are arguing with a troll. Biden probably got ahold of some stray laptop and he joined up and posted this before he passed out.

    Everything he wrote is, for the most part, just plain ignorant of the intent and written word of the Second Amendment. There is no "literal" meaning of the Second Amendment that precludes individuals owning and possessing firearms. That was its explicit intent.
    OD*, d2jlking and Spirit51 like this.
    NRA Life Member

    "I don't believe gun owners have rights." - Sarah Brady

  10. #54
    VIP Member Array Ghost1958's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    Kentucky
    Posts
    5,599
    The Nuclear weapon thing always comes up. No law abiding citizen would want to be in 500 miles of one out of fear couldnt afford one or maintain it. Nor would any corporation spend a billion dollars to have their very own one nuke that has no purpose other than to have it. That point is sort of moot on its face regs or not concerning private ownership.
    The only folks that would want on is a terrorist organization or government that doesnt have one. And since governments nor terrorists obey laws even their own laws if they want one and have the ability to have one they will get one.
    Pretty much the same thing with Abrams Raptors and the like.
    Now full auto weapons the citizen should be allowed unrestricted access to own until such time as they commit a crime with it or attempt to. Oh well we can banter this back and forth all over the forum. For the most part with the exception of a few ive seen here we are preaching to the choir. Out there is where this is happening and where we need to be making the point in no uncertain terms that 2a is a right not to be infringed on and that the chip and push the limit the public will tolerate has been reached. Not made as sheep moaning and bleating please please dont take our rights but a clear firm message that we will no longer allow our rights to be taken. Not a violent message. But one that leaves no doubt of the outcome of further encroachment. After that the ball is the dictators court how stupid they wish to be.
    OD*, d2jlking and peckman28 like this.

  11. #55
    Moderator
    Array bmcgilvray's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    9,944
    Quote Originally Posted by tuft View Post
    I read the full text of the 2nd amendment and nowhere does it state that we have the right to privately buy, own, and possess guns at our homes for an indefinite period of time. It says we have the right to keep and bear arms. Couldn't that mean that all the guns could be kept in a central location in every town and people could have access to them during war or tyrannical govt takeover? It talks about a militia bearing arms, but it doesn't actually state that everyone has the right to buy a gun and privately keep it in their home forever.
    I read the full text of the 1st amendment to the Constitution and nowhere does it state that we have the right to privately buy, own, or possess Mark Twain's "Huckleberry Finn" on our personal bookshelves at our homes for an indefinite period of time.

    After all, neither the subject matter of such a fictional narrative nor the writing style were in existence in 1787 when the Constitution was adopted. Steam power hadn't been invented yet and the United States didn't possess the Mississippi River as part of its territory. No one in 1787 could foresee Huck and Jim fighting robbers on a wrecked steamboat or being run down by a steamboat, on the Mississippi River no less.

    Couldn't that be taken to mean that all the books could be kept downtown in the library and people could have access to them during commemorative reenactments or repressive ignorance? It talks about abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press but it doesn't actually state that everyone has the right to buy a book and privately keep it in their home forever.
    “No possible rapidity of fire can atone for habitual carelessness of aim with the first shot.”

    Theodore Roosevelt, The Wilderness Hunter, 1893

  12. #56
    VIP Member Array 1MoreGoodGuy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Fort Worth, Texas
    Posts
    5,888
    I say we devote our time and efforts to something more important than this thread...like writing our elected officials.
    Spirit51 likes this.
    Regards,
    1MoreGoodGuy
    NRA Life Member
    GOA Life Member


    Behave Like Someone Who is Determined to be FREE!

  13. #57
    Moderator
    Array bmcgilvray's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    9,944
    We're already writing our elected officials.
    “No possible rapidity of fire can atone for habitual carelessness of aim with the first shot.”

    Theodore Roosevelt, The Wilderness Hunter, 1893

  14. #58
    Ex Member Array Bullet1234's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    South Carolina
    Posts
    963
    Keep means to have or retain possession of (verb) therefore I choose to keep (retain possession)
    my weapons.

  15. #59
    VIP Member Array ccw9mm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    26,012
    Quote Originally Posted by 1MoreGoodGuy View Post
    I say we devote our time and efforts to something more important than this thread...like writing our elected officials.
    And yet, discussions have a way of helping some find better/alternative ways to think on issues and how to speak about them. To that end, no real debate is valueless.

    Many folks are also writing their elected people. Hopefully one result of such discussions across the forum is that folks will continue to rise up to be heard in that way.
    Your best weapon is your brain. Don't leave home without it.
    Thoughts: Justifiable self defense (A.O.J.).
    Explain: How does disarming victims reduce the number of victims?
    Reason over Force: The Gun is Civilization (Marko Kloos).
    NRA, GOA, OFF, ACLDN.

  16. #60
    VIP Member Array Ghost1958's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    Kentucky
    Posts
    5,599
    Quote Originally Posted by ccw9mm View Post
    And yet, discussions have a way of helping some find better/alternative ways to think on issues and how to speak about them. To that end, no real debate is valueless.

    Many folks are also writing their elected people. Hopefully one result of such discussions across the forum is that folks will continue to rise up to be heard in that way.
    And all the children say AMEN
    " It is sad governments are chief'ed by the double tongues." quote Ten Bears Movie Outlaw Josie Wales

Page 4 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast

Links

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Search tags for this page

2nd amendment literal interpretation
,
guncite-second amendment-the supreme court and the second amendment. guncite-second amendment-the supreme court and the
,
literal 2nd amendment
,
literal constitution second amendment
,

literal meaning of amendment 24

,
literal meaning of the 2nd amendment
,

literal meaning of the second amendment

,

literal translation of the 2nd amendment

,

second amendment literal wording

,

second amendment meaning

,
the literal meaning for the 2nd amendment
,
what is the literal interpretation of the second amendment
Click on a term to search for related topics.