Home
Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
Latest activity
Members
Current visitors
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Home
Forums
Brown Cafe Community Center
Current Events
guns
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="The Other Side" data-source="post: 980520" data-attributes="member: 17969"><p>The history of the second amendment has been challenge for decades. Interpretations mean everything and depending on the members of the court, so do rulings.</p><p></p><p>There are three predominant interpretations of the Second Amendment:</p><ol> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">The civilian militia interpretation, which holds that the Second Amendment is no longer valid, having been intended to protect a militia system that is no longer in place.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">The individual rights interpretation, which holds that the individual right to bear arms is a basic right on the same order as the right to free speech.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">The median interpretation, which holds that the Second Amendment does protect an individual right to bear arms but is restricted by the militia language in some way.</li> </ol><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>The only Supreme Court ruling in U.S. history that has focused primarily on the issue of what the Second Amendment really means is <em>U.S. v. Miller</em> (1939), which is also the last time the Court examined the amendment in any serious way. <span style="font-size: 15px"><strong>In <em>Miller</em>, the Court affirmed a median interpretation holding that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to bear arms, but only if the arms in question are those that would be useful as part of a citizen militia.</strong></span> Or maybe not; interpretations vary, partly because <em>Miller</em> is not an exceptionally well-written ruling.</p><p></p><p>This is my position. There are no longer citizen militias, therefore, the entire second amendment is useless.</p><p></p><p>The Second Amendment reads as follows:<p style="margin-left: 20px"><span style="font-size: 15px"><strong>""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.""</strong></span></p><p>Now that the United States is protected by a trained, volunteer military force rather than a civilian militia, is the Second Amendment still valid? Does the Second Amendment exclusively provide for arms to supply a civilian militia, or does it guarantee a separate universal right to bear arms?</p><p></p><p><a href="http://civilliberty.about.com/od/guncontrol/i/2ndamendment.htm" target="_blank">Gun Control - Does the Second Amendment Protect the Right to Bear Arms?</a></p><p></p><p>QUESTION: where in the second amendment is there a <strong>STAND </strong><strong>ALONE </strong>provision granting the rights to own guns for personal protection outside of a well regulated militia?</p><p></p><p>Peace</p><p></p><p>TOS</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="The Other Side, post: 980520, member: 17969"] The history of the second amendment has been challenge for decades. Interpretations mean everything and depending on the members of the court, so do rulings. There are three predominant interpretations of the Second Amendment: [LIST=1] [*]The civilian militia interpretation, which holds that the Second Amendment is no longer valid, having been intended to protect a militia system that is no longer in place. [*]The individual rights interpretation, which holds that the individual right to bear arms is a basic right on the same order as the right to free speech. [*]The median interpretation, which holds that the Second Amendment does protect an individual right to bear arms but is restricted by the militia language in some way. [/LIST] The only Supreme Court ruling in U.S. history that has focused primarily on the issue of what the Second Amendment really means is [I]U.S. v. Miller[/I] (1939), which is also the last time the Court examined the amendment in any serious way. [SIZE=4][B]In [I]Miller[/I], the Court affirmed a median interpretation holding that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to bear arms, but only if the arms in question are those that would be useful as part of a citizen militia.[/B][/SIZE] Or maybe not; interpretations vary, partly because [I]Miller[/I] is not an exceptionally well-written ruling. This is my position. There are no longer citizen militias, therefore, the entire second amendment is useless. The Second Amendment reads as follows:[INDENT][SIZE=4][B]""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.""[/B][/SIZE][/INDENT]Now that the United States is protected by a trained, volunteer military force rather than a civilian militia, is the Second Amendment still valid? Does the Second Amendment exclusively provide for arms to supply a civilian militia, or does it guarantee a separate universal right to bear arms? [url=http://civilliberty.about.com/od/guncontrol/i/2ndamendment.htm]Gun Control - Does the Second Amendment Protect the Right to Bear Arms?[/url] QUESTION: where in the second amendment is there a [B]STAND [/B][B]ALONE [/B]provision granting the rights to own guns for personal protection outside of a well regulated militia? Peace TOS [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Home
Forums
Brown Cafe Community Center
Current Events
guns
Top
