The U. S. Constitution's Second Amendment: My Interpretation of What It Means (Page 2)
Click "Show More" for your mentions
Most Helpful Opinion(mho) Rate.
Learn more
Learn more
We're glad to see you liked this post.
You can also add your opinion below!
What Girls & Guys Said
Opinion
31Opinion
There is no interpretation required for the Second Amendment. It is crystal clear to anyone with more than a few brain cells.
And no, the US Constitution does not expire.
I have historically liked and respected the opinions you've share on GAG, but you are wrong on this one, and it's a bit arrogant of you to think it's your business anyway. But thanks for sharing your ignorant aussie "interpretation" with us.
I didn't say that the U. S. constitution would, or should, expire. I was specifically discussing a single amendment within it, one that could potentially be removed (ex. the 18th, which prohibited alcohol).
I know what you were suggesting, but your opinion, or that of anyone else, does and should not justify changing anything about the Constitution. Once we start changing bits and pieces of it based on people's opinions, it all will crumble in short order.
I would have thought you were wise enough to understand that. I was wrong about you.
The U. S. Constitution has changed a LOT since it was first drafted. You do know that, don't you? I already gave you one example of this, the 18th amendment, which was repealed. It isn't a static document, one that no one should ever tamper with.
I would have thought you were wise enough to understand that. I was wrong about you.
Again, my point was that once we open the Constitution to change based on the emotional opinions of people like you, especially in this day of division and extremism, it will just snowball out of control from there.
But thanks again for sharing opinion on our Constitution. We will take it for what it's worth.
Same rules don’t apply to felons or slaves right? There’s an exception so why not exception for guns that can cause mass casualties by an unskilled peasant
Its the one right that protects all the rest if we lose it we lose them all and they will win and we will be nothing to them slaves
They dont care about crime or mass shooting they are behind most of them, what they want to do is take away our ability to fight back
When the government fears the people there is freedom when the people fear the government there is tyranny
Which world do you want to live in
Bravo, that might be the most intelligent thing I've read on the interweb, written by a 25 yearold.
She needs to read the Original constitution to understand what is being amended by this amendment. Specifically read Article 1 Section 8 clause 12, 15, and 16.
12: Gives congress an alternative to using the militia in the form of a regular army but that has to be maintained via new vote for funding every 2 years.
15: Gives congress the right to use the State's standing Militia instead.
16: Give congress the right to fund and support the State's standing militia and insure they are a useful force while practically reserving to the States control of the militia via officer selection and training.
The 2nd amendment was designed to clarify that congress could not define or disarm the State's militia using clause 16s provide for power.
The threat of a standing army was a big issue at the time because said armies are so frequently used to overthrow free states. This was known to the founders in 1787 and has happened countless times in other countries since.
That is why they provided such limits in the Federal Constitution with the only permanent force being effectively controlled by the States and consisting of part time solders who could afford to say no.
The last thing to remember is the "Republican Form of Government" clause of Article 4 Section 4, this is what keeps Governs from doing the same thing with the State militias.
Gotta love those penumbras and emanitations. Whatever you do, don't read Madison in the Federalist papers because he just might be smarter than you. But he's a dead white man so that makes it OK.
Yeah I'm sorry you're wrong here. You will never take my right to defend my self. Thank God idiots like you are in the tiny minority in this country. If you don't want a gun don't own one. The moment you talk about taking mine. Does the term cold dead hands ring a bell? Good now grow up child
I'm not competent to judge about what should be done, but what you write is worth considering and meditating.
You're bad at this... You should probably get back to flipping burgers or cleaning toilets.
"... to prepare for a very real possibility, the possibility of being reabsorbed into the British, or some other, empire."
You mean like the American empire? 🤔🤔
Read the contemporary debates, the concern was not simply about forign invaders but really the far more common threat of a coup. 'free' did not simply mean 'independent'.
This would have been more apparent if she had actually read the Federal Constitution this amendment was actually amending. Specifically Article 1 Section 8 clause 12, 15, and 16.
12: Gives congress an alternative to using the militia in the form of a regular army but that has to be maintained via new vote for funding every 2 years.
15: Gives congress the right to use the State's standing Militia instead.
16: Give congress the right to fund and support the State's standing militia and insure they are a useful force while practically reserving to the States control of the militia via officer selection and training.
The reason for theses rules was the concern for the possibility of what we would now call a 'coup'. At the time they usually worded it as the "dangers of a standing army".
For a Coup almost invariably require the organizational hierarchy of an army to be implemented successfully.
It is a safety net in case we get a real nut in office that turns into a dictator and uses military to force his policies on the people taking their rights away.
There are millions of responsible gun owners. So I don’t get why we need to punish them.
Who says they want to? Red flag laws keep guns away from irresponsible people. Background checks, ditto.
They’ve been consistent in their calls for bans on guns outright though. It shouldn’t matter the gun it only matters the person
A total ban on guns is about as popular as a total ban on abortions. Do you agree with the red flag laws and background checks?
@goaded yes i do
You and something like 90% of other Americans.
@goaded i know
Wow - talk about obsession.
What obsession? This is my very first 'MyTake' on the subject.
Do you think that because it's the first that somehow makes it not representative of an obsession?
Yes.
Take or re-take introductory Psychology.