Does the 2nd amendment give you the right to own firearms?

[Anonymous]

4/5 supreme court judges say no

Yes

No

[lightbulb27]

not only have but to have on hand in the house and carry around.

should be modified and clarified...

It's one thing to carry around a musket... for shooting a deer if see one in the woods, or if some natives try to kill you with arrows... cause you are on their land shooting their deer.

And if the politicians in town start going the wrong way, got a right to show up in town and speak your mind... with your musket. If all the sudden some invaders showed up, like the British... ya got at least 20 rounds and powder to hold them off. Makes perfect sense.

However today, shooting geese with an AK 47 at the local park in full auto mode is a no-no. too many children on bicycles. And if you don't like the new tax increase having the town show up with their RPG's... because if ya wanna fight a terrorrist incurion, we should all be trained in rocket propelled grenades... is just bad. Although come to think of it... might help lower my taxes and keep spending in check.

Maybe it needs some tweeks... given the risks to life and limb, probably need restrictions but I am challenges myself that, ya don't want to take away the right for might keep politicians in toe.

the real problem is the infinite printing press... people keep ignoring that part and it's very important.

caveat... I ain't no supreme court justice... not even close.

[WindAtMyBack]

I don't need the Constitution or any amendments to "give" me the right to own a gun. I already have that right. Just like I already have all the other rights spelled out in the Constitution, plus quite a few more. "Unalienable rights" as the Declaration so eloquently puts it.

All the Bill of Rights does is acknowledge those rights. It was put in there because some of the founders were paranoid of a government that would overstep it's authority and try to take away those rights.

The 10th Amendment is the umbrella amendment that protects all the others. It basically says that if the Constitution does not explicitly give the government the authority to do something, then it can't. Since it does not give the government the authority to take away those rights, it can't do it.

[Flower7]

Yeah it does, but I don't get why people can't update this stuff. It's not like it's the bible.

[gatixek710]

No it doesn't. The 2nd amendment clearly states that we have rights given to us by our creator as a function of being a free people. It's exactly why the amendment states "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed”

I already have the right. The 2nd amendment is telling the government they cannot infringe on that right.

[Flower7]

Are you talking about God when you say our creator?

[Asker]

It is prose for "Humans are meant to live a certain way"

[gatixek710]

Absolutely God is my creator.

[Flower7]

@gatixek710 I didn't see anything about guns in the bible.

[gatixek710]

@Flower7 where do you get the stupid idea the word 'guns' has to be in the Bible? None of what you said invalidates anything I said.

[Flower7]

@gatixek710 You can't know if God wants a certain thing if it's not in the bible.

[gatixek710]

The bible doesn't mention the internet. But you have the right to free speech on this site to be this stupid.

[Flower7]

@gatixek710 I just don't think you can randomly make up that God wants all of us to have weapons, with nothing to back it up.

[gatixek710]

Really? No one in the bible used a weapon to kill an oppressor? No one practiced the right to self defense?

[Asker]

by the creator, they mean reason. They have reasons for why they have rights. That's it. it's not complicated to someone who understands the history of theology and philosophy

[Asker]

@gatixek710 the bible says a lot of things, one of the things it says is to use your brain and dont be a pharisee that flips through pages of a book to justify how you live

[gatixek710]

lmao. You two are stuck on stupid. I never once said anything about the bible being the reason I have a right to self defense. That was the moron pink account. The bottom line is this - we are created as free people. Free people have the right to self-defense and to live without oppression. So to secure that right, you have the right to arm yourself. The government doesn't have the right to infringe on that.

It's really that simple.

[Asker]

Protestantism and Catholicism and St. Augustine - none of them historically believed the bible was the unaltered word of God, it was a book to them, a human document copied and translated innumerable times. it's a completely modern idea you should get every aspect of how to live life from a book. Catholics didn't even let average people read the book

[Asker]

@gatixek710 No where in Jefferson or Locke's philosophy are people "created" "free", they're created with the will to be free, that is a huge difference. Its a philosophy that has no issue with war and conflict, at the end of the day. We need to be clear about what we believe, instead of acting like what we believe is a fact, and seeing no need to explain it clearly, because it is a "fact"

[gatixek710]

It's right in the declaration of independence:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness

[Asker]

@gatixek710 that's called prose. it isn't literal. Do you think it's self evident everyone is equal?

[Asker]

it would simply sound far nastier to say what he literally means. "We want to fight you because we want to rule America. As soon as we win we will impose the taxes we used to rile up our goons and have essentially the same society as you with ourselves in power."

[gatixek710]

why are you so scared to admit you were born a free human being?

[purplepoppy]

No. The clues in the wording "the people" In other words the populace not the individual.

[Snakeyes7]

And what makes up the populace?

[Asker]

@Snakeyes7 She has a valid point you're reacting to like vinegar and baking soda. If they meant individuals they would've said individuals. they're clearly talking about a militia's right to have licensed weapons, a militia is a group.

[purplepoppy]

The popula

[Snakeyes7]

What is a populace if not a bunch of individuals?

[NaultD]

Dosen't actually matter because people don't even know how self defense works.

I'm in a large gun culture state of alaska and I had jury duty for a self defense case. The boomers just refuse to understand you can use a gun knowing how a gun kills people.

In this case the guy who is in his legally signed lease domicile ie castle. The guy who got shot was the landlord who step forward hand behind back threatening a gun. had a full second to draw non visible but ultimately not there gun then got shot. Girlfriend was in the room scard to death of the fight in their castle, hand movment, police, ... trial.

I'm personally anti gun sissy leftist and I have the common sence this is the only reasonable use of a gun. Not viable for life second guessing a quick draw like that. Unless you got a million dollars to spend on a defense lawyer you will lose and go to jail.

The elite has rob that right from all of us.

[buzzword]

Nope, it's a God given right. The second amendment exits to prohibit the government from infringing on American's God given rights to bear arms. The constitution only exists to control the federal government so that they do not violate citizen'a rights while in a position of power.

[buzzword]

The constitution are rules for government not rules for people.

[Lliam]

You're 100% right.

[Shiprex]

Relying on an imaginary being for morality is a slippery slope.

[William4447]

@Shiprex God being a "imaginary being" is your opinion

and relying on the government to uphold morality or protect rights is a slippery slope, leads to Tyranny/Communism

[buzzword]

@Shiprex Don't worry, nobody relies on you for morality...

[Shiprex]

@William4447 Try relying on DEMOCRACY that's why you need guns to "defeat" the worlds most expensive military industrial complex, because YOU'RE the tyrants who would try to overthrow a DEMOCRACY.. SMH this level of idiocracy is why your imaginary sky people won't ever appear.

[buzzword]

@Shiprex A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine. -Thomas Jefferson

America is a Constitutional Federal Republic for a reason. That reason is to defend the God given rights of the individual citizen from government. Hitler's rise to power is a perfect example of democracy disabling and dismantling a republic. Hitler leveraged his right to free speech and freedom of assembly to hold rallies across the country and sow division. As a result he was able to muster 37% control of the Reichstag and gridlock government. Hindenburg unable to govern tried to out Hitler Hitler and rule by emergency decree which ultimately turned the Weimar Republic into a dictatorship. Because Hitler had the numbers, the people's constitutional rights were not respected and Hitler rose to power by democracy and then commenced extermination of everyone who disagree with the 37% in a Holocaust. That's democracy for you. But I'm sure you already know that being that you are a Nazi party member.

[bobby_bush_eater]

@Shiprex you do realize the entire West and your moral compass is based in Christian values right?

[buzzword]

@Shiprex is a satanic Nazi. His primary objective is to attack the Christian religion and undermine the American republic just as Hitler and his goons did to Germany. That's how brown shirts behave. He is so vocal about "democracy" because democracy is the only path to dictatorship when you have a republic.

[Shiprex]

@bobby_bush_eater NO it's not, it's based on HUMAN values the Jesus cult thought they'd take for themselves. You are aware there were civilisations BEFORE JESUS right?

[Shiprex]

LOL Democracy was introduced in civil society so MIGHT = RIGHT was ended and morality rather than self interest was put as a fundamental core to civilisation.

[Shiprex]

The rights were permitted to you by the rest of the civilisation you are part of and that same civilisation can take them away but you're not smart enough (or mature enough) to grasp that.
Godwin's Law is the first sign of your failure.
Go back to school

[Lliam]

@Shiprex. You must love the idea of dictatorship that dictates your "rights".

[buzzword]

@Shiprex You're a prime example of the Dunning-Kruger effect. You have no grasp of America history, yet it's other people that have to go back to school not you. You fail to grasp that America was founded on Judeo-Christian ethics by Christian pilgrims who blatantly stated in plain language that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights in the Declaration of Independence. Quiet frankly you've proven you're not smart enough to be part of this conversation Nazi.

[bobby_bush_eater]

@Shiprex
The USA was founded by a bunch of white Christian men and that bothers you to the core huh. Our declaration of independence was heavily influenced by Saint Thomas Aquinas.

The abolitionist movements in nearly all of the West started out of Christian morals. Why do you think the middle east still has slavery and views it as moral? It's almost like their religion over hundreds of years shaped their perspective, morals/ethics, and laws.

Temperance, child labor laws, the civil rights movement etc.

I'm assuming you think the USSR had the best morals?

[William4447]

@bobby_bush_eater why antiwhite people don't like america

[William4447]

@bobby_bush_eater Marxism has a effect they will always whine about America no matter how much there the ones who make it suck right now

[AviatorTom]

Yes, the 2nd Amendment to the US Constitution does give Americans the right to own firearms, but there is nothing in the amendment that gives people the right to own any kind of firearm or any number of them. Putting reasonable limitations on firearms and their ownership does not violate the 2nd Amendment no matter what the NRA says.

[Jersey2]

Shall not be infringed is pretty clear. It doesn’t say you can only have 8. It says shall not be infringed.

[AviatorTom]

@Jersey2 Let's read the Amendment literally. It says that my right to bear arms shall not be infringed.
If one has 2 firearms, their right to bear them has not been infringed, even if the government tells them that they can't have a third firearm.
If one has a rifle and a pistol, again their right to bear arms is not infringed, but the government can legitimately (without violating the amendment) prevent them from having a nuclear missile.

Let's use another example about rights.
Everyone has the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, but if they commit a crime and are found guilty in a fair trial by a jury of their peers, their liberty can be taken away and they can be sent to jail.

In other words, rights are not infinite, they can be limited.

Remember that the 2nd Amendment was written as a reaction to what the British soldiers did during the American Revolution, seizing people's guns that they used to hunt as well as for defense.

[Jersey2]

The whole idea is to have an armed populace to keep the government at bay. We need that now more than ever. And limiting me to one pistol and one rifle is infringing on my rights. If they wanted a limit they would have said so. Instead, they explicitly said “shall not be infringed” which is very clear. The court has looked at this many times and it stands as it should. Laws at a state level that have infringed have been over turned including California limiting magazines to ten rounds.

[Shiprex]

The idea that a DEMOCRACY (the rule of the people by the people) is to be held at gunpoint by those very people who it represents is illogical and madness. If special interest groups can use lethal force to change the democratic will then it's not a democracy, it's fascism. THAT'S what the firearms for use by citizens against other citizens is about, perpetuation of fascism.

[Lliam]

The right to keep and bear arms (own guns) is a self-evident, unalienable right that belongs to everyone, whether they live under an oppressive government or not. The Second Amendment prohibits our government from infringing upon that right. But, of course, the constitution only applies to U. S. citizens. And the rights of dangerous criminals can be restricted.

Self defense is also a human right. In fact, all creatures have defense mechanisms. It's part of nature.

[RavVid]

The English Bill of Rights applied to Americans from 1689 to 1776. That bill gave the right to keep arms (for protestants but not Catholics) for self protection but not bear and only under regulation by Parliament.

The extensions to that in your second amendment would seem to be very deliberately intended.

[Shiprex]

Lliam Didn't like being logically schooled so
You mean democratic civilisation that has created all the technology, provides the power, the food, the shelter, safety, yeah that DICTATORSHIP.
When you finish school you'll realise that society has no need for paranoia if it's run properly. Firearms in the hands of civilians who refuse to accept the will of the people (DEMOCRACY FFS) is a recipe for idiocracy.
Kids lives > gun rights

[goaded]

No. I don't live in America. I think the "well regulated militia" part is too easily ignored. If someone isn't suitable to be called up into a militia (which is to be under the control of the local CIVILIAN government), they aren't suitable to have firearms.

[Anonymous]

No part of the Constitution gives anyone any rights, your rights are given to you by your creator as a product of your existences.

The 2nd amendment banns the goverment specifically the federal goverment of who's constitution it is apart from doing anything to abridge (undermine) that right.

[Snakeyes7]

It is clearly stated that "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

The fact that 4/5 are pretending like this doesn't exist means that they want the government to do things that they would be shot for.

[Snakeyes7]

Oh and by the way, the constitution doesn't give your rights. That comes free with your humanity. The reason it is written in the constitution is to not only help people remember that it is a right but it also has the intention to hold violators accountable.

[Anonymous]

Yes it does, the people who wrote the constitution, just got done fighting a tyrannical government, and made it very clear that people had the right to bare arms just incase we the people had to fight a tyrannical government again.

https://www.youtube.com/embed/P4zE0K22zH8

[gatixek710]

We are endowed with the right to bear arms by our creator. Because we have this right, the 2nd amendment states that the government cannot infringe on that right.

[jshm2]

No. As "arms" does not include "ammo" and a firearm is useless without ammo.

[exitseven]

The right to keep and near firearms shell not be infringed.

[RasmusAiken]

The US Constitution does not grant freedoms to citizens, rather it denies government the power to restrict God given freedoms.

[Anonymous]

the 2nd amendment exists to protect the 1st amendment

everyone is entitled to an opinion but might still makes right hence why it's important to defend the right to free speech

[Dargil]

4/5 supreme court judges say no? Which ones?

[Dargil]

Keep and Bear seems to indicate ownership.

[gatixek710]

Yes. It's been upheld in SCOTUS numerous times.

[gatixek710]

Actually - no it doesn't. The constitution doesn't give you rights.

[RowdyYates]

Remember, when Professor Biden said he taught constitutional law? He said you don’t need an AR 15 to hunt deer. Does that bonehead really think the second amendment has anything to do with deer hunting?

[gatixek710]

@RowdyYates He does. Remember he recommends shooting a shotgun through the door when an intruder is trying to break in.

[RowdyYates]

I remember that, but I doubt he does.
Wanna see what happens when a pissant judge tries to lock horns with the Natural Man? ↗

[RedInnocent69]

Yes, in the context of a well-regulated militia. Funny how gun nuts fail to give meaning to the first part.

[noohair]

The reality is that to change this amendment will be very complicated. And I like the constitution as it is.

[Chthou95]

It's a right and the ammendment keeps it from being restricted or taken away

[jjj101010]

I mean there is a well regulated militia, the army, who are there to protect the free state, so the second part should become redundant

[BLP11520]

Owning guns is a responsibility just like driving your car safely. It’s not that hard.🇺🇸

[ChicoFromThe305]

Yep I got my gun and own it

[FunkyMonkee]

Of course! What'd you think it was for/

[shortster]

Yes. There are 9 supreme court justices.

[Asker]

I meant 4 said no 5 said yes

[shortster]

I see.

[Hispanic-Cool-Guy]

As an individual, no. As a militia, yes.

[William4447]

yes wtf