Are you for or against the 2nd Amendment??

[darkangel218]

Last edited Thu Dec 3, 2015, 08:54 PM - Edit history (1)

I am certain the second amendment will win this poll.

And every other poll or debate.

59 votes, 3 passes | Time left: Unlimited
	I am for the 2nd Amendment
	38 (64%)
	I am against it
	21 (36%)
	3 DU members did not wish to select any of the options provided.
Show usernames Disclaimer: This is an Internet poll

[randys1]

1. For reading it the way it is written then acting accordingly.

Fill up those militia buildings with all the guns you want, just keep them the hell out of the public space.

[berni_mccoy]

13. We may not agree on who the nominee should be

But what you said is damn close to my sentiments as well!

[randys1]

15. Thanks..

BTW, I have supported Bernie for a very long time, he is who I want as the nominee.

But I also defend Hillary just in case.

[Rex]

25. Watch out! You will get in trouble for talking about the literal meaning!

It was fun playing with the gun folks; yet their ignorance of the law, the wording and lack of understanding our history is depressing.

[randys1]

27. I know...I have friends and family who are gun lovers, collectors, etc.

The two I am thinking of, step son and coworker are the epitome of law abiding, decent people.

I trust them completely NOT to use the guns for bad reasons...

But, so what.

They arent the ones we are worried about.

[JonLeibowitz]

29. Like McDonald v. City of Chicago? nt

[Electric Monk]

45. ...and if the technology advances past single-shot muskets...

[hifiguy]

56. Excellent argument.

[randys1]

106. thanks!

[cherokeeprogressive]

98. Some insight on the "way it is written", because etymology matters.

Especially when you take into account the actual context of the words. I've emphasized the relevant part. Notice the date. When was the Constitution written?

militia (n.)
1580s, "system of military discipline," from Latin militia "military service, warfare," from miles "soldier" (see military). Sense of "citizen army" (as distinct from professional soldiers) is first recorded 1690s, perhaps from a sense in French cognate milice. In U.S. history, "the whole body of men declared by law amenable to military service, without enlistment, whether armed and drilled or not" (1777).

[jmg257]

110. That's great. But the Constitution is pretty specific about "Militia"

As in "the Militia of the several States". Which were existing entities armed AND trained under govt sanction & guidelines, 'now' to include the new congress.

Even the 2nd refers to training and organization ("well-regulated militia being necessary&quot .

[cherokeeprogressive]

113. The word "militia" is what it is.

It doesn't matter which words precede or follow it. In 1777, etymologically, the word militia meant "the whole body of men declared by law amenable to military service, without enlistment, whether armed and drilled or not".

[jmg257]

114. True - it is. And so is the Constitution, which refers to very specific Militias.

"To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States;"

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State..."


That would be these entities:
"...but every State shall always keep up a well-regulated and disciplined militia..."

Later confirmed by this:
The Militia Act of 1792, Passed May 8, 1792, providing federal standards for the organization of the Militia.

An ACT more effectually to provide for the National Defence, by establishing an Uniform Militia throughout the United States.

I. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, That each and every free able-bodied white male citizen of the respective States, resident therein, who is or shall be of age of eighteen years, and under the age of forty-five years (except as is herein after excepted) shall severally and respectively be enrolled in the militia, by the Captain or Commanding Officer of the company, within whose bounds such citizen shall reside,..."


So you are right, it doesn't matter what words came before or after, only what The Militia meant in the Constitution. Which are sanctioned and regulated State entities. {i.e. The people had to enroll in THE militia, they were not 1 on their own.}

[potone]

2. This issue is how it is interpreted.

The Heller decision hampered any reasonable attempts to regulate guns or access to them.

[linuxman]

3. i support them all, equally

[Chan790]

4. A dumb question I refuse to answer.

I am for an interpretation of the 2nd Amendment that doesn't contain the error that it guarantees the citizenry the unfettered right to own guns. It guarantees the membership of the militia of the state the right to own a gun. Since the state militias were disbanded and replaced by the National Guard...it basically guarantees nobody anything.

[Chan790]

9. I sympathize with you for your experience...

but I don't believe in the right in any capacity for private citizens to bear arms as being conferred by the US Constitution in the 2nd or any Amendment. It confers a right upon membership of militias.

[SickOfTheOnePct]

37. SCOTUS begs to differ n/t

[Chan790]

63. SCOTUS is not infallible.

They've been wrong before and they'll be wrong again. They're wrong on this but I expect that with a few Justices dropping dead and some new blood, they'll come to be right eventually.

[SickOfTheOnePct]

66. I agree, they aren't infalliable

But absent a Constitutional amendment, their word is the law.

[Chan790]

68. ...and their word can change.

The court reverses itself all the time. It's not inconceivable that SCOTUS will eventually say "Sheeeeeit, we got that Heller thing wrong. Of course, the states can ban firearms."

[hifiguy]

76. No amendment is needed.

Plessy v. Ferguson - the definitive "separate but equal" decision of 1896 - was overruled unanimously and decisively by Brown v. Board. Scalia's interpretation of the 2A is devoid of historical context and would be easy to overrule as a matter of legal logic and historical inquiry.

[SickOfTheOnePct]

80. We'll see n/t

[X_Digger]

94. Well good, because the bill of rights doesn't confer *any* rights.

It's right there in the preamble:

[div class='excerpt']The Conventions of a number of the States having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best insure the beneficent ends of its institution.

The Bill of Rights was intended as a 'the government shall not' document- "to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers"- not a 'the people can' document. Rights aren't granted or limited by the bill of rights; rather the scope of protections of certain rights are set. If the Bill of Rights were a listing of all a person's rights, there would be no need for the ninth and tenth amendments ("The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." and "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." respectively.)

*rassafrassing-civics-lesson*

[Rex]

26. What is depressing about this is how some ignore facts and history to fit their

pro-gun narrative into something about the 2A. Then when you call them on it, they fall back on Scalia for support! The irony seems lost on them.

[etherealtruth]

5. i am against the current interpretation

[upaloopa]

7. I don't get why we have an amendment

that gives us a right to own a consumer item.

Because of the second amendment we can't try to protect society from gun deaths like we try to protect society from vehicle deaths.

The second amendment was not written for times like we live in today. It was written for when we had militias for defense.

Guns are a consumer item that doesn't need an amendment to make them available to people. Rather they should be regulated as a sane society would do with any consumer item.

[restorefreedom]

50. +1000 nt

[RichVRichV]

105. That's my view on it also.

It makes little sense to grant a right to own a specific type of item, especially one so destructive.

I want to abolish the second amendment but I don't want to outright ban guns. I want to make owning and using guns a privilege in the same way driving is a privilege. Something that has to be earned through training and certification, and can be revoked if proven someone can't handle them properly. The second amendment makes that all but impossible.

It's also getting in the way of much more benign and widely acceptable improvements to the laws also.

[yallerdawg]

8. Laws were so much better in the 1700's.

You never know when those pesky Brits might come back!

[madamesilverspurs]

10. I support the amendment, but

object to its abuse via distortion.

[steve2470]

11. I am for it, as interpreted by SCOTUS for years until recently

Heller was wrong. Sorry folks, just the way I see it. The Second Amendment is all about arming militias for state self-defense (national self-defense, not sure about).

[aikoaiko]

12. Yep, the people can have arms, and form a militia if needed.

It's not a big deal

[BlueJazz]

14. I'm against it in it's present form. American's have proved that they can't handle guns.

[elias49]

41. +1

[Agschmid]

16. It's not that simple.

[NCTraveler]

17. Voted that I'm against.

But what I'm really against is the interpretation of it.

[sanatanadharma]

18. Repeal and replace...

...because the current status-quo of gun violence in America is a moral evil that can be tied directly to the NRATERRORISTS' idolization the 2nd amendment. Even seeing the carnage of bullet riddled kid bodies, these pathological people prefer weapons to wisdom.

Why does a target shooter in Cheyenne have superior rights to the shot in Chicago?

[Humanist_Activist]

19. It was an idea that had some merit when passed at the time this country was founded...

but has long since passed its utility since at least the turn of the 20th if not the turn of the 21st centuries.

[Snobblevitch]

20. If the 2A were removed,

the RKBA issue would revert to the various states.

[ileus]

21. I couldn't call myself a progressive, and be just the opposite on the 2A.

[Nye Bevan]

22. If a state or city chooses, via its elected representatives, to restrict firearm ownership,

why should it not be allowed to do so?

[TeddyR]

58. Let me ask this question in response

If a state or city chooses, via its elected representatives, to ban abortions, why should it not be allowed to do so?

The answer to both questions is that the Constitution of the United States is the supreme law of the land, and protects both an individual right to keep and bear arms and the right to make individual choices regarding abortion. I don't think it would be a good idea to leave individual rights to the whim of the states (although I will say that most state constitutions protect the right to keep and bear arms). Who knows what a state like South Carolina would do with respect to same-sex marriage, abortion or voting rights if left to its own devices.

[Nye Bevan]

83. I see the right to an abortion as more important than the right to own a gun.

Being forced to carry an unwanted pregnancy to term is very different IMO from not being allowed to carry a firearm.

[X_Digger]

95. So your principles only apply to rights that you judge important?

That's.. not how principles work.

*sigh*

[TeddyR]

100. Yet the Constitution

Explicitly protects the right to keep and bear arms. The Founding Fathers deemed that right so important it was given its own place in the Bill of Rights. And I agree, the firearms issue raises completely different questions than the right to make a decision regarding an unwanted pregnancy, but both of those rights are protected by the Constitution. I don't view the rights protected by the First or Fourth Amendment any less (or more) valuable than those protected by the Second.

[madinmaryland]

23. I am opposed to the way the NRA, the gungeoneers, and the Gun Industrial Complex

have completely and radically PERVERTED the Second Amendment.

The NRA for being the corporate whores propping up the GIC.

The GIC for the crass merchantization of the weapons that are causing this shit.

The gungeoneers and members of the NRA for being fucking tools for lapping up everything the NRA and GIC says without actually thinking about the repercussions. The same can be said about the teabaggers.

Absolutely FUCKING disgusting.

[darkangel218]

24. What about the non NRA,law abiding gun owners?

Do you feel the same?

[madinmaryland]

32. If, as you say, and they are not NRA members and do oppose the NRA and GIC,

then obvious they do not fall into the category of the sheeple who believe everything the NRA and GIC tells them to believe.

[darkangel218]

33. You do realize that many Democrats, non NRA people support the second amendment, right?

[madinmaryland]

36. I think many here support the 2nd amendment, just not the

perverted and twisted interpretations of the NRA and the GIC.

[darkangel218]

40. I never said anything about pro NRA.

So what's your point?

[madinmaryland]

49. Read my posts.

[darkangel218]

52. I have read all your posts.

Are you pro or against the second amendment?

[madinmaryland]

54. As I tried to say above, but I had to type it a couple of times...

I think many here support the 2nd amendment (including myself), just not the perverted and twisted interpretations of the NRA and the GIC.

[TeddyR]

64. I guess I'm curious about your views

I support the idea that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms. This right isn't unlimited -- for example states can impose licensing requirements, and I certainly support background checks to keep guns out of the hands of felons or the mentally ill. But I ultimately believe the Second supports an individual right that "shall not be infringed," and I believe (for example) that neither a state nor the federal government can ban the private ownership of firearms.

What do you believe the Second Amendment protects with respect to the private ownership of firearms?

[madinmaryland]

72. Interesting points...

I would agree the "state" cannot ban the private ownership of firearms. On the other hand, due to the clause in the 2nd amendment (well regulated militia...), I believe that the "state" can regulate who can at the least the type of firearms that can be owned and who can own those types of firearms.

I fully support the licensing requirements you bring up. I believe open carry should be illegal. For concealed carry, you would need to show proof there is a reason why you need that (i.e. you are a private investigator...). You should have to provide a reason why you need a weapon that can fire off 30 rounds in less than 10 seconds.

[TeddyR]

104. I frankly don't think we are that far apart

I'm certainly not an absolutist on this issue. Open carry is a NRA-driven issue. Why in the world do you need to have open carry laws? At best, open carry intimidates others, at worst it causes confusion. I guess we disagree on the justification for concealed carry (though I don't have a CC license myself). I don't oppose letting folks who qualify for a concealed carry license follow that practice. Concealed carry really doesn't concern me, criminals with guns do. With respect to the 30 rounds/10 seconds issue, I imagine that applies only to rifles with really large capacity magazines -- there are handguns that have 18 round magazines, but you certainly can't fire 30 rounds in less than 10 seconds.

[Lizzie Poppet]

78. I like to think I fall into that category.

The NRA can piss off. No organization that swells Republican coffers like that one does is okay in my book. More to the point at hand, its failure to differentiate adequately between draconian gun control measures and perfectly reasonable, useful ones makes it no fit representative of my views.

[madinmaryland]

86. I am curious as to what you define as draconian gun control measures...

Confiscating all guns does not count.

[Lizzie Poppet]

93. Sure:

Even taking complete bans/confiscation off the table (although a lot of people on DU have been calling for them this week), I'd consider broad bans on weapon types like "all semi-automatics" to be draconian. Requiring local law enforcement to actively approve gun purchases (as is the case in some countries) instead of the present system of simply passing a background check* would be draconian. Banning all handguns would be draconian.

There are also some proposals that I don't support, but which to call "draconian" would be hyperbole. And at least one which I do support that some pro-gun folk would call draconian (I disagree): legally mandating proper security methods like gun safes, etc.

* I want to add that I think the current background check system needs some improvements. Not just making the checks mandatory for all transfers of gun ownership (which we have now in Oregon...yay!), but an expansion of the data in the NICS database to include the ability to flag certain mental health diagnoses, restraining orders for domestic violence, ongoing indictments for violent offenses, diagnoses which indicate high suicide risk, etc. Some of these would require a process to be removed (such as a sign-off from a psychiatrist for someone previously at suicide risk), but I think the current system fails to include a lot of people who shouldn't be buying guns.

[madinmaryland]

97. To answer....

"semi-automatic" weapons - they should require a real reason to own one. Just because you are afraid of the boogey man does not qualify.

"gun purchases" - should require a background check for ALL purchases, no exceptions.

"gun safes" - this would be a really good requirement. Also, requiring owners to purchase liability insurance would be a good start to reinforce to gun owners that they need to be responsible and take responsibility.

The bottom line, as you say, is that there are too many people who should not be buying guns.

[backscatter712]

28. Against. It's obsolete in the 21st century.

We don't need to hunt food with muskets anymore. We have a professional military, not citizen's militias. The idea that a few people with small arms could rise against the government without getting blown to gibs is ridiculous - revolution has to take other forms. Times change, and it's time that possession of deadly weapons be a privilege, not a right.

[Agschmid]

30. Just wait until we have civilian laser guns... Shit is going to get real.

[darkangel218]

31. How are you going to take the weapons from the illegal owners , to start with?

You can't possibly expect a law abiding citizen to give up their firearms, when the criminal element still has them.

It's just basic logic.

[backscatter712]

34. They did it in Australia.

They had a gun buyback, told gun owners to turn them in, told them that keeping them was not legal. Most people are, well, law-abiding, so they followed the law.

[darkangel218]

35. Australia is an island.

We are not . Weapons will keep coming across the border, just like drugs are.

There will be no stop to it.

Sorry.

[milestogo]

43. Its a continent.

And I believe FedEx delivers there.

[darkangel218]

46. It is still an island.

With no terrain borders.

We can't replicate Australia.

[NutmegYankee]

39. Australia only removed 1/3 of the guns with the buyback.

And those bought back were compensated at full market value. The government had to create a new tax to cover the costs.

[hifiguy]

77. You seem to imply that this was a bad thing.

[NutmegYankee]

81. I point out the difference from what people think happened

And what actually happened. For instance, the guns were not confiscated, they were purchased at full market value because Australia also has the compensation for property taken clause in their Constitution.

[milestogo]

38. It is time to update it.

Having so many citizens with more firepower than law enforcement is absurd.

[darkangel218]

42. Where do you quantify the firearms in the possession of the criminals?

??

[backscatter712]

48. Might as well repeal speeding laws since they're so hard to enforce...

Firearms laws will get enforced like every other law - some criminals will use weapons in crime, those weapons will get confiscated, they'll get charged for weapons violations and punished, the people selling the weapons will get prosecuted too. Some illegal weapons will be caught with stings.

Of course not all weapons are going to instantly disappear the moment the new laws get enacted. But over the years, more and more weapons will leave circulation, more people will give theirs up, or not acquire them, the ones that are left will get hidden away, and the numbers will dwindle.

[KamaAina]

44. Yes.

What I am against is the loose interpretation of it that ignores the "well-regulated militia" clause.

[Chuuku Davis]

47. Pretty sure CA banned standard 20 and 30 round magazines

And required they be turned in or removed from the state

None, Zero, Nada have been turned in

[Agnosticsherbet]

51. I think the way SCOTUS has interpreted the amendment is wrong.

[hifiguy]

57. Yep, but if it disappeared from the Constitution

I would be perfectly happy.

[Agnosticsherbet]

69. I see it as archaic concept intended to support a national defense via citizen militia.

Taken as a whole, it makes no sense in a modern nation.

There is no militia.

Bit it is not going to be repealed, so I will put my energy into passing gun regulations.

[hifiguy]

75. Exactly. There were no standing armies at the time

nor were they even dreamed of. The 2A was designed for a society in which the standing army was not even conceivable. Hence the "well regulated (state) militia" - which today is known as the National Guard - language.

How this whooshes over the heads of the gun-humpers baffles me.

[Crunchy Frog]

53. I believe this country would be better off without it.

Not that I think there's any possibility of getting rid of it.

[darkangel218]

55. Without the illegal firearms too, you mean.

Don't forget the criminals.

[Crunchy Frog]

60. I mean without the amendment.

Exactly what I posted.

[MH1]

59. I'm saying "against" for two reasons.

1) it is extremely poorly written, almost as if the intent was to be as unclear as possible. Perhaps this was deliberate so that each generation of the Supreme Court would get a crack at interpreting it and thus to some extent its applicability would vary according to the sensibilities of the times.

2) I disagree with the way it is currently being interpreted.

That said, I do think there should be some limited right of people to keep and bear arms. But my idea is a helluva lot more limited than the current interpretation of the second amendment.

[white_wolf]

89. Regarding point one.

I had a Con. Law professor in college who argued that a lot of the Constitution was vague for that very reason so that it could be reinterpreted and updated as time went on. Clearly, the people who wrote it didn't anticipated reactionaries holding power.

[Jim Beard]

61. There isn't much we can do about the second A but we can do little things

How about banning advertising, insurance sign for ammunition. I remember after Kennedy was killed, I had to sign in a notebook every time I bought ammo and how much. Yeah, I'm a gun owner, have been since I was 16.

I have learned a lot since then. Whatever you own will not defend you from an invading force of police or military. We have lots of examples of those who failed, 2 just yesterday.

You can not live a decent life having to look over your shoulder for an enemy. Been there and trust me, the hunter has the advantage.

[X_Digger]

101. Ammo tracking was useless, per the Treasury

"The Bureau and the Treasury Department have recognized that recordkeeping requirements for ammunition have no substantial law enforcement value."

http://harrislawoffice.com/content/areas_of_practice/federal_firearms/legislative_history/FOPA%20House%20Report%2099-495.pdf

[darkangel218]

62. I'm out.

Like I said before, haters can't take our right to defend ourselves away.

Carry on and Cheers.

[Jim Beard]

71. If an invading force takes over our country

it isn't that armed bunch of goons I fear, its my gun loving neighbor that will tell the invaders anything to save his own ass.

[AngryAmish]

65. Wait, does the right to arms depend upon an Amendment?

Or are these rights inherent in being a person.

In other words, was prosecuting homosexuals for sodomy correct up until the point Hardwick v Bowers was decided?

So personal rights exist independent of the law. Laws only enshrine them.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

67. Other, I'm for it AS WRITTEN, against it AS PRACTICED.

Gun possession should be as part of those 'well-regulated' state militias, with weapons stored in public armouries.

[ileus]

70. As long as I feel life is worth protecting and have people I want to keep safe

I'll support the 2A.

[Jim Beard]

79. Please give me examples of how you would keep them safe

during the day when everyone is working and at school. Back home at night they are away from crowds and home burglaries are seldom at night because thats when people are home. Home invasion you say, yeah but how often and whats the difference in cost of a Glock 9mm and a security system. You have that and calling 911.

[ileus]

82. you say potatoe I say potato.

I have a home security system, along with a 80# Black GS. But those are just the first two layers of defense.

My wife wrote their company firearm policy and carries her PSD every day.

The two schools my kids attend do have SRO's but that's all the security they and most other schools have. That's the best we have until sometime down the road we get serious about Security besides at the local courthouse.

As for 911, I have a female friend that's been waiting for the dispatched deputy to show up for 14 years now. She's still waiting...

You can keep the crappy ole glock, I'll stick with the CZ's for HD, M&P for Conceal carry. With the AR and 500 as backup HD if needed.

Let's just say it's a chance I don't have to take....safety first, dying later.

[Jim Beard]

88. Maybe you should change neighborhoods.

[baldguy]

73. It's obsolete.

It was intended to provide a means for the nation to defend itself in the absence of a standing army. We now have a standing army.

Constitutionally permitted gun ownership should go the way of Constitutionally permitted slave ownership.

[bigwillq]

74. For (nt)

[RandySF]

84. Repeal it.

[Stargleamer]

85. A right to arms but no rights to food and shelter??

how fucked up is that!

[Glassunion]

90. To me that is defined in, yet often ignored right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

[Recursion]

96. Which are not Constitutionally guaranteed.

That's from a revolutionary manifesto that predates the Constitution by almost two decades, and whose author was very distrustful of the entire process by which the Constitution was made.

[Glassunion]

87. Only the Sith deal in absolutes.

[RKP5637]

91. Amend it to the 21st century. n/t

[rurallib]

92. for the whole 2nd amendment and not just an out of context clause

[Marr]

99. I'm against the insane, baseless interpretation of the 2nd ammendment that prevails today. /nt

[BeyondGeography]

102. Whatever...I would pay to see what the founders think of what it led to

[Jester Messiah]

103. For it.

I don't trust, nor do I wish to rely upon the police. Even if I did, their response time would surely leave much to be desired.

[Initech]

107. As long as they actually abide by the "well regulated militia" part.

I don't in any way, shape or form, support the NRA's twisted agenda, or it's unbelievably gross misinterpretation of the second amendment.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

108. i do not believe it applies to individual unrestricted gun ownership. nt

[Lizzie Poppet]

109. Nor do I.

There are plenty of useful gun regulations that don't constitute meaningful "infringement."

[Spider Jerusalem]

111. I think that the Second Amendment should be repealed; it's an archaic anachronism...

that has no place in the modern world.

What does it say? "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."

Points, here: what is the militia? The militia is a body of citizen soldiers trained in arms and formally organised in units, called into service as needed (in wartime, to suppress civil disturbance, etc). This function is fulfilled by the National Guard today. When the Second Amendment was written? There was no organised National Guard, there were state and local militias (and the US Army had a strength of eight hundred men, because of a prejudice against maintaining standing armies--and the fledgling United States was surrounded by three potentially hostile European colonial powers, one of which it had just fought a war with, and by numerous potentially hostile native tribes). Joe Blow with an AR in his closet isn't doing anything at all related to a "well-regulated militia". And what does "bear arms" mean? At the time the Second Amendment was written, that phrase ALWAYS had a specifically military context; to "bear arms" was to serve in an organised military unit (not to have a rifle for hunting), hence the connection of "right to bear arms" with "well-regulated militia".

[jmg257]

112. I'm for the 2nd. The militia purpose is fairly obsolete, but the founders

didn't choose these amendments lightly. Though it seems even with those that were thought important enough to include, Madison felt c/would be disregarded if the situations warranted it.

Madison to Jefferson

"Wherever the real power in a Government lies, there is the danger of oppression. In our Governments the real power lies in the majority of the Community, and the invasion of private rights is cheifly to be apprehended, not from acts of Government contrary to the sense of its constituents, but from acts in which the Government is the mere instrument of the major number of the constituents.
...
Supposing a bill of rights to be proper the articles which ought to compose it, admit of much discussion. I am inclined to think that absolute restrictions in cases that are doubtful, or where emergencies may overrule them, ought to be avoided. The restrictions however strongly marked on paper will never be regarded when opposed to the decided sense of the public; and after repeated violations in extraordinary cases, they will lose even their ordinary efficacy."

Restricting the govt against infringing on the rights of the people was certainly NOT avoided.

Still - the purposes of the 2nd have been under-minded in the past, with the recreation of the Militias as the National Guard, and our keeping of a huge military. Infringes to the right to keep and bear arms has been going on for ever, and at least since the NFA 1934, even when the militia purposes were considered.


*Edit to add: and now that the militia purposes has been minimized by Scalia et. al., the way is open for all kind of restrictions being upheld. {see NY Safe Act and its challenges}

[GOLGO 13]

115. I am for the 2nd Amendment!

Nobody, not you, nor the government will take away my firearms. The fact that you don't like it is your problem. Deal with it.

I don't give up rights.

[darkangel218]

116. +1

[LanternWaste]

117. It's appears a semi-effective method of maintain an efficient militia.

It's appears a semi-effective method of maintaining an efficient militia.

Though quite often, as with presidential candidates, its most vocal and absolute supporters give a really bad name, and tend to debase it when speaking.

[Doc_Technical]

118. There is no reason why a civilian should own a semi-automatic weapon.

I am in favor of civilians owning revolvers, bolt action, lever action, and
slide (pump) action long guns.

Put semi-automatic weapons in the same category as full automatic weapons.