Goodbye 2nd amendment

[Arta]

"Liberalism is a mental disorder"
-Michael Savage

Well, if he believes that, he's an idiot. Liberals ended slavery. Liberals established medicare and social security. Liberals gave women and black people the vote. Liberals ended segregation and passed the civil rights act.

So far as I know, conservatives opposed all of those things at the time.

Note that my use of the words 'liberal' and 'conservative' refer to philosophies, not to any party affiliation.

[CrAz3D]

Uhmj, condoms are handd out in school as are military fliers.  Maybe you need to get out of that pointless ivy league & attend the real world.

[Banana fanna fo fanna]

So far as I know, conservatives opposed all of those things at the time.

That's by definition. He's referring to contemporary liberalism, I think.

Well, is it possible that a document written 300 (about?) years ago might be outdated?  If the constitution said how many black slaves you were allowed, would you really continue to follow it, just because that's what was written?  This goes for the Bible, too; are actions/events from 2000 years ago consequential, or are they too out of date to matter?

It's called a constitutional amendment. And they didn't do one for this.

[Adron]

Well, the point of the 2nd amendment, is that the states are allowed to hold an armed militia to protect themself in case the central government goes haywire. If a state or city or group of people decide to ban guns, that has to be up to them. The 2nd amendment of the constitution is for regulating what the national government can or can't do to the states. Right?

[dxoigmn]

Uhmj, condoms are handd out in school as are military fliers.  Maybe you need to get out of that pointless ivy league & attend the real world.

At my high school they never handed out condoms nor was I forced to take condoms. I knew they were available in the health office in a small basket but no one came up to me and said "Here take this." I was given a military flyer though, and the assholes near my house always try to recruit my brother and me, even after many refusals. They're like the mormons who always come to my door.

Note that I had to go to a (public) high school to get where I am. And I probably know more about the "real world" than you ever will. You're just as bitter like $t0rm.

[Arta]

Contemporary liberalism? Define please?

[CrAz3D]

Well, the point of the 2nd amendment, is that the states are allowed to hold an armed militia to protect themself in case the central government goes haywire. If a state or city or group of people decide to ban guns, that has to be up to them. The 2nd amendment of the constitution is for regulating what the national government can or can't do to the states. Right?

States must comply w/the Constitution & their own state constitution.  If a city banned free speech people would burn the city.  They should burn the city (or change it) for banning arms too

EDIT:typo

[Grok]

Well, the point of the 2nd amendment, is that the states are allowed to hold an armed militia to protect themself in case the central government goes haywire. If a state or city or group of people decide to ban guns, that has to be up to them. The 2nd amendment of the constitution is for regulating what the national government can or can't do to the states. Right?

As the Constitution and amendments were supposed to be enumerating the powers given to the federal government, I don't understand how the 2nd amendment really works with regards to state raising and maintaing militias.  It should not need to be said.  The states maintained ALL rights and ALL powers that were not explicitly spelled out in the Constitution as given to the federal government.  There was much fear that a federal government would try to take over the states, maybe thats why it had to be spelled out in the 2nd amendment a states right.

In my opinion, that was a mistake.  Perhaps it was because the federal government was specified to provide for the national defense, maybe the feds tried to tell the states they could not have their own armies, that the power belonged to the feds.

States militias were of course individuals bearing arms, not quite the same as federal payroll armed forces.

[Arta]

I still don't agree that:

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.

is the same as:

Anyone who wants a gun can have one.

I think that the first part -- "A well regulated militia"-- establishes a clear context upon which the rest of the amendment is predicated, and provides significant scope for the enactment of arms control legislation.

Also, if I'm not mistaken, this was a ballot measure -- eg, a referendum -- upon which people voted. Given that, I'm not sure how anyone can bitch about it, really. Things don't get much more democratic than that.

[Grok]

Arta it's not about being democratic.  Without taking a stance myself I will try to explain the objection.

The Declaration of Independence sets up power coming first from God, then to man, and from man to government.  The document enumerates rights belonging to man that are inalienable.  The Constitution was framed later based on the concept that man had rights which could not be taken away, legislated away, or given away from man to government.  Other rights belonged to the union-states, in fact, most powers layed with the states.  The federal government was established by the Constitution to list which restricted powers it would have.

So the 2nd amendment still confuses me as to why it exists.  It's an individual rights vs. states rights issue, and not one at the federal level.  States should not need to list their rights in the Constitution.  That they do means I am misunderstanding its purpose.

MyndFyre care to explain why you think the 2nd amendment is in correct contexxt of the Constitution?

If individual rights to bear arms is covered by the 2nd amendment, then (weirdly) that power is enumerated and enforced at the federal level.  Thus, a town vote cannot remove powers which are granted to the federal control by the Constitution.

The town vote should be judged unconstitutional.  However, two other cities have done it, and have they been challenged and lost in court?

[Arta]

Perhaps it was intended to prevent the federal government from passing laws of this kind, and in so doing, prevented states (supposedly) from doing it to.

Either way, I'm not so sure that it is unconstitutional. Having a handgun under your bed has nothing to do with keeping a well-regulated militia.

[Grok]

You're half right.

The Constitution sets up what the federal government CAN DO.  By definition they cannot do anything else.

Everything else CAN BE DONE by the states, and all powers are held by the states where they do not belong to Man.

Thus, the federal government cannot pass laws or act on anything that is not a power granted to them by the Constitution.

The state government can do whatever they want, as long as its not a power given to the feds by the Constitution, or not a right owned by Man.

[Arta]

Well in that case, what anti-constitutional argument is there?

[CrAz3D]

Say the city banned free speech, is that unconstitutional?

[Invert]

Well in that case, what anti-constitutional argument is there?

Our second amendment gives us the right to bear arms. Proposition H in San Francisco impedes on the second amendment.