This is why we need to ban guns!

[Jarvan]

Either you are for your neighbors being allowed to have nuclear arms or you are for limiting the right to bear arms. Real talk.

Technically, an ICBM isn't really an arm.

[Parkbandit]

The citizens have a right to keep and bear arms but there is caveat. You can't claim the "keep and bear arms" part while ignoring the opening words of the sentence "A well regulated miltia, being necessary to the security of a free state..." For the life of me, I can't understand why the people who claim to be defenders of the constitution just ignore 1/2 of this amendment as if it doesn't exist or is utterly irrelevant.

So, it is your belief that the Constitution only grants the right to bear arms for military groups and not for it's citizens?

I always read the part "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state.." as a prime example of why it's important to have the right to bear arms in the Constitution.

[Latrinsorm]

Technically, an ICBM isn't really an arm.

A nuclear weapon isn't a small arm, but it is absolutely an arm.

[Gawyane]

I agree that we do have a right to own and carry firearms. What I don't agree with is the position that the 2nd amendment allows the citizen carte blanche in this matter or that any attempt to regulate, register, license and limit gun ownership is a violation of one's 2nd amendment rights which is what Gawayne was getting at.

Actually that's not what I was getting at at all. But thanks for putting completely false words in my mouth.

I never said that the Second Amendment is carte blanche to own whatever guns we want. I merely pointed out that our Constitution explicitly states that every citizen has the right to own a gun but it is continuously infringed upon. I understand what the first part of the amendment says, but I also understand the rules of grammar and syntax and the comma that separates the "well regulated militia" and "right to keep and bear arms" clauses makes them two separate and distinct parts of the same amendment. Therefore I see it as a well regulated militia AND the right of every citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

[Thondalar]

The Supreme Court has ruled that explicit militia membership is not required, any citizen is a member of the unorganized militia. This break with the Constitution is a good Supreme Court ruling, and not in any way legislating from the bench, the way Supreme Court rulings that restrict the bearing of arms is.

Except that it's not a break with the Constitution at all...it's what it the Constitution says. I know you're not an English professor, Latrin, but even you can't argue any other interpretation of that sentence..."the people" is quite clearly the "militia".

See, back then, people were more afraid of their government than they were of their fellow citizens.

Ever notice how almost the entire document is about what things the government can't do to it's people? "...shall make no law..." "...shall not be infringed..." "No soldier shall..." "...shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue..."

They had a damn good reason, and we're idiots for trying to undermine it in some ignorant attempt to protect us from ourselves.

[Warriorbird]

Except that it's not a break with the Constitution at all...it's what it the Constitution says. I know you're not an English professor, Latrin, but even you can't argue any other interpretation of that sentence..."the people" is quite clearly the "militia".

See, back then, people were more afraid of their government than they were of their fellow citizens.

Ever notice how almost the entire document is about what things the government can't do to it's people? "...shall make no law..." "...shall not be infringed..." "No soldier shall..." "...shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue..."

They had a damn good reason, and we're idiots for trying to undermine it in some ignorant attempt to protect us from ourselves.

The Constitution wouldn't have happened without a fear of Libertarian failings as well. The fact that unpaid Revolutionary War soldiers had a rebellion rather than have their farms foreclosed on (by Sam Adams, ironically enough) lead to Washington moving back into politics and the Constitutional convention.

You consistently present this fantasy world where politics was completely unified back then too.

[Warriorbird]

So, it is your belief that the Constitution only grants the right to bear arms for military groups and not for it's citizens?

I always read the part "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state.." as a prime example of why it's important to have the right to bear arms in the Constitution.

I'm in almost complete agreement. I don't particularly think we all need military hardware to be a well regulated militia. I'd like liability for the actions of owned/sold guns, the insane not to be able to bear arms, and I think it's a little bit silly we're forbidden from excluding people with a concealed carry permit from drinking with a gun on them in our business.

[Gelston]

It depends on your idea of what "well-regulated militia" means. My personal view is that everyone can be called upon to create a militia, which simply defends their community. The well regulated part falls in line with current gun control regulations IMO.

[Thondalar]

The Constitution wouldn't have happened without a fear of Libertarian failings as well. The fact that unpaid Revolutionary War soldiers had a rebellion rather than have their farms foreclosed on (by Sam Adams, ironically enough) lead to Washington moving back into politics and the Constitutional convention.

The Constitution happened for the same reason Constitutions happen in every other country...men want to be free. Especially men who have not been free for a long time. It also laid the framework for our national Government, which any Libertarian will tell you is completely necessary. That Madison talked Washington into joining the Constitutional Convention really has nothing to do with anything.

You consistently present this fantasy world where politics was completely unified back then too.

I'm sorry if you somehow interpreted that from me saying the people were more afraid of their government than they were each other, but any idiot knows that's not the case. Hell, Hamilton didn't even want a bill of Rights, and quite frankly, I agree with him. There has never been a time in the history of this planet where "politics was completely unified", in this country or any other.

[Warriorbird]

Hell, Hamilton didn't even want a bill of Rights, and quite frankly, I agree with him.

The anti Bill of Rights Libertarian. Wow. I thought I'd heard everything.