Own a Assault Weapon? soon the Sheriff will be at your home

Sorry for the triple post but I believe this will shed some light on the second amendment:

There are several versions of the text of the Second Amendment, each with slight capitalization and punctuation differences, found in the official documents surrounding the adoption of the Bill of Rights. One version was passed by the Congress, while another is found in the copies distributed to the States and then ratified by them.

As passed by the Congress:

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.

As ratified by the States and authenticated by Thomas Jefferson, Secretary of State:

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.

The original hand-written copy of the Bill of Rights, approved by the House and Senate, was prepared by scribe William Lambert and resides in the National Archives.

The Second Amendment is the only amendment to the Constitution which states a purpose.

Meaning of "well regulated militia"

The term "regulated" means "disciplined" or "trained". In Heller, the U.S. Supreme Court stated that "[t]he adjective 'well-regulated' implies nothing more than the imposition of proper discipline and training."

In Federalist No. 29, Alexander Hamilton suggested that well-regulated refers not only to "organizing", "disciplining", and "training" the militia, but also to "arming" the militia:

This desirable uniformity can only be accomplished by confiding the regulation of the militia to the direction of the national authority. It is, therefore, with the most evident propriety, that the plan of the convention proposes to empower the Union "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."

A tolerable expertness in military movements is a business that requires time and practice. It is not a day, or even a week, that will suffice for the attainment of it. To oblige the great body of the yeomanry, and of the other classes of the citizens, to be under arms for the purpose of going through military exercises and evolutions, as often as might be necessary to acquire the degree of perfection which would entitle them to the character of a well-regulated militia, would be a real grievance to the people, and a serious public inconvenience and loss.

"If a well regulated militia be the most natural defence of a free country, it ought certainly to be under the regulation and at the disposal of that body which is constituted the guardian of the national security...confiding the regulation of the militia to the direction of the national authority...(and) reserving to the states...the authority of training the militia".

Meaning of "the right of the People"

Justice Antonin Scalia, writing for the majority in Heller, stated:

Nowhere else in the Constitution does a “right” attributed to “the people” refer to anything other than an individual right. What is more, in all six other provisions of the Constitution that mention “the people,” the term unambiguously refers to all members of the political community, not an unspecified subset. This contrasts markedly with the phrase “the militia” in the prefatory clause. As we will describe below, the “militia” in colonial America consisted of a subset of “the people”— those who were male, able bodied, and within a certain age range. Reading the Second Amendment as protecting only the right to “keep and bear Arms” in an organized militia therefore fits poorly with the operative clause’s description of the holder of that right as “the people”.

Justice John Paul Stevens countered in his dissent:

When each word in the text is given full effect, the Amendment is most naturally read to secure to the people a right to use and possess arms in conjunction with service in a well-regulated militia. So far as appears, no more than that was contemplated. But the Court itself reads the Second Amendment to protect a “subset” significantly narrower than the class of persons protected by the First and Fourth Amendments; when it finally drills down on the substantive meaning of the Second Amendment, the Court limits the protected class to “law-abiding, responsible citizens”.

Meaning of "keep and bear arms"

In Heller the majority rejected the view that the term "to bear arms" implies only the military use of arms:

Before addressing the verbs “keep” and “bear,” we interpret their object: “Arms.” The term was applied, then as now, to weapons that were not specifically designed for military use and were not employed in a military capacity. Thus, the most natural reading of “keep Arms” in the Second Amendment is to “have weapons.” At the time of the founding, as now, to “bear” meant to “carry.” In numerous instances, “bear arms” was unambiguously used to refer to the carrying of weapons outside of an organized militia. Nine state constitutional provisions written in the 18th century or the first two decades of the 19th, which enshrined a right of citizens “bear arms in defense of themselves and the state” again, in the most analogous linguistic context—that “bear arms” was not limited to the carrying of arms in a militia. The phrase “bear Arms” also had at the time of the founding an idiomatic meaning that was significantly different from its natural meaning: “to serve as a soldier, do military service, fight” or “to wage war.” But it unequivocally bore that idiomatic meaning only when followed by the preposition “against,”. Every example given by petitioners’ amici for the idiomatic meaning of “bear arms” from the founding period either includes the preposition “against” or is not clearly idiomatic. In any event, the meaning of “bear arms” that petitioners and Justice Stevens propose is not even the (sometimes) idiomatic meaning. Rather, they manufacture a hybrid definition, whereby “bear arms” connotes the actual carrying of arms (and therefore is not really an idiom) but only in the service of an organized militia. No dictionary has ever adopted that definition, and we have been apprised of no source that indicates that it carried that meaning at the time of the founding. Worse still, the phrase “keep and bear Arms” would be incoherent. The word “Arms” would have two different meanings at once: “weapons” (as the object of “keep”) and (as the object of “bear”) one-half of an idiom. It would be rather like saying “He filled and kicked the bucket” to mean “He filled the bucket and died.”

In a dissent, joined by Justices Souter, Ginsburg, and Breyer, Justice Stevens said:

The Amendment's text does justify a different limitation: the "right to keep and bear arms" protects only a right to possess and use firearms in connection with service in a state-organized militia. Had the Framers wished to expand the meaning of the phrase "bear arms" to encompass civilian possession and use, they could have done so by the addition of phrases such as "for the defense of themselves".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by my my my!

One less what to worry about?

Because I'm willing to defend my constitutional right?

You're one simple minded fool. It's morons that think like you that keep gay marriage from becoming fully legal and recognizable in all 50 states. Sure, you can come on a forum like this and defend gay marriage, but you would not be willing to actually march the streets to obtain that right.

---

One less idiot that thinks he can take on the United States & all of it's fire power with a pop gun. I'm all out of sympathy for big talking anonymous whiners, & other such pussies. Wanna hang on to your toys? Then stop sniveling or spouting idle threats (We all know that punks like you won't actually follow through & die like you should.), & help come up with a workable plan to keep weapons out of the hands of lunatics who shoot up crowds of people who are unarmed. Right now, you're the best argument for gun confiscation.

Posing as an marketing representative for a popular gun manufacturer, the NRA happily supplied me with the names and addresses of all their members. We know exactly which homes to "investigate." Don't worry, we'll send you an advertising flyer first. :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by trish

Posing as an marketing representative for a popular gun manufacturer, the NRA happily supplied me with the names and addresses of all their members. We know exactly which homes to "investigate." Don't worry, we'll send you an advertising flyer first. :)

---

I think I'm in love! Trish, please run for office. Your country needs you.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by volkov2006

If you know anything about military weapons you would know that the HK G36C and the Colt M4 Carbine are both considered assault weapons they are any weapon or variant of these weapons that are used by the military or have more than 10 round magazines. The Beretta 9mm is okay by me I have nothing against pistols, shotguns, or rifles although I have no idea why anyone needs a sniper rifle with more than a 1x zoom scope.

---

geez, you are one hard headed daft person

I KNOW exactly what an assault weapon is. I was just saying in the media "assault weapon" now carries a negative connotation. In their real context, assault weapons are available to military in full automatic version making them quite different from their civilian versions.

And I don't care that a beretta is ok by you, or that you have no Idea why anyone needs a sniper rifle. You are obviously not a gun collector or enthusiast. I don't NEED anything but food and water, shelter, and clothing arguably, and to defecate, breathe etc. Do I NEED alot of video games? No, I choose to buy them because I WANT them.

I want a sniper rifle, because I want the challenge of hitting something (*gasp poor liberals, shux ,not a human!) at a far distance. some people choose archery, I chose firearms. Just because psycopaths and criminals make my TOYS seem to be bad, doesn't mean they are.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by my my my!

Just because psycopaths and criminals make my TOYS seem to be bad, doesn't mean they are.

---

No, it's usually the owners of those toys who manage that! :shrug

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by my my my!

geez, you are one hard headed daft person

I KNOW exactly what an assault weapon is. I was just saying in the media "assault weapon" now carries a negative connotation. In their real context, assault weapons are available to military in full automatic version making them quite different from their civilian versions.

And I don't care that a beretta is ok by you, or that you have no Idea why anyone needs a sniper rifle. You are obviously not a gun collector or enthusiast. I don't NEED anything but food and water, shelter, and clothing arguably, and to defecate, breathe etc. Do I NEED alot of video games? No, I choose to buy them because I WANT them.

I want a sniper rifle, because I want the challenge of hitting something (*gasp poor liberals, shux ,not a human!) at a far distance. some people choose archery, I chose firearms. Just because psycopaths and criminals make my TOYS seem to be bad, doesn't mean they are.

---

I am not a gun enthusiast in the sense that I don't own one but I do like studying the history of them and there historical impact.

And yes I do know that civilian versions of these gun are Semi-Auto and not Full-Auto but in the case of the shooting of Gabby Giffords the shooter had an AR-15 variant that was Semi-Auto he emptied the clip in 17 seconds. I realise that a Semi-Auto fire only as fast as the shooter can pull the trigger and if you are proficient you can get allot of rounds off in a short amount of time.

Personally I consider anything that is used by the military, law enforcement, or anything with a clip or magazine over 10 or 15 rounds to be an assault weapon. Because you don't need anymore than that unless you are assaulting something or someone!

And I don't see why gun owners like you get so up in arms about the thought of limiting guns. What is so bad why can't you just give one reason as to why you need this things other than "I need them" or "The government needs to be kept in check" or "I need to protect my family".

I have nothing against protecting your family, but the amount of dead from guns each year is tragic. Every one was horrified by the Sept. 11 2001 attacks and that killed around 3000 people, but no one bats an eye at the over 10,000 dead a year from US citizens killing US citizens.

Also the same day as the Newtown massacre there was another attack on a school in China. An adult male attacked the school he only had a knife out of the 20 kids he was able to get to none of them had severe wounds or needed to be hospitalized. Whereas here a person goes to a school and kills 28 people, 0 to 28 what was the main factor that was different a GUN.

PRINT your assault weapon,magazine and ammunition


Breaking Gamechanger: Printable Gun Magazines - YouTube

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by my my my!

I know the 2nd ammendment quite well you twat.
geez, you are one hard headed daft person

---

And why do you keep insulting me and calling me names. I have not done anything to insult you if you believe I have I will apologize. I am trying to make a nice and truthful conversation and am being attacked for it, I realize you have the first amendment right to say what you want and I respect that but if you have nothing nice to say.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by volkov2006

If you actually read the real meaning the official words of the Bill of Rights in the Constitution it states that you would have to be part of a militia to bear arms not to just own them. Also the legal meaning of the words never state that any one can own a gun.

If you don't like what I am saying take it up with Thomas Jefferson.
If you can't find him how about Benjamin Franklin, or John Hancock, or any of the other signers of the Bill of Rights!

---

It means you BRING THE WEAPON WITH YOU if you join a militia. IT DOES NOT mean you would be part of a militia, never did. It means that states can and do maintain militias. The supreme court upheld that any fire arms in current use by the military can be and should be legally owned by citizens. The second amendment is not about hunters or hunting never has been never will be. Its about defending yourself from everyone INCLUDING a tyranntical government.