Does the second amendment only protect: a) those in the active service of the federal government b) those in an operating state militia that has not been federalized c) those who are in the class of citizens who can be called up for militia service but are not currently serving d) there is no individual right of any kind-only the states are referenced in "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. IF YOU BELIEVE THAT THE SECOND applies to all lawful citizens of age-then don't answer this poll
I don’t like the options. The people is a reference to the people not the militia. It gives the right to bear arms to the people as a whole
the point is-many of our leftist posters deny that the second amendment guarantees or recognizes an individual right distinct from militia service. So-they must admit it is somehow tied to said service and I wanted to figure out in which way.
The 2nd amendment prohibits the US government from exercising powers that it doesn't even have in the first place.
For those who deny that the second amendment recognizes an individual right These people lie to themselves; their opinions can be discarded.
"But, when the Constitution speaks of 'the people' rather than 'persons,' the collective connotation is primary. 'We the People' in the preamble do ordain and establish the Constitution as public citizens meeting together in conventions and acting in concert, not as private individuals pursuing our respective hobbies.... To see the key distinction another way, recall that women in 1787 had the rights of 'persons' (such as freedom to worship and protections of privacy in their homes) but did not directly participate in the acts of 'the people'—they did not vote in constitutional conventions or for Congress, nor were they part of the militia/people at the heart of the Second Amendment." https://newrepublic.com/article/73718/second-thoughts The Second Amendment says that the right of the people (in the form of a well-regulated militia not a mob) to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
And which of congress's legislative powers might allow congress to make a limiting or restricting the use and ownership of arms?
The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.
This claim has never been enforced on the people by the federal government; it's never never been affirmed by SCOTUS. Various states had noted an individual right in their constitutions prior to and contemporary with the ratification of the Bill of Rights. SCOTUS first noted the individual right as early as 1857. It's sad that in 2023 you're still trying to negate a right and justify gun control based upon such an illegitimate basis.
here is where you fail-your silly interpretation means that the right only vests after the militia is called up-which makes absolutely no sense, since a militia is NOT a standing army and its members are not professional soldiers. Those who MAY be called up to form what is essentially an adhoc military unit in the face of an EMERGENCY must have arms PRIOR to the call up and PRIOR to being part of a "well regulated" (in working order-ie with a mission and officers) militia
https://constitutioncenter.org/the-...zpiaCr-n4K4NjrWje3LulZJxf9JgRk0waArg6EALw_wcB So you're saying the 4th amendment is 'the people' used in a collective context rather than individual? LOL, that says all any of us need to know about your source's understanding of the Constitution.
I actually believe he understands that the second amendment is a negative restriction upon the federal government interfering with what arms private citizens can own, keep and bear. But that conflicts with his agenda so he ignores it
It is written oddly, certainly. Reading it devoid of context, one might think it's referring to militias which are organized at the local or state level. We can say the framers weren't that good at clear writing (common for that time). But considering context, they clearly intended for regular people to have access to firearms given their experience with Britain. The purpose of this was more to serve as a check on government power than anything else. But this right seems more contextual than absolute (similar to how healthcare could be called a right now, but clearly wasn't back then). Does it really still serve as a check on government tyranny? I don't think so. Much less now than then - today's wars are won by machines and willpower. Is a firearm really a necessary tool for regular living today as it was back then? No. That said, banning guns outright is about as effective as banning drugs. It's not the best approach to the problem.
good point-the gun banners claim 100 million people with rifles that can kill at half a mile are no match against our military but a bunch of citizens with no firearms whatsoever almost took over the capitol
Or similarly that the most heavily armed civilian demographic in history attempted a violent coup without bringing any guns.
Heller v US clearly held that the "militia" wording in the Second Amendment in no way limits the rights of a citizen to keep, own, or bear arms. Sorry, but that's the LAW.
no **** . I was trying to explain to the militia rights advocates why their assertions make no sense in reality
