What does the second ammendment mean to you?

[DFX]

Freedom ! No if's ands or buts.

 

[Seadog]

Shall not be infringed means exactly what it says. If a dildo like Kim Jong Un can have nukes, I see no reason to infringe upon any citizen of the United States having nukes. That said, good luck finding an affordable source.

With all the infringements upon the Right to Keep and Bear Arms removed, there would never be a need for any acts like the Hearing Protection Act or the Home Defense and Competitive Shooting Act.

As for what an arm is, does it matter if it is a rock propelled by a person's limb for defense or aggression, or a 16 inch shell propelled by cordite, or a wicked downdraft propelled by nuclear fission? No. The Second added article to the Constitution - AKA the Second Amendment - prohibits infringement. There are no exceptions. The Founding Father's intent is undeniably clear with not allowing exceptions.

As for the "well regulated militia" mentioned in the Second Amendment regarding the keeping and bearing of arms by the people being necessary, Article I, Section 8, Clause 15, in the Constitution makes reliance on the militia necessary. Therefore, what good would a poorly armed, unpracticed, and disorganized militia be beyond cannon fodder?

Look at Article I, Section 8, Clause 12. If Congress decided not to fund the Army, which it has to do every two years, what defense would the United States have without the several state's militias? And, don't think for one minute that the National Guard is the militia. It is not. Once the Federal Government started appointing the officers, what was once the active militia became just another branch of the United States military. Article I, Section 8, Clause 16, reserves the authority for the appointment of officers of the militia to the states. Once the Federal government usurped the power of appointing the officers, it also usurped the "National Guard" from under the authority of the several states.

Senator Nathan Dahm's bill to form a real state militia is exactly what we need. It is also required by the Oklahoma Constitution in Section V-40, to wit:



It would create an honest to goodness militia in Oklahoma. The person/people on that committee who blocked its passage is/are ignorant fools. Worse than them being ignorant is the fact that they blocked it by usurping power not granted to a committee in the Oklahoma Constitution. I refer everyone to Section V-34, of the Oklahoma Constitution, to wit:



Not even the governor can kill a bill. Every bill the governor vetoes has to go back to the legislature for consideration to override the veto. See Section VI-11, to wit:



By the way, we all know what the word "shall" means, don't we?

Woody

Shall = must = will

 

[Seadog]

Good Morning OKShooters,

As we roll into another election cycle, I figured it was a good time to have this discussion. What does the 2A mean to you? Does it mean the government can't take the 30-30 you use to harvest a deer every year? Does it mean you're entitled to an M1 Abrahms tank? Personally, while the first few minutes are a little obnoxious, this video actually does a pretty decent, objective job of laying out the second amendment in full context. I encourage you to vote in the poll, and then if you have time, watch that video and see if your opinion changes at all. If it does (or doesn't), I'd love to hear your take on the whole thing.

Additionally, the 2A community has to start calling out the GOP for using our rights as a bargaining chip. The 2A is something that many legislators on the right LOVE to use as their concession point to get deals done. STOP supporting reps who do this. We're in a unique position with firearms culture in the United States. 3 gun competitions and the like are more popular than ever. The unrest of the last two years has more guns tucked into liberal closets/nightstands than ever before. With the right legislators, we could actually see things like the Hearing Protection Act or the Home Defense and Competitive Shooting Act go somewhere in congress instead of being DOA. Getting people like Lauren Boebert and Marjorie Taylor Greene into office is important... maybe even important enough to be a single-issue voter for a while. With the state of Washington where it is, I don't think much harm can come from it.

I voted everything but nukes. My reasoning behind that is nukes were made specifically for the government. They were never made for an average every day joe citizen. Something that kills and maims for tens if not hundred of miles is not for the average citizen. One detonation can kill hundreds of thousands if not millions and the land is of no use for a long, looooooong time. Then the fallout. That is truly a weapon of mass destruction. That should not be left up to just one man. There should be a consensus. Not to mention those need to be heavily guarded. You don’t want any nut job just breaking in and taking one.

Im ok with tanks missiles battleships subs jets airplanes cannons machine guns grenades. Along the lines of the Federalist papers. Every destructive device of the soldier is the birthright of an American

 

[Gideon]

So what is the answer, other than term limits, in your estimation?

Citizenship limits.
Moldbug's "Joint-Stock Republic" comes to mind.

TedKennedy said:
Instead of limiting voter choice, how about make it illegal for foreign countries to lobby our elected officials.

Also, make it illegal for former elected officials to become lobbyists?

Be right back Googling: "dual citizenship in Congress"

 

[Dorkus]

Why no nukes?

 

[BryanDP]

"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."

I will reword it here to better reflect my understanding/what I think it means:

"Because a well-regulated militia (Army/Navy/Air Force/Marines) is necessary to the security of a free state (and the federal government shall be authorized to fund and operate said militias), the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed (to protect the populace from government abuse of power and tyranny."

It's a checks/balances thing.

 

[AguaFriaRanger]

"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."

I will reword it here to better reflect my understanding/what I think it means:

"Because a well-regulated militia (Army/Navy/Air Force/Marines) is necessary to the security of a free state (and the federal government shall be authorized to fund and operate said militias), the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed (to protect the populace from government abuse of power and tyranny."

It's a checks/balances thing.

The Founding Father's intent was a very separate force from the federal military when they used the word militia. Additionally, the first half and the second half are not as linked as people think.

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State," is just a prefatory clause. It gives a context for the operative clause. It is just flavor to help the reader understand why the operative clause is being made. The operative clause is "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed". This is the only part of the phrase that matters or has any legal weight when analyzing the sentence structure.

 

[ConstitutionCowboy]

Here is something I composed back in 2006. If it sounds familiar to DC v. Heller, note that I composed this 2 years prior. My guess is that someone on Scalia's staff read my composition and adopted the logic.

What The Second Amendment Really Says:

The Second Amendment talks of "a well-regulated militia,..." not THE militia specifically, but A militia in general. Then it says, "...,being necessary to the security of a free state,...". Hmm, "a free state". Everywhere else in the Constitution where "a", "another", "any", "no", "each", "every", "new", "one", "other", "particular", "the", "that", "same", "such", or "the several" state(s) are addressed, it is clear that the political unit "state" is being addressed, except in Article II, Section 3, which I'll address later. Never is there an adjective placed between the conjunction joining the word "state" or the phrase "several states" to the rest of the clause....Except in the Second Amendment. The adjective "free" modifies "state".

("(F)oreign" modifies "state" in the Eleventh Amendment, but context makes it clear "state" refers to the political unit in that Amendment.)

So, we're talking about a free state. Is it talking about a free political unit or a free condition? If it said , " ...being necessary to the security of the several states", or "...,being necessary to a state", or, "...,being necessary to any state," it would be more in line with the remainder of the Constitution and undeniably talking about the political unit definition of "state". The word "state" is also used as "condition" elsewhere in the Constitution - Article II, Section 3, which commands the president to report on the state of the union. Right there in the Constitution is precedent for the word "state" to be used with the meaning "condition", as well as the more common "political unit". Bear with me a little longer.

The Second Amendment says, "...,being necessary to the security of a free state,". OK. Cool! What about the security of the nation? Article I gives Congress power to call forth the militia, to arm it, and place whatever portion of it into the employ of the United States it deems necessary. Did our Founding Fathers forget all about that when they drafted the Second Amendment? Wouldn't they have covered that in the amendment with something like, "...,and to the security of a free United States,..."? That would have made it clear and without question that the amendment referred to the political unit definition of "state". I don't think they forgot about the security of the United States, do you? I think they covered the security of the United States, and the several states, by casting a wide blanket with the "condition" definition of "state". Again, I'll remind you that the Second Amendment talks of A militia, and not THE militia. So, by not addressing THE militia, how could it be addressing a STATE, a specific political unit, when it talks of A militia, which is non-specific? The only correct grammatical context is for "state" to mean "condition" in the Second Amendment.

The concrete that has been cast as the foundation for this is the fact that the Second Amendment addresses a RIGHT of the PEOPLE . Security of the state be damned! This is about the security of the PEOPLE! We live in a free state(condition), not the state! Only something alive can be free. A state is a political construct. It can't lift up its skirt and tip-toe through the tulips! We can - if we so desire to wear skirts - But, I digress. The point is, it's about us and how we live, how we maintain our freedom, and how we restricted those in government.

Woody

 

[BryanDP]

The Founding Father's intent was a very separate force from the federal military when they used the word militia. Additionally, the first half and the second half are not as linked as people think.

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State," is just a prefatory clause. It gives a context for the operative clause. It is just flavor to help the reader understand why the operative clause is being made. The operative clause is "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed". This is the only part of the phrase that matters or has any legal weight when analyzing the sentence structure.

I think you and I pretty much agree that our right to bear arms is to protect us from a potentially tyrannical government. And I believe it does. The only place where we're perhaps a bit apart is "militia" and I'm not sure really how either of us could know without question what they meant by that. For me, I'm just not aware of any non-military "militias of the people" and the thought of that seems to make the sheep nervous so my explanation of "because the government has power so shall the people" tends to placate people in some cases. But you're right - the first line isn't really important. The real meat is in the second line.

 

[dennishoddy]

Instead of limiting voter choice, how about make it illegal for foreign countries to lobby our elected officials.

Also, make it illegal for former elected officials to become lobbyists?

As you're a professed libertarian, this comment contradicts what the libertarian conundrum calls out. You're sounding like a conservative with this comment.
A true libertarian would say any person has the right to get any job that's available.
Your comment puts you right dead center into the conservative platform.