What does the second ammendment mean to you?

[Aries]

The supreme court has issued some fairly strong opinions on this topic.
Its been a while since I read one.
As best I recall, about 15 or 20 years ago.
It was back in the days when every gun had to have a gun lock included with it if it was sold new.

As I recall, the case was about a court bailiff in Washington DC that used a personal firearm to defend himself in an off duty situation in his home.
At the time DC required personal firearms to be stored unloaded and locked, but his was not prior to having to defend himself.

A court officer allowed by the state to openly carry a gun in a court house, and he was charged for having an unlocked loaded gun in his home. Legal possession of the gun was not an issue. The situation was discovered when he used the gun in self defense. The NRA wanted a case like it, and helped drive it to the supreme court.

The court affirmed the second amendment is an individual right, not the right of the state or of a local government.
The court said clause regarding a militia is an example of how the right can be used, but did not limit an individuals right or require them to be part of an recognized group. The same ruling also stated that we have a right to defend ourselves and that a firearm is a legitimate means of defending ourselves.

I wish I could remember the exact citation, but both the majority and minority opinions were well thought out and worth reading. Its some of the most well considered logic on what the second amendment means I have ever read. Its also written by the people who have the authority to interpret it.

Read the real thing, not the soundbites and quotes out of context put forward by spin doctors on both sides of the question.

Was that the D.C. vs. Heller case? I didn't read through all of this, but seems to be what you're describing...

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf

 

[Jgibs0321]

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.

With the amount of people I see that can't even follow the basics of gun safety...... I'm out on the nukes.

How do y'all feel about biological or chemical weapons for us common folk?

To me, as one of many who carried SBRs, suppressors, autos, and belt fed MGs, I think its silly that civilians who love the nation and serve it in their own unique capacity, cannot be armed and ready to protect our critical infrastructure and way of life in the event serious threats arise. Should you have grenades and rockets and artillery? Mmm maybe not. But then again, those of us who know how to implement a long list of things still dont use those skills to do evil, so why would we if you have me some 40mm HE in a launcher? Or an AT4 if you afford the suckers. The old men wrote the constitution based on Christianity being oppressed by a crappy government (dont confuse their use of religion as a blanket for islamists and anarchists), and they endured wars firsthand to understand what was at stake. Now we have people talking about hunting with modern guns. My ARs are for fighting and it just so happens that I hunt with them also. But back in the day, they used those blackpowders for everything so nothing has changed in that principle. Disarm the threat, be armed yourself, you hold the power in the physical. So I hope more Americans will arm themselves to the teeth and find some good infantrymen or special operations backed people and get trained in the basics of gunning. Lets go brandon.

 

[AguaFriaRanger]

The supreme court has issued some fairly strong opinions on this topic.
Its been a while since I read one.
As best I recall, about 15 or 20 years ago.
It was back in the days when every gun had to have a gun lock included with it if it was sold new.

As I recall, the case was about a court bailiff in Washington DC that used a personal firearm to defend himself in an off duty situation in his home.
At the time DC required personal firearms to be stored unloaded and locked, but his was not prior to having to defend himself.

A court officer allowed by the state to openly carry a gun in a court house, and he was charged for having an unlocked loaded gun in his home. Legal possession of the gun was not an issue. The situation was discovered when he used the gun in self defense. The NRA wanted a case like it, and helped drive it to the supreme court.

The court affirmed the second amendment is an individual right, not the right of the state or of a local government.
The court said clause regarding a militia is an example of how the right can be used, but did not limit an individuals right or require them to be part of an recognized group. The same ruling also stated that we have a right to defend ourselves and that a firearm is a legitimate means of defending ourselves.

I wish I could remember the exact citation, but both the majority and minority opinions were well thought out and worth reading. Its some of the most well considered logic on what the second amendment means I have ever read. Its also written by the people who have the authority to interpret it.

Read the real thing, not the soundbites and quotes out of context put forward by spin doctors on both sides of the question.

The case you are referring to is DC v Heller and it has been discussed in this very thread. It is a landmark case because it does, as you observed, establish in case law the right to keep and bear arms as a right of individuals

 

[TeamTomlyn]

So you're telling me there are 19 of you (at current count) that would pass on a chance to hit the launch button for a tactical nuke to wipe out a herd of hogs in south Texas? I mean what is the fun in having the greatest military complex in the world if its citizens can't even blow up a small part of it?!?!

But seriously why sit here and undermine our message of SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED to include nukes? Even if they were legal not a dang one of us could afford or have the skills to assemble one. Is this the new "I am all for the second amendment, BUT...." statement? Sure sounds like it to me.

 

[ConstitutionCowboy]

So you're telling me there are 19 of you (at current count) that would pass on a chance to hit the launch button for a tactical nuke to wipe out a herd of hogs in south Texas? I mean what is the fun in having the greatest military complex in the world if its citizens can't even blow up a small part of it?!?!

But seriously why sit here and undermine our message of SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED to include nukes? Even if they were legal not a dang one of us could afford or have the skills to assemble one. Is this the new "I am all for the second amendment, BUT...." statement? Sure sounds like it to me.

It's the camel with its nose in the tent. One exception leads to another, then another, etc...

Woody

 

[Glocktogo]

I get the “shall not be infringed” camel’s nose under the tent argument. However, my “no WMD’s” argument isn’t based in ink on parchment. It’s philosophical.

Simply put, if there is a God, and he’s not just some all powerful *****-n-giggles prankster, then I don’t think he ever intended for humanity to have the power to wipe out an entire tribe of people they’ve never even met, from halfway across the globe.

Just some food for thought.

 

[ConstitutionCowboy]

I get the “shall not be infringed” camel’s nose under the tent argument. However, my “no WMD’s” argument isn’t based in ink on parchment. It’s philosophical.

Simply put, if there is a God, and he’s not just some all powerful *****-n-giggles prankster, then I don’t think he ever intended for humanity to have the power to wipe out an entire tribe of people they’ve never even met, from halfway across the globe.

Just some food for thought.

I'm not particularly worried about people walking around with nukes. The government has control of our fissionable materials - at least those the Clinton's didn't sell to Russia...

Woody

 

[OKNewshawk]

I never said I wanted recreational nukes...but I want the ability to buy them (if I can afford them.)

 

[Fredkrueger100]

I believe we should be able to own whatever we want. Now a nuke, that is different to me. For starters I don’t want a nuke. I don’t want anything to do with radioactive materials. But other than that, we should be able to own anything. Period.

 

[Lhecker51]

Disband the ATF and destroy all firearms ownership lists. They only exist to violate our rights, period.