Supreme Court to Look at 2nd Amendment

And yet everyone misses the first part of the 2nd amendment regarding a "well-regulated militia." The right only extends to arming the national guard insofar as it provides for collective security.

That said, restrictive gun laws reduce crime as well. Look at Japan for evidence of that, which has phenomenally low crime rates.

There's nowhere I can't reach.

Of course, when the Amendment refers to the people it can be assumed that the people aren't just the people in the militia (national guard) and that their rights to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Militias weren't just organized for the purposes of national security but state security (in fact that's mostly what they were for). By infringing on the rights of the people to arm themselves, it inhibits the ability of the states to field their own militias and inhibits their ability to practice armed dissent. When the state cannot afford to arm its citizenry, then the people must be able to arm themselves.

This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it.

Originally Posted by Adamgian

That said, restrictive gun laws reduce crime as well. Look at Japan for evidence of that, which has phenomenally low crime rates.

That is not true. It is not so simple to say that "restrictive gun laws reduce crime". Restrictive gun laws do not reduce crime. Switzerland is the perfect example of that. The dynamics of the United States and that of Japan are different. Japan has never had a civilian population in recent history who was armed the way the American people are.

45% increase in Australia’s armed robberies since gun ban

Take Australia for example. Yes the government passed a ban on just anything that can throw a piece of hot lead but the population still remains armed and crime rates went up. In Japan the police have complete authority when it comes to the issuing licenses to own for example a shotgun. It is not uncommon to spend a year or more in prison for illegal possession of a firearm or sword. The Japanese police also have a great deal more power than American police. They can search at will and their courts allow illegally seized evidence.

The American and Japanese people are VERY different and if you think we can enact laws modeled after Japan then you are very fool hardy. The Japanese may tolerate that level of gun legislation and police authority but I doubt you could get anything close to the level of Japanese gun control laws passed here in the USA.

I am a dolphin, do you want me on your body?

If the Supreme Court rules that the DC gun ban is legal. Doesn't it give other states, counties, or cities the power to ban other things like say, abortion? Or even grants them the power to legalize things like drug use.

I doubt the status quo is ever going to change.

Originally Posted by Adamgian

And yet everyone misses the first part of the 2nd amendment regarding a "well-regulated militia." The right only extends to arming the national guard insofar as it provides for collective security.

There's more then one interpretation to the word militia. It could mean any person of the appropriate age capable of utilizing arms. Guns are already a well-regulated commodity. So anyone who adheres to the gun laws, and practices their accuracy/efficiency at a gun range falls under the 2nd Amendment.

It's not like the NRA is advocating the rights of felons to own and utilize firearms anyway.

I was speaking idiomatically.

Quote:

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Quote:

Amendment II

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 first amendment is interpreted to extend to every single person...or perhaps just citizens who are 18 and older. However so, you don't have to be part of any state government to petition. And if the second amendment wasn't meant to be extended to the exact same crowd, it wouldn't have been written the exact same way, at the exact same time, and put in the exact same place as the first amendment.

What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now?

Except it was meant to extend to the same crowd. The militia of the old days was the National Guard of today and it was the last bastion of the security of a free state. All it really stipulates to me is that the National Guard must exist and be armed and under the jurisdiction of the states.

This is a topic which is also heavily influenced by opinions on gun laws though. I think we're better off banning them entirely, but that's just me.

FELIPE NO

Originally Posted by Adamgian1

Except it was meant to extend to the same crowd. The militia of the old days was the National Guard of today and it was the last bastion of the security of a free state. All it really stipulates to me is that the National Guard must exist and be armed and under the jurisdiction of the states.

Your clever attempt argue that the right to keep and bear arms is restricted to members of the National Guard based on the phrase "well-regulated militia" comes with significant flaws.

The first is that several states have militias seperate from the National Guard.

The second is that federal law (specifically, the Militia Act of 1903) stipulates that all able-bodied men between the ages of 18 and 45 are members of the Reserve Militia.

The third is that someone in the Justice Department already tried to make the argument you are in federal court; the court rejected it.

What, you don't want my bikini-clad body?

"Well regulated militia" is also the justification clause, and even if a justification clause no longer applies that doesn't mean that the actual right, to keep and bear arms, should be thrown out.

Jam it back in, in the dark.

I believe the second amendment only protects the right to bear arms, which is just posses weapons in general without anything mentioned of any specific weapons. Although regardless I think banning guns would be an extremely stupid action because the only people who will stop using guns are the people only had them for self defense anyway. Anyone who would use guns for uncalled for violence will find ways to get them anyway.

There's nowhere I can't reach.