Meister

The Second Amendment of the United States Constitution reads: “A well regulated M*****a, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

While there have been countless debates, tests and judgments that have defined and re-defined how to interpret this amendment, the current prevailing interpretation and belief in America is that individual gun ownership is a constitutional right. As a result, America has seen a steady and consistent stream of deregulation around gun ownership, even as mass shootings appear to be on the rise. As progressives get increasingly concerned about the gun culture in America, as a tactic, they try to make their case by comparing gun ownership to other safety-related, common-sense laws:

2016-06-18-1466214861-2804247-13419103_10153648298786179_4005962412628530460_n.jpg

While certainly humorous while making a practical point, this tweet burn completely misses the larger point: people don’t have a constitutional right to buy Sudafed. You simply cannot compare a constitutional right to anything else not on the fundamental rights playing field.

This lack of focus on the constitutional argument is where progressives have lost their way. They have been so focused on the practical utility of public policy that they end up losing the larger fights that define America. Constitutional interpretation lends itself to a more strategic (and philosophical) debate platform than arguing the facts and stats on how laws can and should protect people. Constitutional theory is the debate platform that conservatives have been playing on for decades while progressives get frustrated and lose ground.

The remarkable irony is that the wording and intent within the Second Amendment is actually on progressive’s side. In fact, the Second Amendment is a progressive’s dream: the third word in the amendment is “regulated” for heaven’s sake.

No matter the interpretation of every other word and phrase after the first three words, the entire context of the amendment is that it will be a regulated right.
Copy and paste from: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jon-deutsch/yeah-about-that-second-am_b_10539198.html

Through this lens, the Second Amendment is barely even comparable to the First Amendment in terms of what rights it enables. There is simply no language in the First Amendment that regulates the right to free speech... and yet we still regulate speech despite the unassailable strength of the the First Amendment constitutional language

The upshot? Even in today’s hardcore gun rights environment and culture, the Constitution itself provides the guidance — and mandate — to not just regulate m*****a (i.e., groups of people) and arms, but to regulate them well.

How our culture defines “well” can and will certainly evolve over time, but we shouldn’t let gun rights ideologues and arms industry special interests continue to convince the public that they’re the only ones who have the Constitution on their side in this debate.

Yes, current Supreme Court interpretation is that every citizen has the right to bear arms. But it’s also constitutionally mandated that we regulate these armed people (i.e., m*****a) and their arms well. Seeing as the right to bear arms has been implemented pretty effectively in America, perhaps now it’s time to start implementing regulation well too, as the Constitution also mandates.

Super Dave Loc: Realville, USA

There is no liberal lens needed to read the Bill of Rights. If you get confused just remember that this is a bill of citizens' rights, not government's rights.

Don G. Dinsdale Loc: El Cajon, CA (San Diego County)

This needs to be shouted from the rooftops daily... CITIZENS RIGHTS, NOT GOVERNMENT!!! Don D.


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

reconreb Loc: America / Inglis Fla.

YEEEE,,,,HAAAAAA you mean we ain't regulated already , Hey PA !!! can I get out the Gatl'en Gun Now ?
YEEEEE,, HAAAAA !!!!! We's go'en posome hunt'n ta nite !!!!!!.. Hey Meister ,with that German handle your sporting it looks like you would understand the 2nd Admin. and not have to add to or detract from what is a very clear statement .... Whoops , I guess you could be a N**I ..

Super Dave Loc: Realville, USA

I'll bet the liberals that think the 2nd amendment says POTUS controls the arming of the m*****a are the same ones that think the 1st amendment mandates that government stop religious expressions in a school houses and government buildings.

Meister

Total non-answer.

Meister

Non-siquitur on this subject.

Meister

Total aversion to the facts of the article. Not one of you have any response to its points.

Meister

No response by gun-nuts and the far Right to the basic logic of this article. At a total loss of words! Impossible to refute. GUNS ARE TO BE REGULATED--AND WELL REGULATED! How well is the only question. As the article states, the 1st Amendment does not mention being "regulated" yet has many regulations. An amendment that calls for regulation--as in "A well regulated m*****a--demands regulation. What is unclear about these simple facts?

Super Dave Loc: Realville, USA

The facts are very clear. The M*****a is to be regulated (supported), but citizens are not to have their right to arms infringed upon.

Again, 100% of the Bill of Rights is a limitation on government. 0% of the Bill of Rights is a limitation on citizens.

PeterS

So what is the citizens right being defined here? "A well regulated M*****a, being necessary to the security of a free State,"

PeterS

Supported? So how was the government supposed to know if the m*****a was properly armed and trained in order to make up a sufficient fighting force to protect this country? That was the purpose of the m*****a you know--to provide for a fighting force sufficient to protect the county. Was the president supposed to think that this would happen all by itself. When he called up the m*****a did he not care what he would find?

And are you saying the government can pose no regulation on the weapons that someone can own? Remember, the biggest responsibility government has is ensuring the safety of it's citizens. How could government do so if it can't prevent the types of weapons that we might obtain. Timothy McVeigh was free to build a huge bomb--the only thing illegal was for him to detonate it. We should be able to buy machine guns if we want, or rocket launchers, or grenades, or any type of armament that we might so desire. The only laws controlling them is after their misuse.

Gatsby

In the 18th century, regulating a firearm meant only one thing, that being, ensuring that the firearm delivered the shot where aimed.

Super Dave Loc: Realville, USA

The right of a citizens m*****a as a check on government's power. How is that not obvious?

Your problem is that you apparently still think the Bill of Rights was written to protect the government's right to rule the popolation without opposition.

Super Dave Loc: Realville, USA

Only a county sheriff can call posse comitatus.

The limit on what weapons fall under 'armed' as a constitutional right is an honest debate. Banning all arms is clearly not.