Join the Meeting Place for Moms!
Talk to other moms, share advice, and have fun!

(minimum 6 characters)

News & Politics News & Politics

The Second Amendment

Posted by on Mar. 21, 2012 at 5:47 PM
  • 25 Replies

What does it mean?

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.

by on Mar. 21, 2012 at 5:47 PM
Add your quick reply below:
You must be a member to reply to this post.
Replies (1-10):
JakeandEmmasMom
by Gold Member on Mar. 21, 2012 at 5:52 PM

It means that because a well-regulated militia was necessary to the security of a free country, the government could not pass laws which infringe upon a citizen's right to bear arms.

imamomzilla
by on Mar. 21, 2012 at 5:56 PM

 cowgirl

Carpy
by Platinum Member on Mar. 21, 2012 at 5:58 PM

Does it specify which arms or what citizens?

Quoting JakeandEmmasMom:

It means that because a well-regulated militia was necessary to the security of a free country, the government could not pass laws which infringe upon a citizen's right to bear arms.


_Kissy_
by on Mar. 21, 2012 at 6:05 PM
1 mom liked this
Because there was injuns and other colors of people that scared the pale faces
Posted on CafeMom Mobile
Carpy
by Platinum Member on Mar. 21, 2012 at 6:07 PM

eye rolling

Nice. Now, do you have anything intelligent to add?

Quoting _Kissy_:

Because there was injuns and other colors of people that scared the pale faces


JakeandEmmasMom
by Gold Member on Mar. 21, 2012 at 6:10 PM

No.  However, I think the case could be made that the founding fathers couldn't envision the kinds of weapons we would develop.  I'm not talking about different kinds of guns, necessarily.  I'm talking about nuclear weapons and such.  

In terms of what citizens, I would say that it refers to anyone who is a citizen of the United States.

Quoting Carpy:

Does it specify which arms or what citizens?

Quoting JakeandEmmasMom:

It means that because a well-regulated militia was necessary to the security of a free country, the government could not pass laws which infringe upon a citizen's right to bear arms.



JakeandEmmasMom
by Gold Member on Mar. 21, 2012 at 6:12 PM
1 mom liked this

It actually didn't have anything to do with that.  The right to own guns existed in English law long before our Constitution was written.

Quoting _Kissy_:

Because there was injuns and other colors of people that scared the pale faces


Carpy
by Platinum Member on Mar. 21, 2012 at 6:20 PM
1 mom liked this

I don't think the second amendment applies to nukes.

But saying they could not envision what types of GUNS we would develop is true.  So does the first amendment protect only those types of weapons that existed in 1791?  

Back in the 1700's Al Gore had not yet invented the internet either, and without TV or Radio, Ed Shultz hadn't yet invented hyprocricy and hateful rhetoric, but those types of speech are covered by the first amendment.

In 1791, we had no Wahhabist Islam on our shores, No Mormons, No Scientoligists, etc but the first amendment protects them.

And the 4th amendment against unreasonable searches.  There were no telephones to tap, yet the police need a warrent generally.  No helicoptors that could hover above your house and detect drug making equipment with thermal imaging cameras, yet you are still protected. 

So why did all these other amendments adapt to the changing times, yet the second amendment should not?

Quoting JakeandEmmasMom:

No.  However, I think the case could be made that the founding fathers couldn't envision the kinds of weapons we would develop.  I'm not talking about different kinds of guns, necessarily.  I'm talking about nuclear weapons and such.  

In terms of what citizens, I would say that it refers to anyone who is a citizen of the United States.

Quoting Carpy:

Does it specify which arms or what citizens?

Quoting JakeandEmmasMom:

It means that because a well-regulated militia was necessary to the security of a free country, the government could not pass laws which infringe upon a citizen's right to bear arms.




JakeandEmmasMom
by Gold Member on Mar. 21, 2012 at 6:26 PM

Playing devil's advocate, here: Why wouldn't it apply to nukes?  They are arms, are they not?  They are weapons developed for the purpose of defending the population.  Can we own cannons?  Cannons were the weapons of mass destruction back in the day.  Where does the Second Amendment specify what types of arms are allowed?

Quoting Carpy:

I don't think the second amendment applies to nukes.

But saying they could not envision what types of GUNS we would develop is true.  So does the first amendment protect only those types of weapons that existed in 1791?  

Back in the 1700's Al Gore had not yet invented the internet either, and without TV or Radio, Ed Shultz hadn't yet invented hyprocricy and hateful rhetoric, but those types of speech are covered by the first amendment.

In 1791, we had no Wahhabist Islam on our shores, No Mormons, No Scientoligists, etc but the first amendment protects them.

And the 4th amendment against unreasonable searches.  There were no telephones to tap, yet the police need a warrent generally.  No helicoptors that could hover above your house and detect drug making equipment with thermal imaging cameras, yet you are still protected. 

So why did all these other amendments adapt to the changing times, yet the second amendment should not?

Quoting JakeandEmmasMom:

No.  However, I think the case could be made that the founding fathers couldn't envision the kinds of weapons we would develop.  I'm not talking about different kinds of guns, necessarily.  I'm talking about nuclear weapons and such.  

In terms of what citizens, I would say that it refers to anyone who is a citizen of the United States.

Quoting Carpy:

Does it specify which arms or what citizens?

Quoting JakeandEmmasMom:

It means that because a well-regulated militia was necessary to the security of a free country, the government could not pass laws which infringe upon a citizen's right to bear arms.





Carpy
by Platinum Member on Mar. 21, 2012 at 6:43 PM

Actually, yes, we can own cannons. Reasonableness excludes nukes.  But what about weapons such as the AK47?  SKS's?

Quoting JakeandEmmasMom:

Playing devil's advocate, here: Why wouldn't it apply to nukes?  They are arms, are they not?  They are weapons developed for the purpose of defending the population.  Can we own cannons?  Cannons were the weapons of mass destruction back in the day.  Where does the Second Amendment specify what types of arms are allowed?

Quoting Carpy:

I don't think the second amendment applies to nukes.

But saying they could not envision what types of GUNS we would develop is true.  So does the first amendment protect only those types of weapons that existed in 1791?  

Back in the 1700's Al Gore had not yet invented the internet either, and without TV or Radio, Ed Shultz hadn't yet invented hyprocricy and hateful rhetoric, but those types of speech are covered by the first amendment.

In 1791, we had no Wahhabist Islam on our shores, No Mormons, No Scientoligists, etc but the first amendment protects them.

And the 4th amendment against unreasonable searches.  There were no telephones to tap, yet the police need a warrent generally.  No helicoptors that could hover above your house and detect drug making equipment with thermal imaging cameras, yet you are still protected. 

So why did all these other amendments adapt to the changing times, yet the second amendment should not?

Quoting JakeandEmmasMom:

No.  However, I think the case could be made that the founding fathers couldn't envision the kinds of weapons we would develop.  I'm not talking about different kinds of guns, necessarily.  I'm talking about nuclear weapons and such.  

In terms of what citizens, I would say that it refers to anyone who is a citizen of the United States.

Quoting Carpy:

Does it specify which arms or what citizens?

Quoting JakeandEmmasMom:

It means that because a well-regulated militia was necessary to the security of a free country, the government could not pass laws which infringe upon a citizen's right to bear arms.






Add your quick reply below:
You must be a member to reply to this post.
Join the Meeting Place for Moms!
Talk to other moms, share advice, and have fun!

(minimum 6 characters)