The debate on the meaning of the Second Amendment pits the _____ rights thesis against the _____ rights thesis
360141
The two are the individual rights thesis and the state's rights thesis. The first says that the 2nd Amendment guarantees an individual's right to bear arms, while the latter argues that it guarantees only a state's right to maintain a militia and bear arms in so doing.
861938
One man's fight for his/her rights is terrorism for another. That does not justify attacks like 9/11 but if you pick up any history book, the majority of wars of independence have been won by retaliating against prevailing, strong authorities by covert tactics, at least initially. This includes American independence as well. If you were to consider the British view point at that time, the founding fathers could not have been considered very favorably! Unfortunately, modern day armaments are so destructive that the innocent always suffer, more than at any time in the history of man. While this makes their actions criminal, it does not remove the validity of their demands.
273569
If you're looking for specifics, I have two suggestions that might make it easy for you:\n\nNational Rifle Association (pro-gun rights) v The Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence (pro gun control)\n\nand\n\nPlanned Parenthood Federation of America ("pro-choice" on abortion) v American Life League ("pro-life" on abortion)
447666
Ok..First off, there is no constitutional right to bear arms.  Bottom line, it doesn't exist.  I know you've heard politicians talk over and over about it, but the fact is the federal appellate courts are in near unanimous agreement that the 2nd Amendment does not confer an individual right to bear arms, rather it is a guarantee of a militia...not my argument.. that's waht the courts say - that's what the law is.  One other point to drive this home.  The 2nd Amendment...whatever it means...does not apply to the states.  If the amendment does prevent the federal government from taking away individuals right to bear arms (which as I said earlier it doesn't), it does not apply to the states.  The states are free to ban all weapons of any sort (Washington D.C. does this by the way..).  SO bottom line...there is no constitutional right to bear arms.
882664
I live in the United States and the 2nd Amendment grants each citizen the right to keep and bear arms.  In the recent past, there have been attempts by Democrats to misinterpret our constitution and claim that the 2nd Amendment applies only to the military.  Well, they are wrong and I'd be very surprised if they ever succeed in taking away our 2nd Amendment right (please research the Emerson case for more specifics on what I'm referring to).\n\nPrivate citizens need guns for many purposes.  Hunting for sport and meat has been and continues to be a right exercised by millions of law abiding Americans.  Some of us collect guns because we simply enjoy the fine craftsmanship of a well made firearm.  Some of us shoot for sport and target practice as a form of recreation and honing our skills.  As for using firearms as weapons against people, there is much evidence to indicate that a criminal will be quite reluctant to attack a person if there is a possibilty that that person is armed.  I feel quite confident that my  parents, wife, children, and numerous other friends and relatives are well equipped with the proper skills and weapons to defend themselves if they should ever be attacked by a life-threatening criminal.  If more people practiced their skills, and responsibly carried firearms, there would be a much reduced threat of criminal attack.  Once a person has been convicted of a violent crime, his 2nd Amendment right should be taken from him.  Those of us who enjoy guns in a responible manner, however, should be allowed to pursue our hobby in whatever way we wish, without the threat of uninformed people threatening to take away our rights.  Guns are dangerous weapons at times, but in the right hands they can be used responsibly and are an integral part of how this country came to be in the first place.  Before anyone spouts off about gun lovers who are hiding in bunkers, harboring irrational fears, and making ready to commit mass killings, you should consider the fact that most gun owners are not weirdos who want to kill you.  Our guns are much less dangerous to society that your teenage kids, riding around drunk in their new sports cars that you bought for them......\n\nFor Bob D.:  "A well regulated militia being neccessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed".  I expected someone to try to misinterpret this again.....it keeps happening and we keep proving you wrong.  As I said, please research the Emerson case to see what the Courts have to say about this.  And, Bob, please cover up your bare arms!  The correct word is BEAR.
70906
It's not obsolete, but both major politcal parties would like to do away with certain freedoms.  \nRepublicans obviously are violating the 4th Amendment regarding illegal search & seizures.\nDemocrats would love to get rid of the 2nd Amendment, which guarantees a a citizen's right to bear arms ( firearms).
802888
The separation of church and state was a founding tenet in the Constitution because the founding fathers saw the abuses of the many religions when they held positions of power in the Old World. Many of our earliest immigrants came to this country to escape religious tyranny and oppression. It made perfect sense, in my view, that they would have included this amendment in the Constitution. This is especially significant, IMHO, considering many of the founding fathers were Masons.\nNothing has been miscontrued about the "intent" of the original amendment for 230 years. Now, all of a sudden, when theocratic radicals want to twist the original intent from what it was meant to be to their own narrow view of what it should be to them,  they scream that they alone know what the founding fathers intended and everyone else is wrong.\n I respectfully beg to differ.\n There is no surer way to fall into despotism than allow one religious group's views to be above another one's. All the theocratic radical needs to do is consider whether they would allow Buddhism, Islam, Hindu or any other religious sect have precedence over them. That is something I seriously doubt. Why then, would they expect others to accept their view as the only valid one? Hence, the reason for the second amendment.\n\nJefferson and Madison speak well for themselves:\n\n"The constitutional freedom of religion [is] the most inalienable and sacred of all human rights." --Thomas Jefferson: Virginia Board of Visitors Minutes, 1819. ME 19:416 \n\n"One of the amendments to the Constitution... expressly declares that '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,' thereby guarding in the same sentence and under the same words, the freedom of religion, of speech, and of the press; insomuch that whatever violates either throws down the sanctuary which covers the others." --Thomas Jefferson: Draft Kentucky Resolutions, 1798. ME 17:382 \n\n"Religion is a subject on which I have ever been most scrupulously reserved. I have considered it as a matter between every man and his Maker in which no other, and far less the public, had a right to intermeddle." --Thomas Jefferson to Richard Rush, 1813. \n\nI believe Mr. Jefferson's intent is blaringly obvious in his own words. Transparently clear and to the point. As was James Madison's.\n\nJames Madison, Virginia Ratifying Convention\n\n12 June 1788Papers 11:130--31 \nThe honorable member has introduced the subject of religion. Religion is not guarded--there is no bill of rights declaring that religion should be secure. Is a bill of rights a security for religion? Would the bill of rights, in this state, exempt the people from paying for the support of one particular sect, if such sect were exclusively established by law? If there were a majority of one sect, a bill of rights would be a poor protection for liberty. Happily for the states, they enjoy the utmost freedom of religion. This freedom arises from that multiplicity of sects, which pervades America, and which is the best and only security for religious liberty in any society. For where there is such a variety of sects, there cannot be a majority of any one sect to oppress and persecute the rest. Fortunately for this commonwealth, a majority of the people are decidedly against any exclusive establishment--I believe it to be so in the other states. There is not a shadow of right in the general government to intermeddle with religion. Its least interference with it, would be a most flagrant usurpation. I can appeal to my uniform conduct on this subject, that I have warmly supported religious freedom. It is better that this security should be depended upon from the general legislature, than from one particular state. A particular state might concur in one religious project. But the United States abound in suc
957654
The Bill of Rights doesn't differ from the Constitution.  They are a part of the Constitution - the first ten amendments.\n\nFreedom of speech\nFreedom of religion\nFreedom of the press\nThe right to bear arms\nMust have a search warrant with probable cause to search\nThe right not to self-incriminate yourself in court\nTrial by jury\nNo excessive bail
593095
We don't have a right to bear arms.  Please re-read the text of the 2nd Ammendment!  No court has ever stated that the ordinary citizen has a right to bear arms, and virtually every gun control measure ever passed has been upheald by the courts.\n\nThe 2nd Ammendment gives the states the right to raise militias.  The militia is known today as the National Guard and the Air Guard.  These are state-controlled military forces under the command of the governors of each of the 50 states.\n\nAt the time of our nation's birth, military personnel, the state militiamen in particular, were responsible for providing their own weapons.  (There was gun-control even then as only free white men were permitted to own arms.  Women, slaves, black freedmen (freed slaves) and native persons were not allowed this right in most states.)\n\nThe 2nd Ammendment only guarantees that the federal government cannot disarm the state militias.  Nothing more!\n\nIf you think that you have an inherent right to bear arms, try moving to New York City and telling the police that as they haul you off to Rikers Island.\n\nPlease don't confuse me with some anti-gun looney.  Far from it.  As a veteran of 21 years of military service, and an expert marksman, I know my way around the armory.  \n\nHowever, I do NOT support the open and completely unrestricted "right" to carry or own any and all weapons any more than I think that drivers license and vehicle registration laws should be scrapped.\n\nI DO believe that anyone who wishes to own or carry should be permitted to so do upon completion of training and licensing, much as is done in the states that have "concealed carry" laws on the books.  \n\nConsider that the military does not permit its personnel to carry weapons of any type until they are fully trained and have demonstrated competency in their handling, care and use.  And nobody is more anal about storing and controlling access to weapons than the military -- and that's as it should be!
774295
If our defense be the real object of having arms, in whose hands can they be trusted with more propriety, or equal safety to us, as in our own hands? \n\nPeople who object to weapons aren't abolishing violence, they're begging for rule by brute force, when the biggest, strongest animals among men were always automatically 'right.' Guns ended that, and republicanism is a hollow farce without an armed populace to make it work.
213496
Of course I support our second ammendment right.  For those who think it's not needed anymore maybe they should ask the thousands of civilians who's lives are saved simply because they own a weapon.  I have a right to protect me and my family and will do so at all costs.  If we take guns out of those who abide by the law and purchase them legally we are only leaving them in the hands of the criminals. Because I guarantee that crack dealer down the street didn't fill out the paperwork for that 9mm he has in his belt.
571391
The statement (which you refer to as a claim) is flawed for the reasons you gave. Your rebuttal was excellently worded, and was logical. But, there is a major flaw with your rebuttal : the people who make the claim are not logical people. The only people who can understand your rebuttal are logical. You will spend your energy preaching to the choir, because the people who make the original claim will not stay and listen to you. It was really nice to read a well-stated post.
149915
Al Franken may have quoted Benjamin Franklin. It's a good quote and makes a very good point. Unfortunately, the key word here is "deserve."\n\nWe're constitutionally obligated to provide safety even to those lunk-heads who would try to usurp our rights out of their own fear.\n\nAlso, "liberty" is an unalienable right and can't be "deserved."\n\nIt's a bombastic quote that can't be put into practical use.
491154
A written constitution is not as open to imterpretation by time and circumstance as an unwritten one. A favorite argument from the UK is that the 2nd Amendment of the U.S. is a relic of a time gone by, when in reality it remains the will of the majority of the American people today. When we want a change, we affect that change, like the 13th and 19th Amendments.
57606
nop, ´cause that´s not peace, if you have superior firepower, and you prove it, then people around you are gonna be afraid to act, to express, to argue, to debate anything about you. I mean you create a "kind of peace", but that´s not the real one, that´s fear. and what about the free expression???, are we really free to decide for ourselves?? come to think about it.
1044884
Yes it is our duty stated in the 2nd amendment to keep and bear arms to keep our government in check. But unfortunately it's too late. They have become so tyrannical and powerful that we dropped the ball and didn't listen to the founding fathers until it was too late.
831347
As a Brit  I apologise for stepping in here, but would just like to say that the only two members of my American family who possess guns are police officers.  The remainder refuse to own guns on the grounds that too many 'accidents' occur in households where weapons are kept. They have a point - I lived in New York for a while and the number of accidental (fatal) shootings by children of children, in the home, amazed me - as did the arbitrary and senseless shooting of people on the streets.  So I guess the family has a point. \n\nIncidentally, regarding the comment above that the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution gives Americans the constitutional right to own guns, doesn't the relevant sentence say  "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."   Surely, all that means is that in the absence of a standing army (the newly formed United States not yet having a regular army when the Constitution was drafted), the people were allowed to bear arms, as members of a disciplined militia, in order to protect their new nation in case of an attack by outside forces?  Now that the USA has both a National Guard  _and_  an enormous Regular Army, isn't that Amendment now redundant and a couple of centuries out of date?     \n\nI'm only asking... but it's a question that's worth calm, reasoned discussion, surely?