[Heacechig]

Let me spoon-fed you this:





Now please, back up your claims. But here is a hint: Gun laws vary from state-to-state. Some states are significantly harder than others.

I don't know as much as you guys but US current affairs and politics are my hobby and I definitely know significantly more than your regular non-American person.

I know perfectly well that gun rights vary from state to state.

[nTDsD0aU]

I know perfectly well that gun rights vary from state to state.

I'm pretty sure that the right to own a gun is constitutionally protected across the USA and the laws on their ownership are what changes.

[Janarealiti]

I'm pretty sure that the right to own a gun is constitutionally protected across the USA and the laws on their ownership are what changes.

I'm pretty sure that's what I said.

[janeloveslifenow]

I'm pretty sure that's what I said.

You said gun rights differ. I understood what you meant, but it's enough of an error to cause world war three on FM.

[CelexaNY]

You said gun rights differ. I understood what you meant, but it's enough of an error to cause world war three on FM.

Yeah, gun rights differ from state to state, not every state has the same rights.

Among others, some give you the right to buy certain guns, others don't.

The only thing that is the same for every state, is the right to bear some kind of firearm.

[sanddrareyk]

Yeah, gun rights differ from state to state, not every state has the same rights.

Among others, some give you the right to buy certain guns, others don't.

The only thing that is the same for every state, is the right to bear some kind of firearm.

You clearly don't understand the differences between rights and laws.

[ChicasCams]

I'm pretty sure that the right to own a gun is constitutionally protected across the USA and the laws on their ownership are what changes.

Pretty sure? Well, I'm pretty sure you need to read the Constitution again because I'm not a member of any militia, much less a well regulated one.

[dittygari]

You clearly don't understand the differences between rights and laws.

A number people in the US think that carrying concealed weapons and owning assault rifles is a right as well, they see it as an infringement on the "right to bear arms", a lot of states disagree.

[soitlyobserty]

Pretty sure? Well, I'm pretty sure you need to read the Constitution again because I'm not a member of any militia, much less a well regulated one.

So you don't have a constitutional right to bear arms?

--- Post Update ---

A number people in the US think that carrying concealed weapons and owning assault rifles is a right as well, they see it as an infringement on the "right to bear arms", a lot of states disagree.

Are you high?

[soitlyobserty]

So you don't have a constitutional right to bear arms?

There has always been debate as to the actual meaning of the words in the constitution.

[JediReturns84]

So you don't have a constitutional right to bear arms?[COLOR=#209fff]

He is being pedantic.

Please read the actual text of the second amendment:

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.

[juptVatoSoito]

He is being pedantic.

Please read the actual text of the second amendment:

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.

You learn something new every day. Reactivator, you're still confused between rights and laws though.

[VtLe67WR]

There has always been debate as to the actual meaning of the words in the constitution.

The debate is whether or not the words refer to the individual's rights to have weapons, or ones limited solely to a "militia". However, this debate is not a sincere argument. There can be no doubt if you read pretty much anything else written by those who phrased the Constitution that they intended the right to be reserved to the individual.

[bestonlinepharmasy2]

The debate is whether or not the words refer to the individual's rights to have weapons, or ones limited solely to a "militia". However, this debate is not a sincere argument. There can be no doubt if you read pretty much anything else written by those who phrased the Constitution that they intended the right to be reserved to the individual.

Yeah, made a lot of sense back then since there wasn't even an organized police force or a regulated army.

[kSmica]

Reactivator is correct.

There are dozens of Sparafucil and Reddog's in this world that interpret those words however they believe it aligns with their personal beliefs.

Many many French people that live in NY on these forums ignore basic sentence structure to interpret that the right to bear arms is for a militia.

--- Post Update ---

The debate is whether or not the words refer to the individual's rights to have weapons, or ones limited solely to a "militia". However, this debate is not a sincere argument. There can be no doubt if you read pretty much anything else written by those who phrased the Constitution that they intended the right to be reserved to the individual.

Spot the **** on, Gnius. You sir, have made my day.

Danger, just absorb these above words and ignore the rubbish destined to come from Sparafucil in reaction.

[georgshult]

I generally tend to agree with what Gnuis said but the debate about the meaning used to interest me.

I just think that those words in regards to arms apply better to that time more than to the modern day, considering the people were practically in need to bear arms, for defence and for defence of the state if need be, since there wasn't a standing army to defend the new country.

[Les Allen]

I generally tend to agree with what Gnuis said but the debate about the meaning used to interest me.

I just think that those words in regards to arms apply better to that time more than to the modern day, considering the people were practically in need to bear arms, for defence and for defence of the state if need be, since there wasn't a standing army to defend the new country.

Actually if you read the writings of the Framers, they were actually very wary of having a standing army because of fear of tyranny. While the development of modern warfare made the idea of a spontaneously assembling militia pretty moot (frankly, it's been moot for about two thousand years and was only successful in the years of the revolutionary war because of the flux in weapons and tactics), the concerns expressed by the Founders seem to have been entirely forgotten by those who seek to advance their anti-individual-rights agenda.

[FuXA8nQM]

Actually if you read the writings of the Framers, they were actually very wary of having a standing army because of fear of tyranny. While the development of modern warfare made the idea of a spontaneously assembling militia pretty moot (frankly, it's been moot for about two thousand years and was only successful in the years of the revolutionary war because of the flux in weapons and tactics), the concerns expressed by the Founders seem to have been entirely forgotten by those who seek to advance their anti-individual-rights agenda.

What would it take for people to really take up their arms ?

Historically, when someone actually takes up their right to bear arms and use them to practice, the event is usually classified either as a crime or as a case of domestic terrorism.

[jabader]

Reactivator is correct.

There are dozens of Sparafucil and Reddog's in this world that interpret those words however they believe it aligns with their personal beliefs.

Many many French people that live in NY on these forums ignore basic sentence structure to interpret that the right to bear arms is for a militia.

What does "a well regulated militia" in the introductory phrase of that sentence modify?

For nearly the entire history of the United States, the 2nd Amendment was interpreted to mean citizens have the right to form militias for self-protection. In fact, for decades it was known as the "lost amendment" due to its irrelevancy in American politics. Only in the 1960s was it twisted to mean an individual had the right to bear "arms." With the growing power of the NRA in the 1980s the insurrectionist interpretation gained wider acceptance with the public.

And while it is true you can find many quotes from the founding fathers lending support to that interpretation, parsing every line of the Constitution through the narrow originalist gaze and checking whether it accords with the opinions of a select group of wealthy, white males in the 18th century is lunacy. For one, they certainly never intended women or slaves to own "arms." Only wealthy, educated, landowning white men. The 2nd Amendment was designed to protect against tyranny, but, as Gnius points out, 21st century warefare has made that issue moot. They didn't intend for individuals to have the right to bear arms for target practice.

And by "arms" they meant a flintlock pistol or musket, certainly not 9mm glocks or semiautomatic assault rifles. Does the 2nd Amendment extend to cannons? Under originalism there's no way to know. According to Scalia, not to cannons, but, possibly, rocket launches. This is the sort of idiotic thinking you get when you don't respect the complexity of the Constitution as a living document and allow a $300 million dollar lobbying group control the public debate.

[WeightWatchyshow]

Here is a recent case in 2008 that had to deal with the interpretation of the 2nd amendment. Outcome was in favor of gun owners.

District of Columbia v. Heller
Basically what was translated was that the 2nd Amendment includes citizens unconnected to a militia.

You guys can keep going at it if you wish. Kinda pointless though when the Supreme Court recently decided what it means.