A question for fellow Americans.

[Sinkmore]

Originally Posted by Kaptlt.Endrass

They may not be too happy with the fact that the second amendment is being contested. And the first. Possibly the fourth and fifth.

They would also not be happy about the downsizing of the military (I'm not)

Have you read the 2nd Amendment? What do you suppose they meant by "well regulated militia?" And in context, who do you think they meant by "the people"?

Well regulated militia means individual State's "regular" armies, which were essentially militias. There was no national military - the entire Pentagon, Army, Navy, etc., are all unconstitutional. There's no such thing as a "well regulated scattering of discordant, unaffiliated, armed individuals". Carrying a gun into Chipotle is probably not what they had in mind by "the security of a free state". The amendment also never mentions hunting, hobby shooting, or self defense. It seems that those rights are not guaranteed or even contemplated anywhere in the Constitution.

It's plain as day to me that the 2nd amendment in no way authorizes -citizens- to have or carry or bear firearms, nor addresses the topic at all. However, lots of case law and black letter law does affirm those rights. So, thank activist judges, not the founders who had nothing to do with it.

When the Constitution refers to "the people" it seldom means "the persons" or "citizens"; it is in most cases referring to the 13 states. Really. Sounds weird in 2014, but it's true. IE, the 2nd Amendment originally prohibited the fed's from disarming state-led armies. Anyone who's ever attended a Michigan-Ohio State game should be glad that activist judges messed with original intent on that one.

I could also quibble with the popular interpretation of "to bear arms", which is not equivalent to "carry guns". Historically it meant nobles, who were feudal vassals, could wear armor (arms originally meant armor, and was the exclusive domain of the nobility, as in their "coat of arms", which no peasant then could have) as a sworn vassal in service to the crown. In constitutional context, it means what it says: to belong to and fight in the (well regulated, State led) military. One "bears arms" in defense if one's nation - you don't "bear arms" at Starbucks - that's just good old packing heat.

If you take the 2nd with its modern meaning, then where's the limit? By that (distorted) view, there seems to be nothing preventing individuals from owning nuclear weapons, or surface-to-air missiles, or from bringing them to airports, or to Navy stations. Where does the Constitution, under that view, permit the Feds to take away my nerve gas?