The Supreme Court Ruling on the 2nd Amendment Did NOT Grant an Unlimited Right

The #1 community for Gun Owners in Indiana

Member Benefits:

  • Fewer Ads!
  • Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership
  • Discuss anti-gun legislation
  • Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section
  • Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses
  • Discover free outdoor shooting areas
  • View up to date on firearm-related events
  • Share photos & video with other members
  • ...and so much more!
  • IndyDave1776

    Grandmaster
    Emeritus
    Rating - 100%
    12   0   0
    Jan 12, 2012
    27,286
    113
    I would point out that the Supreme Court does not grant anything. That is not its purpose nor is it delegated authority to do so. The right is granted by virtue of our existence, by our Creator as the authors of the Constitution addressed it. The Constitution merely acknowledges those rights and establishes that it is not permissible for the government to violate them.
     

    Stschil

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Aug 24, 2010
    5,995
    63
    At the edge of sanit
    Do you have an opinion OP?

    First, remember this 'Urinalist' is addressing one case, and forgetting about the others that have been argued successfully since, in which SCOTUS has leaned further and further toward the original intent of the 2nd.

    Also, keep in mind that their case law on the 2nd is actually very limited because up until the mid 1900's it wasn't questioned.
     

    thatgtrguy

    Sharpshooter
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Dec 30, 2012
    322
    16
    I don't have a strong opinion either way. I own guns. I plan on buying more. Although I personally have no plans to ever own anything that is advertised as mil-spec or tactical.

    I am not an expert on constitutional law or 2nd amendment issues. All I have is my own sense of right and wrong. What is proportionate and disproportionate. I simply offer this link because the I have yet to form an opinion and find arguments for both sides of the debate to be very helpful.

    INGO tends to be pretty one sided. So I offer up the dissenting view point because I believe that knowledge is power.
     

    printcraft

    INGO Clown
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    16   0   0
    Feb 14, 2008
    38,992
    113
    Uranus
    elmer-fudd.gif
     

    thatgtrguy

    Sharpshooter
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Dec 30, 2012
    322
    16
    "I simply don't see the practical application of a "well regulated" civilian militia in our modern age"

    I stand by that statement. I have yet to experience a civilian militia that is highly trained AND highly disciplined. A group of folks who like to get together to shoot at targets is cool. But when you need to shoot, move and communicate as a team to achieve an objective; it takes more than a plethora of guns and ammo. It takes training and discipline.
     

    IndyDave1776

    Grandmaster
    Emeritus
    Rating - 100%
    12   0   0
    Jan 12, 2012
    27,286
    113
    "I simply don't see the practical application of a "well regulated" civilian militia in our modern age"

    I stand by that statement. I have yet to experience a civilian militia that is highly trained AND highly disciplined. A group of folks who like to get together to shoot at targets is cool. But when you need to shoot, move and communicate as a team to achieve an objective; it takes more than a plethora of guns and ammo. It takes training and discipline.

    I could make an equally valid argument that gravity should no longer apply since Newton was so far removed from the modern age.

    In case anyone reading is too obtuse to understand without explanation, matters of principle are timeless. The notion that the balance of power should rest with the people and not the government does not change because the pertinent equipment changes. The introductory clause of the Second Amendment reflects the goal of a people who are capable of fighting their own battles without relying on a professional army to do it for them, not as a stop-gap until a standing army can be formed. You may also notice that this is specified as a right of the people, not the militia, not the states, not the federal government, not any other organization. A right of the people. If you doubt this, read the contemporaneous quotes of those founding fathers who established the nation. They are remarkably clear on this issue.
     

    Stschil

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Aug 24, 2010
    5,995
    63
    At the edge of sanit
    "I simply don't see the practical application of a "well regulated" civilian militia in our modern age"

    I stand by that statement. I have yet to experience a civilian militia that is highly trained AND highly disciplined. A group of folks who like to get together to shoot at targets is cool. But when you need to shoot, move and communicate as a team to achieve an objective; it takes more than a plethora of guns and ammo. It takes training and discipline.

    I'll refrain from jumping headlong in this, but will say this.
    Sir, if your education has failed you to the point that you do not remember that a group of 'disorganized, untrained rabble' (to borrow the terms used by British General Gage) routed the strongest military force on the planet on Apr 19, 1775, I feel sorry for you.

    More recent perhaps?
    A bunch of disorganized, untrained sheep herders held the Soviet Union at bay for 15 years in Afghanistan.

    Do Not Underestimate the Power of the Just.
     

    thatgtrguy

    Sharpshooter
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Dec 30, 2012
    322
    16
    Lets ride that thought process a little further.

    And I simply don't see the practical application of firearms ownership by civilians or hunting (wabbits) in our modern age? We do have grocery stores now.

    Well I personally disagree with you. The practical application of killing your own wabbits:

    1. If I raise the wabbit before hunting it, then I am absolutely convinced of its quality
    2. If I believe the free market overcharges me for wabbits then I have a free market solution to my wabbit demand
    3. the only grocery store that is within traveling distance does not sell wabbits or the brand of wabbit I prefer.

    the list goes on and on of legit reasons to hunt fictitious and humorous carrot eaters. the best reason of course is to see if wabbits really say "What's up doc?" ;)

    I
     

    hondatech2k2

    Shooter
    Rating - 98.2%
    55   1   0
    Jul 10, 2011
    816
    18
    Greenwood
    Well I personally disagree with you. The practical application of killing your own wabbits:

    1. If I raise the wabbit before hunting it, then I am absolutely convinced of its quality
    2. If I believe the free market overcharges me for wabbits then I have a free market solution to my wabbit demand
    3. the only grocery store that is within traveling distance does not sell wabbits or the brand of wabbit I prefer.

    the list goes on and on of legit reasons to hunt fictitious and humorous carrot eaters. the best reason of course is to see if wabbits really say "What's up doc?" ;)

    I

    I am thinking you COMPLETELY missed his point. Your lack of compassion for a semi automatic "tactical" rifle was being compared to his lack of understanding the need to hunt to feed your family when we have grocery stores.
     

    IndyDave1776

    Grandmaster
    Emeritus
    Rating - 100%
    12   0   0
    Jan 12, 2012
    27,286
    113
    I am thinking you COMPLETELY missed his point. Your lack of compassion for a semi automatic "tactical" rifle was being compared to his lack of understanding the need to hunt to feed your family when we have grocery stores.

    I will see your excellent post and raise you a 'Where the hell does the Second Amendment say anything about any 'sporting purpose' and did the OP not read the words of the founding fathers indicating that their idea of a 'sporting purpose' was hunting tyrants?'
     

    Taney37

    Plinker
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Sep 4, 2009
    44
    6
    The intent of the 2nd amendment has nothing to do with hunting, they understood that in the unlikely event your government has become corrupt, people are the last line of defense of liberty. If you read the opening line of the Declaration of Independence there intent is quite clear.

    When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

    :patriot:
     

    thatgtrguy

    Sharpshooter
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Dec 30, 2012
    322
    16
    I didn't miss his point. I used humor as a tool to reject his premise.

    The practical use of firearms in hunting is made evident by it's success rate in that use. Firearms are eminently successful for game hunting.

    The practical use of modern mil-spec tactical weapons as a tool for a well regulated civilian militia to defend the freedom of Indianapolis, Indiana, the mid-west or the country has not been made evident to my satisfaction.

    "being necessary to the security of a free State"
     
    Last edited:

    ghuns

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    2   0   0
    Nov 22, 2011
    9,308
    113
    But when you need to shoot, move and communicate as a team to achieve an objective; it takes more than a plethora of guns and ammo. It takes training and discipline.

    Easy, he's new:D There are more than a few around here who take their training kinda serious.

    Here's my response to you yesterday. These are not rhetorical questions. I really wanna know what you think. You are distinctly unusual around here in that you reject the interpretation of the 2nd Amendment as it is understood by the vast majority.

    I simply don't see the practical application of a "well regulated" civilian militia in our modern age.

    Forget for a minute that we even have a 2nd Amendment, probably not hard for you, do I have a natural right to defend myself and my family for anyone who would do us harm? Does that right apply both on my property and in public? If you can agree with any of that, shouldn't I be able to use a tool that is equal or better than what I can reasonably expect to be attacked with?

    Why should I, a law abiding citizen, be restricted to a reduced capacity 10 round magazine when it's reasonable to assume, that if confronted by an armed attacker, he will be using a normal capacity magazine? He's a criminal after all. Where's his motivation to submit to an arbitrary magazine restriction when he's already committed to breaking much more serious laws?

    If the need to use a firearm in self defense ever arises, I want every advantage that I can get. I don't want to be armed equally as my attacker, I want be be armed better. To restrict citizens rights in their choices of defensive tools puts them at a distinct disadvantage to the criminal element.
     

    IndyDave1776

    Grandmaster
    Emeritus
    Rating - 100%
    12   0   0
    Jan 12, 2012
    27,286
    113
    I didn't miss his point. I used humor as a tool to reject his premise.

    The practical use of firearms in hunting is made evident by it's success rate in that use. Firearms are eminently successful for game hunting.

    The practical use of modern mil-spec tactical weapons as a tool for a well regulated civilian militia to defend the freedom of Indianapolis, Indiana, the mid-west or the country has not been made evident to my satisfaction.

    "being necessary to the security of a free State"

    Well, smart guy, when you learn the hard way how that works, don't expect any of us to help you.
     

    Kurr

    Expert
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    May 18, 2011
    1,234
    113
    Jefferson County
    I believe the 2nd amendment is a limited Right. As it is enumerated, I believe that right is limited soley by the technological means of the day, and that all firearms that have that are available, should be available to all able bodied persons who desire and can afford to obtain them, at fair market prices and under standard sales tax for their State if applicable.

    Edit to add: Just because the State has not been invaded in the past does not predict accurately the future. I would like to be prepared for that event, should it ever occur
     
    Top Bottom