Sunday, October 14, 2007

Question Of The Week, 10/14/07

Good morning. I'm sure you have figured out what this series of questions have in common, have you figured out why I feel it is important to post them at this time? That's not this weeks question,it's an extra something to think about. This weeks Question Of The Week is. In your opinion, what is the meaning of the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution?


Amendment II
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.

I'll post my answer in the Comment Section Monday night.

God Bless America, God Save The Republic.

11 Comments:

Blogger Praguetwin said...

Well that is open to interpretation isn't it? Translated literally, I should be able to own an M-1 tank and ICBMs but few would argue that I should be able to. Personally, I'd love to have RPG launcher, but few would argue that I should be trusted with one.

7:25 AM  
Blogger American Interests said...

I am drawn to your Second Amendment, particularly the right to "bear arms". Even though most nearly everyone outside your nation thinks otherwise.

A couple of stingers may come in handy (for the freeways). Do you think this may be deemed excessive? Certainly, in relation to praguetwin I think its reasonable - M-1 and intercontinental balistic missiles??

8:31 AM  
Blogger Praguetwin said...

AI,

I was just trying to make a point: where to draw the line. Ah, the eternal question.

11:20 AM  
Blogger Always On Watch said...

The individual right to bear arms--that's how I interpret the Second Amendment.

If not for both the militias and the individuals having arms in the American Revolution, the efforts to become free of the oppressive rule of England might well have failed.

Certainly, some limits on the right to bear arms have merit. For example, felons who have been convicted can lose that right. And minors need supervision and restriction. Otherwise, I pretty much oppose government regulation over my right to bear arms.

3:17 PM  
Blogger David Schantz said...

First I want to thank you for stopping by to answer this weeks question, "In your opinion, what is the meaning of the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution?" Some will try to tell you the Militia is the Natinal Guard and only Guard members should be armed. I disagree, the Militia is made up of civilians. Every able bodied male between the ages of 17 and 45. They should be ready to protect and defend at a moments notice. This doesn't always mean fight off an attacking army, it could mean helping others during or after a natural disaster. The right of the people(the individual) to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed(taken away).

AOW, I agree, minors should have supervised training before they are old enough to own firearms. In some cases I feel a felons rights should be reinstated.

God Bless America, God Save The Republic.

12:35 AM  
Blogger Praguetwin said...

David,

But where do you draw the line? Should be able to have a tank and stinger missiles? Large ordnance? Grenades? RPGs?

Honestly, I believe in the second amendment, but there has to be some scale restrictions.

I'm curious what your thoughts are on this.

3:39 PM  
Blogger Tapline said...

Hello,,I read the second amendment as meaning exactly what it says.This right shall not be infringed upon. Not screwed with...with any right that we have come responsibility. That part seems to be forgotten whenever someone reads about rights. The responsibility part which I think is inherent does not come into play, but what any responsibility adult would say within reason. so when one questions well,,,,,Does that mean I can have a bizzoka (sp). I don't think that any rational person would say yes...everyone should have one....A little common sense goes a long way. As far as the militia is concerned I feel every state should have one for emergencies. coming from the civilian population in times of distress...I ramble. hope it makes sense.....stay well....

10:10 PM  
Blogger Frederick said...

I don't know that the Second amendment is the end all be all of gun law anyways, the 9th says:

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Even if you literally interpret the second amendment to say it is in regards to state militias, that doesn't disparage the right to bear arms.

9:51 AM  
Blogger David Schantz said...

Prague Twin said,
"David,

But where do you draw the line? Should be able to have a tank and stinger missiles? Large ordnance? Grenades? RPGs?

Honestly, I believe in the second amendment, but there has to be some scale restrictions.

I'm curious what your thoughts are on this."



Would I like to have some of the things you mention? You bet I would and some collectors do (Legally) have some very impressive arsenals. If you ever get a chance to see a machine gun shoot in person or on video you'll see some of these big boys and girls come out to play. I have never heard of any of them getting into trouble over firearms. Originally I think the Second Amendment meant we could have the fire power to equal any oppressor that meant to take any of our rights away. Today that would mean street gangs would have fire power equal to the local police. So no I don't think everyone should be able to own a full auto. I do feel that hunters and target shooters should be able to use semi-autos if they choose to. The news media and some of our law makers would like the public to believe these are the same thing as a full auto.



God Bless America, God Save The Republic.

7:36 PM  
Blogger crabby old man said...

I believe it's my God given right as an American citizen to own firearms. We need to use our head no one needs fully automatic weapons & bigger stuff than that for they are designed to strictly to kill people. Though if we let the gov. take them then they will get our other weapon's at a later date.

6:11 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The Framers' intent was to ensure the people remained the power in the country, not the government.

There is no limitation on the nature of arms that may be owned; we are not permitted only handguns, rifles and shotguns. If you consider that at the time 2A was written, ordinary civilians were permitted to own cannon, mortars, shot and bombs along with pistols and muskets, it does not follow that we must limit people today. (If you're worried about the crazy guy down the street getting a nuke, you can probably relax, unless you have reason to believe he would be able to afford one or make one himself.)

Today, our standing Army, Navy, Air Force, Marine Corps, Coast Guard, various reserve units and National Guard serve at the whim of the government, not the people.

That should bother you.

3:18 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home