quote:

ORIGINAL: FatDomDaddy

FR...

Why is this so hard to understand...

The United States of American decided that their citizenry would be allowed to arm themselves but the Government reserved the right to regulate?

It seems simple enough.

quote:

People seem to interpret the intent from the militia clause but it is a clause, specifically a dependent clause followed by another dependent clause witch of course depends on the "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed".

quote:

Here is what some of the founders said about the second amendment.

quote:

ORIGINAL: HeatherMcLeather

quote:

People seem to interpret the intent from the militia clause but it is a clause, specifically a dependent clause followed by another dependent clause witch of course depends on the "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed".

OK, so you don't know what a dependent clause is.

quote:

ORIGINAL: lovmuffin

quote:

ORIGINAL: HeatherMcLeather

quote:

People seem to interpret the intent from the militia clause but it is a clause, specifically a dependent clause followed by another dependent clause witch of course depends on the "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed".

OK, so you don't know what a dependent clause is.

I thought I knew what a dependent clause was. I could be wrong, someone help us out. "A well regulated militia" doesn't tell you much and isn't a complete sentence. "being necessary to the security of a free state" still does not complete a sentence. There is no subject or verb in either clause and they are dependent on the rest of the sentence that completes the wording in the amendment. I'm not even going to try diagramming the whole freakin thing but I believe the subject would be "right" and the verb is "shall".   

quote:

Self-defense is a basic right, recognized by many legal systems from ancient times to the present, and the Heller Court held that individual self-defense is “the central component” of the SecondAmendment right. 554 U. S., at ___, ___. Explaining that “the needfor defense of self, family, and property is most acute” in the home, ibid., the Court found that this right applies to handguns because they are “the most preferred firearm in the nation to ‘keep’ and use for protection of one’s home and family,” id., at ___, ___–___. It thus concluded that citizens must be permitted “to use [handguns] for the core lawful purpose of self-defense.” Id., at ___. Heller also clarifies that this right is “deeply rooted in this Nation’s history and tradi-tions,” Glucksberg, supra, at 721. Heller explored the right’s origins in English law and noted the esteem with which the right was re-garded during the colonial era and at the time of the ratification ofthe Bill of Rights. This is powerful evidence that the right was re-garded as fundamental in the sense relevant here. That understand-ing persisted in the years immediately following the Bill of Rights’ratification and is confirmed by the state constitutions of that era,which protected the right to keep and bear arms.

quote:

ORIGINAL: HeatherMcLeather

quote:

Here is what some of the founders said about the second amendment.

None of the quotes there in any way challenges what we said, and in fact, they pretty much confirm it. I take it that you just trot that page out in any gun debate and haven't actually read what it.

quote:

ORIGINAL: FirstQuaker

McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U.S. 3025, 130 S.Ct. 3020

quote:

Self-defense is a basic right, recognized by many legal systems from ancient times to the present, and the Heller Court held that individual self-defense is “the central component” of the SecondAmendment right. 554 U. S., at ___, ___. Explaining that “the needfor defense of self, family, and property is most acute” in the home, ibid., the Court found that this right applies to handguns because they are “the most preferred firearm in the nation to ‘keep’ and use for protection of one’s home and family,” id., at ___, ___–___. It thus concluded that citizens must be permitted “to use [handguns] for the core lawful purpose of self-defense.” Id., at ___. Heller also clarifies that this right is “deeply rooted in this Nation’s history and tradi-tions,” Glucksberg, supra, at 721. Heller explored the right’s origins in English law and noted the esteem with which the right was re-garded during the colonial era and at the time of the ratification ofthe Bill of Rights. This is powerful evidence that the right was re-garded as fundamental in the sense relevant here. That understand-ing persisted in the years immediately following the Bill of Rights’ratification and is confirmed by the state constitutions of that era,which protected the right to keep and bear arms.

This is certainly extending the 2nd amendment past merely providing for the  arming of the organized militia that are called up in either their state or by the federal government.

And eliminating the second amendment, would still not remove those similar provisions and clauses from the state constitutions, nor would it pull the militia clauses out of the main body of the constitution.

I cannot see such a total rewrite of the federal constitution or those of the 50 states happening, as you certainly could not get enough of the states to even consider such a thing, let alone agree to it.