Quantcast

Does The 2nd Amendment Protect The Individuals Right To Own Any Gun Or Weapon They Want ?

MediaPoll 2013/01/29 12:10:06
You!
Add Photos & Videos
Second Amendment US Constitution

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.

Supreme Court Interpretation:

In the majority opinion authored by Justice Antonin Scalia, the Court first conducted a textual analysis of the operative clause, "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." The Court found that this language guarantees an individual right to possess and carry weapons. The Court examined historical evidence that it found consistent with its textual analysis. The Court then considered the Second Amendment’s prefatory clause, "[a] well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State," and determined that while this clause announces a purpose for recognizing an individual right to keep and bear arms, it does not limit the operative clause. The Court found that analogous contemporaneous provisions in state constitutions, the Second Amendment’s drafting history, and post-ratification interpretations were consistent with its interpretation of the amendment. The Court asserted that its prior precedent was not inconsistent with its interpretation.

The Court stated that the right to keep and bear arms is subject to regulation, such as concealed weapons prohibitions, limits on the rights of felons and the mentally ill, laws forbidding the carrying of weapons in certain locations, laws imposing conditions on commercial sales, and prohibitions on the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. It stated that this was not an exhaustive list of the regulatory measures that would be presumptively permissible under the Second Amendment.

Add a comment above

Top Opinion

  • ConLibFraud 2013/01/29 18:44:47
    Yes
    ConLibFraud
    +9
    What kind of a dumbed down trick question is this?

    All of the weapons that the military has access to belong to We The People. We The People pay for all of the military's weapons ... We The People own these weapons!!!

    Just a friendly reminder to those who have taken oaths!!!!!!

Sort By
  • Most Raves
  • Least Raves
  • Oldest
  • Newest
Opinions

  • FredtheRapist 2013/02/01 06:02:22
    Yes
    FredtheRapist
    yes, and military weapons being legal does not mean every single psychopath or gang banger has one. Flamethrowers are unregulated, why are they not used in crime? because it is an expensive piece of equipment and has no practical criminal use. Tanks, Helicopters are legal, but if completely unregulated they would be obviously really expensive too so nothing would change. Machine guns are cheaper but still too expensive for many criminals, criminals do get full auto mac10s (cheapest full auto on the market) but the market price is too high for most criminals to buy them. The point is people can have military weapons and still live in a free and safe society. its win/win. The founding fathers were fine with people having military weapons, muskets were usually too inaccurate for hunting and sport use, but muskets had the advantage of firing faster than rifles. Most civilians of the day did not have cannons, but the government did not restrict the private ownership of them. Common people could own warships if they wanted to, people were free to do so. The other thing is the founding fathers would have not restricted weapons because it might make people safer, the murder rates were high back then. Mainly this was because of the culture back then where if you did not accept a duel, ...
    yes, and military weapons being legal does not mean every single psychopath or gang banger has one. Flamethrowers are unregulated, why are they not used in crime? because it is an expensive piece of equipment and has no practical criminal use. Tanks, Helicopters are legal, but if completely unregulated they would be obviously really expensive too so nothing would change. Machine guns are cheaper but still too expensive for many criminals, criminals do get full auto mac10s (cheapest full auto on the market) but the market price is too high for most criminals to buy them. The point is people can have military weapons and still live in a free and safe society. its win/win. The founding fathers were fine with people having military weapons, muskets were usually too inaccurate for hunting and sport use, but muskets had the advantage of firing faster than rifles. Most civilians of the day did not have cannons, but the government did not restrict the private ownership of them. Common people could own warships if they wanted to, people were free to do so. The other thing is the founding fathers would have not restricted weapons because it might make people safer, the murder rates were high back then. Mainly this was because of the culture back then where if you did not accept a duel, you were a coward. The second amendment boils down to resisting tyranny because, If the government breaks the constitution what is supposed to happen? you can't really believe the government would never violate the constitution, what is the "or else" if the government does not follow?
    (more)
  • Kaleokualoha 2013/01/31 03:46:14
    No
    Kaleokualoha
    Of course not! You can't have privately owned nuclear weapons. Despite the idiotic top comment, the question specifically pertains to INDIVIDUALS, not to any collective right of "we the people."

    Some Sodaheads have problems with reading comprehension!

    "Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity." --Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.
    (BTW: King was NOT a Republican according to his son. See http://www.politifact.com/ten... )
  • rbeas 2013/01/30 23:27:02
    No
    rbeas
    There are some weapons to dangerous to own.
  • firelooker 2013/01/30 20:44:18
    Yes
    firelooker
    +1
    Do you think our forefathers would have decided that they couldn't own a cannon? This gov't has been trying to tell us what weapons we can own ever since the early 1900's. Gun control laws only affect law abiding citizens, criminals always ignore the laws. Do you people really think the criminals/gangs will give up their weapons cause FEinstein says so.
  • gary 2013/01/30 10:44:50
  • Radlad 2013/01/30 07:28:54
    Yes
    Radlad
    +1
    It does. The second amendment is there so "We the People" can defend ourselves from our own government. To do that we would need weapons the same type of weapons....
  • BornToBeWild 2013/01/30 05:16:52
    Yes
    BornToBeWild
    +1
    The Court reasoned that this right is fundamental to the nation's scheme of ordered liberty, given that self-defense was a basic right recognized by many legal systems from ancient times to the present, and Heller held that individual self-defense was "the central component" of the Second Amendment right. Moreover, a survey of the contemporaneous history also demonstrated clearly that the Fourteenth Amendment's Framers and ratifiers counted the right to keep and bear arms among those fundamental rights necessary to the Nation's system of ordered liberty.
    The Court reasoned that the Amendment's prefatory clause, i.e., "[a] well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State," announced the Amendment's purpose, but did not limit or expand the scope of the operative clause, i.e., "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." Moreover, the prefatory clause's history comported with the Court's interpretation, because the prefatory clause stemmed from the Anti-Federalists' concern that the federal government would disarm the people in order to disable the citizens' militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule.
    What misunderstood reasoning is there concerning our Constitutional rights to bear arms?
  • Mrs. V 2013/01/30 05:11:47
    Yes
    Mrs. V
    +1
    I am saying yes, because I will never concede a right granted by the constitution.
  • wtw 2013/01/30 04:50:03
    No
    wtw
    Of course not!
  • Arizona1950 2013/01/30 02:23:28
    Yes
    Arizona1950
    +2
    I believe so.
  • OPOA912 2013/01/30 01:52:56
    Yes
    OPOA912
    +2
    I don't see any confusion in the 2nd Amendment. That is unless you want to rule like a dicktator (no it's not spelled wrong)
  • S and S 2013/01/30 01:21:09
  • Patriot Unit 2013/01/30 01:17:19
    Yes
    Patriot Unit
    +2
    It does in fact say that. But it says arms. I have always taken that to be small arms. As in hand guns, or rifles and shotguns. Any and all law abiding citizens I think follow that pursumed premise. It does not state Revolver, Pistal, Rifle, or Shotgun. nor does it say anything about Semi-automatic, Single shot, Bolt action, Pump, or full-auto. Nor does it give any restrictions as to capacity of the magazine, clip, or anything else.

    Anybody who has the common sense to own a gun, more often than not follows the law. and they know that we are not allowed to have fully automatic guns. Its against the law. And those of us who follow the law, do not normally go looking for rocket launchers, or hand gernades, and flame throwers. That is ludercause to say the least. And the cosmetic make up of a gun or rifle does not mean it should be illegal to own or carry. Nor should the capacity make any difference. Legal gun owners do not use a gun for anything but self defense, and recreation. And using one for recreation is not part of the second amendment. If you hunt, target shoot, those are secondary uses of any gun.

    We have thousands of gun laws, even every state, and like our President, each state and local government, picks and chooses whic of any of them the will enforce. And inste...

    It does in fact say that. But it says arms. I have always taken that to be small arms. As in hand guns, or rifles and shotguns. Any and all law abiding citizens I think follow that pursumed premise. It does not state Revolver, Pistal, Rifle, or Shotgun. nor does it say anything about Semi-automatic, Single shot, Bolt action, Pump, or full-auto. Nor does it give any restrictions as to capacity of the magazine, clip, or anything else.

    Anybody who has the common sense to own a gun, more often than not follows the law. and they know that we are not allowed to have fully automatic guns. Its against the law. And those of us who follow the law, do not normally go looking for rocket launchers, or hand gernades, and flame throwers. That is ludercause to say the least. And the cosmetic make up of a gun or rifle does not mean it should be illegal to own or carry. Nor should the capacity make any difference. Legal gun owners do not use a gun for anything but self defense, and recreation. And using one for recreation is not part of the second amendment. If you hunt, target shoot, those are secondary uses of any gun.

    We have thousands of gun laws, even every state, and like our President, each state and local government, picks and chooses whic of any of them the will enforce. And instead of enforceing those laws. We choose to write more, and make them more restirctive, and to make criminals out of those who own guns legally and as is our right. And ignore those who use guns illegally, and holding them to account. But our President and all the other Liberals and Progressive Communists want legalize Illegal Aliends, and make criminals out of the law abiding.

    And who are you to make the decision for me and all the other legal gun owners, as to what kind of gun we choose to use for our self defense, and to fullfill our Constitutional Right. And who are you to tell us what style it is, or what capacity it shold hold?
    (more)
  • Beccy 2013/01/30 00:05:13
    Yes
    Beccy
    +3
    Wonder what's up. First they send the national guard to other countries to fight wars. The national guard has always been there to protect us. There is no money for police. And now they want to take away people's rights to protect themselves. They want to leave us like setting ducks. setting ducks
  • Always Right 2013/01/29 22:26:25
    Yes
    Always Right
    +3
    Liberties and freedoms taken are rarely, if ever returned to the people.
  • Professor Wizard 2013/01/29 20:19:57
    Yes
    Professor Wizard
    +4
    The amendment itself does!

    Politicians starting around 1930, decided to start restricting the amendments intent - and have tried to fiddle with it even more ever since.
  • MadMax 2013/01/29 20:08:28
    Yes
    MadMax
    +2
    It doesn't really specify. Of course when it was written there was only one kind of gun and it took 20 minutes to load it.
  • Aqua Surf BTO-t-BCRA-F 2013/01/29 19:28:21 (edited)
    Yes
    Aqua Surf BTO-t-BCRA-F
    +4
    That's the way it reads. Doesn't matter if the Constitution was written before the advent of AK's, it is a RIGHT. You Commie libs take it from us as best you can, hah!
  • ConLibFraud 2013/01/29 18:44:47
    Yes
    ConLibFraud
    +9
    What kind of a dumbed down trick question is this?

    All of the weapons that the military has access to belong to We The People. We The People pay for all of the military's weapons ... We The People own these weapons!!!

    Just a friendly reminder to those who have taken oaths!!!!!!
  • RoyJLores ConLibF... 2013/01/29 18:51:59
    RoyJLores
    +5
    The liberty hating Authoritarian fascist statsts will never comprehend such things...


    liberty hating authoritarian fascist statsts comprehend
  • ConLibF... RoyJLores 2013/01/29 18:55:14
    ConLibFraud
    +5
    The majority of wimpy dumbed down American sheeple will never get it!
  • Kent Harper 2013/01/29 18:26:31
    No
    Kent Harper
    +3
    NO, NO, and NO. It doesn't even guarantee the right to own ANY weapon! If everyone would do some reading into the 2nd Amendment, you'd realize that up until the late 1970's when the NRA was essentially invaded by conservative politicians, we were clear that the 2nd Amendment guaranteed rights to well regulated militias, not the individual with no business in those militias. Even the SUPREME COURT ruled in favor of the above fact. Now, this doesn't mean that I am against anyone owning any type of gun, I am in favor of firearms for hunting and sport, but we need to look at court history, not the history of a rogue, radical group.
  • ConLibF... Kent Ha... 2013/01/29 18:57:05
    ConLibFraud
    +5
    You would have hid in your basement shivering under your mommy's skirt when the Founding Fathers risk their lives for your freedom.
  • Kent Ha... ConLibF... 2013/01/29 19:01:25
    Kent Harper
    Ah, you again. Do you have a good argument this time or are you still tossing feces around?
  • Aqua Su... Kent Ha... 2013/01/29 19:32:17
    Aqua Surf BTO-t-BCRA-F
    +1
    That is just ignorant. Is that a real condition for you or are you just trolling?
  • Kent Ha... Aqua Su... 2013/01/29 19:42:24
    Kent Harper
    If you would view his replies to my other posts on gun threads, you would understand my curiosity.
  • John "B... Kent Ha... 2013/01/30 04:28:04
    John "By God" American
    Where does it say hunting and sport in the 2nd Amendment? "the right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms, SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED". This is an unalienable right. We the people have the right to defend ourselves with the same force as a potentially despotic government...
  • Kent Ha... John "B... 2013/01/30 04:43:22
    Kent Harper
    Alright, we obviously need a lesson on the grammar of the Constitution. Here's the 2nd 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.

    What Jefferson meant when he wrote this, in the grammatical style he wrote this is that we as a people have the right to have our own militia as long as it is well regulated, and that it is the right of the people WHO ARE IN THAT MILITIA to keep and bear arms. It's simple grammar. It is not the right of anyone to own any gun they damn well please, it is the right for the PEOPLE in the MILITIAS to KEEP and BEAR ARMS.
  • John "B... Kent Ha... 2013/01/30 10:17:07
    John "By God" American
    What Jefferson meant? No. That isn't at all what he meant. That's your convoluted interpretation of what Jefferson wrote. He was specific and precise in what he meant. The power and authority will remain in the hands of the citizens not in the government. This is consistent with everything Jefferson stood for...
  • Radlad Kent Ha... 2013/01/30 07:37:39
    Radlad
    +1
    That's the liberals problem . They read "into" the constitution. You need to read it. You can read "into" anything you want to read into it. The 2nd amendment isn't about firearms for sporting and hunting purposes. It's so we can defend us from our own government........
  • Lady Whitewolf 2013/01/29 18:22:36
    Yes
    Lady Whitewolf
  • CocaColaCandy 2013/01/29 18:22:11
    No
    CocaColaCandy
    +3
    Of course not. Antonin Scalia, no bleeding heart liberal there, authored the most recent major opinion on the subject. While the right to bear arms is an individual right, it is also subject to regulation....including but not limited to restrictions on the type of weapons allowed. You may not like it, but it is the current law of the land. Personally I'm grateful for it. I can just imagine some people out there launching nuclear strikes against their annoying neighbors, exes and that moron of a weatherman who didn't say it was going to rain today dammit!
  • ConLibF... CocaCol... 2013/01/29 18:58:59
    ConLibFraud
    +4
    LMAO!!!! You pay credence to the bought and paid for supreme court! LMAO! And as if 1 person has a right to tell 300 million what they can and can't do. LMAO at you!
  • CocaCol... ConLibF... 2013/01/29 19:18:18
    CocaColaCandy
    +1
    See? Here's one now! Tell me sir, who do YOU want to take out first using the aircraft carrier floating in your bathtub? Libturds? Commies? Athiests? That damn clerk at the supermarket who shortchanged you by a dime? The stupid kid who stole your parking spot at the Wal Mart? The world wants to know!
  • ConLibF... CocaCol... 2013/01/29 19:40:02
    ConLibFraud
    +1
    My! Just look at the violence you pursue!
  • John "B... ConLibF... 2013/01/30 04:29:27
    John "By God" American
    That's all they have. The heads of the black robed mafia are light years away from Constitutional scholars...
  • ConLibF... John "B... 2013/01/30 15:22:13
    ConLibFraud
    I don't believe in courts! Courts belong to We The People and not the criminals who control them with phony laws and false authority.
  • Technot... CocaCol... 2013/01/29 19:20:16 (edited)
    Technotrucker_exposingthetruth
    +3
    He was wrong. Shall not be infringed does not allow exclusions. Via regulation or legislation. The rules are quite simple. You don't like the amendment then there is an amendment process to change it. Since it is in the bill of rights, it would take a Constitutional Convention to remove it. You don't alter an amendment. You can put one in to remove a previous, but you cannot alter it. Prohibition is a prime example of how the process works.
  • CocaCol... Technot... 2013/01/29 19:37:26
    CocaColaCandy
    +3
    The 2d Amendment contains two equally important parts. Those who insist only one or the other has meaning are the ones who are mistaken. To paraphrase, the right of the people to keep and bear arms as part of a well-regulated militia shall not be infringed. While the right is determined to belong to the People, and is therefore individual, it is also clear the intent is to regulate appropriately. I rarely agree with that old Libertarian fox, but in this I believe he was correct. The question then becomes, what determines whether a weapon is unduly dangerous or unusual so as to be eligible for restriction? I was being facetious in my earlier remarks, some things like restricting nuclear warheads are obvious to rational people no matter what their political bent. But there is a huge gray area between a .22 rifle used for hunting and a nuke. That seems to be the area of disagreement among rational people of good will. Not whether there are limits, but where and what they are.
  • Technot... CocaCol... 2013/01/30 01:31:47
    Technotrucker_exposingthetruth
    To start how about we don't paraphrase anything:
    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.
    The right of the people is as clear as it can get. Shall not be infringed: Act so as to limit or undermine (something); encroach on: "infringe on his privacy".
    Shall not limit or undermine. Seems pretty clear to even the smallest of minds. The debate should not be as to what size, caliber, or destructive capabilities, simply don't touch this right. There is no room for interpretation, the founders didn't leave any. It was written in plain English for a reason. No hidden words or innuendos.

See Votes by State

The map above displays the winning answer by region.

News & Politics

2014/04/19 07:17:00

Hot Questions on SodaHead
More Hot Questions

More Community More Originals