"They're Taking Our Guns Away!!"

fishn4real · 02-07-2012, 06:15 PM

The subject came up in the classroom this morning concerning the constitutional rights to "keep and bear arms". And then some of the usual banter of "yeah, they can have my gun when they pry my cold dead fingers off it." etc

So, I thought I would ask here; What is your interpretation of the 2nd amendment?
Does it relate to individuals living in a free state? (And in fact, do we live in free states, or is it referring to a free country)

Does it refer to a militia man as opposed to an individual?

Under what conditions would you protect your guns from government confiscation? And, under what condition would you fire upon a LEO or uniformed soldier?

The reason I ask here, is that I know there is a wide section of population here that will give varied interpretations and opinions. I plan to take the results back into the classroom for further discussion tomorrow.

Thanks,

WW2 · 02-07-2012, 07:07 PM

IMHO it means that any person who would serve their country as a member of a local militia has the right to keep and bear arms. This does not require advanced membership but can be formed at any time. So, as long as you think you would volunteer to be a member of the militia should it be necessary then you should have the right to keep and bear arms in preparation for that.

nextstep · 02-07-2012, 07:17 PM

yep

Bean Counter · 02-07-2012, 07:29 PM

Agree 100% with WW2. Would never fire upon a uniformed United States LEO or soldier.

DLo · 02-07-2012, 07:36 PM

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.

To me this says two seperate things, first that the citizens have right to have and keep armed militia for security. Second that the right of the citizens to keep and bear arms. Under no circumstance should government be allowed to confiscate weapons from law abiding citizens. The people who gave up the right to defend themselves after Hurricane Katrina are fools.

jim t · 02-07-2012, 07:44 PM

Look at recent Supreme Court decisions. SCOTUS has decided we have the right to bear arms despite local governments (Chicago and Washington DC) trying to prohibit gun ownership.

Jim

Getsome · 02-07-2012, 08:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jim t

Look at recent Supreme Court decisions. SCOTUS has decided we have the right to bear arms despite local governments (Chicago and Washington DC) trying to prohibit gun ownership.

Jim

I agree, it has been decided!!

fishn4real · 02-07-2012, 08:14 PM

I appreciate all of the input and comments.

One of my students brought up that the colonies had just finished a war with Great Britain and some of the issues were that King George was confiscating firearms from the rebels, and that was why the statement "keep and bear arms' was written into the Constitution.

If that were so, is the Constitution saying that the citizens of this country have a right to bear those arms against the new government? If not, who do we have a right to bear those arms against?

Thanks again.

cuzmondo · 02-07-2012, 08:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by fishn4real

I appreciate all of the input and comments.

If not, who do we have a right to bear those arms against?

Thanks again.

As far as I'm concerned we have the right to bear arms against anyone, and I do mean anyone that would attempt to infringe upon those rights. That includes any member of law enforcement or military that is foolish enough to succumb to an order that would require them to deny those rights. If they would do so, the are not upholding that which they are sworn to protect.

fishn4real · 02-07-2012, 08:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Getsome

I agree, it has been decided!!

Do you have the specific citation for that ruling?

02-07-2012, 06:15 PM	#1
fishn4real Senior Member Sailfish Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: Ozark, Missouri - 6 miles from Bass Pro Shops' world headquarters. Posts: 1,361	"They're Taking Our Guns Away!!" The subject came up in the classroom this morning concerning the constitutional rights to "keep and bear arms". And then some of the usual banter of "yeah, they can have my gun when they pry my cold dead fingers off it." etc So, I thought I would ask here; What is your interpretation of the 2nd amendment? Does it relate to individuals living in a free state? (And in fact, do we live in free states, or is it referring to a free country) Does it refer to a militia man as opposed to an individual? Under what conditions would you protect your guns from government confiscation? And, under what condition would you fire upon a LEO or uniformed soldier? The reason I ask here, is that I know there is a wide section of population here that will give varied interpretations and opinions. I plan to take the results back into the classroom for further discussion tomorrow. Thanks,

02-07-2012, 07:36 PM	#5
DLo Senior Member Snapper Join Date: Oct 2007 Location: Cantonment Posts: 594	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. To me this says two seperate things, first that the citizens have right to have and keep armed militia for security. Second that the right of the citizens to keep and bear arms. Under no circumstance should government be allowed to confiscate weapons from law abiding citizens. The people who gave up the right to defend themselves after Hurricane Katrina are fools.

02-07-2012, 07:44 PM	#6
jim t Neptune calls me "Daddy" Blue Marlin Join Date: Sep 2007 Posts: 5,634	Look at recent Supreme Court decisions. SCOTUS has decided we have the right to bear arms despite local governments (Chicago and Washington DC) trying to prohibit gun ownership. Jim __________________ GO GATORS!!!

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

02-07-2012, 07:07 PM	#2
WW2 Senior Member Blue Marlin Join Date: Sep 2007 Posts: 4,091	IMHO it means that any person who would serve their country as a member of a local militia has the right to keep and bear arms. This does not require advanced membership but can be formed at any time. So, as long as you think you would volunteer to be a member of the militia should it be necessary then you should have the right to keep and bear arms in preparation for that.

02-07-2012, 07:17 PM	#3
nextstep Senior Member White Marlin Join Date: Jun 2008 Posts: 2,637	yep

02-07-2012, 07:29 PM	#4
Bean Counter Senior Member Mingo Join Date: Nov 2010 Location: Navarre Posts: 187	Agree 100% with WW2. Would never fire upon a uniformed United States LEO or soldier.

02-07-2012, 08:14 PM	#8
fishn4real Senior Member Sailfish Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: Ozark, Missouri - 6 miles from Bass Pro Shops' world headquarters. Posts: 1,361	I appreciate all of the input and comments. One of my students brought up that the colonies had just finished a war with Great Britain and some of the issues were that King George was confiscating firearms from the rebels, and that was why the statement "keep and bear arms' was written into the Constitution. If that were so, is the Constitution saying that the citizens of this country have a right to bear those arms against the new government? If not, who do we have a right to bear those arms against? Thanks again.

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)