The court's sole purpose is to weigh things against what the constitution says. Not in spite of what the constitution says... Not what they think the constitution should say... What it says. Period.

If you don't like what the constitution says you have two choices...

Move elsewhere.

Or... try to convince enough people to join a movement to get it amended.

People love to pick apart the 2A... But you start doing that with any of the other rights enumerated in the BoR and people get furious. Apparently, "it says what it says" applies to every other amendment but the second.

A militia is made up of the civilian population. 2A simply states that a militia is necessary to the security of our nation... And they can't do that without arms. The government is not allowed to disarm the civilian population... whether there is a standing army or not.

Edit: And it says "arms" not guns.

Mike

It says arms.

Mike

Scalia, in the Heller decision, discusses this at length.

It means 'well disciplined and trained'.

Yes, look at the history. Restrictions on who and type didn't occur until a 150 years after the Constitution's passing. And then only as a federal statute not as a Constitutional amendment.

There are numerous examples of individual citizens raising volunteer militia/military units in times of crisis to include purchases of weapons up to artillery.

Heck, in the Spanish-American war some rich dandies bought an entire warship and gave it to the navy.

Strict interpretation is in order as the other amendments that are included in this document!
why not tear apart the other amendments as they do the second.Sure a black powder gun is way different a weapon as we have now. but it never limited in that amendment on newer and better weapons as they came along. Gatling gun, ?? should we have eliminated that. its a natural progression.

From the amendment center:

We do not need to explain why we should be allowed to keep weapons used by the military. Those who believe we should have a permanent military with exclusive access to certain types of firearms need to explain how such an arrangement will ensure liberty in contradiction of both common sense and the warnings of founders like Mason.

It’s common to hear gun control advocates argue that the founders wouldn’t have included modern firearms under their definition of “arms.” At best this is amusing speculation at best and at worst an argument made in bad faith. It could also be used to justify Internet censorship under the claim the founders were only referring to an 18th Century printing press in the First Amendment.

It’s obvious to the intellectually honest that in using the word “arms” the Second Amendment’s writers acknowledged the right of ordinary citizens to keep and bear the same weapons used by soldiers in the military. Our rights are not and should not be be based on the technology at the time those rights were acknowledged.

Exactly gryhkl.

Mike

I see the ignorant people that can barely spell are still freely discussing miz Ginsberg. How did she come down on Heller?

"In the wake of the fierce, nationwide debate over gun rights and gun control, Justice Ginsburg also explained the historical basis for her view on the Second Amendment.

"The Second Amendment has a preamble about the need for a militia ... Historically, the new government had no money to pay for an army, so they relied on the state militias," she said. "The states required men to have certain weapons and they specified in the law what weapons these people had to keep in their home so that when they were called to do service as militiamen, they would have them. That was the entire purpose of the Second Amendment."

Ginsburg said the disappearance of that purpose eliminates the function of the Second Amednment.

"It's function is to enable the young nation to have people who will fight for it to have weapons that those soldiers will own," she said. "I view the Second Amendment as rooted in the time totally allied to the need to support a militia. So ... the Second Amendment is outdated in the sense that its function has become obsolete."

As for the Heller case, decided by the court in 2008, Ginsburg says the court erred in its decision.

"If the court had properly interpreted the Second Amendment, the Court would have said that amendment was very important when the nation was new," she said. "It gave a qualified right to keep and bear arms, but it was for one purpose only — and that was the purpose of having militiamen who were able to fight to preserve the nation.""

One of the most important things to understand is that, in its creation, the federal government was not intended to be an “owning” entity. The original federal government did not own arms, the states and individuals did. It didn’t own land, the states and individuals did. It didn’t own a military and bases and fleets and highways and currency and billions in assets through hundreds of departments, because it did not own anything, and was not intended to.

Today we have a government that:
- owns millions of acres of land, calls it “public” land but restricts the public’s access;
-owns one of the world’s largest militaries;
-owns the state guards
-owns millions of weapons to which it claims citizens have neither need nor right.
-owns prisons and enforcement agencies to police citizens.

I could go on, but you get the point. The question really comes down to whether one is a Constitutionalist, in letter and intent. Because according to the original intent of our government’s founding, the argument of whether “civilian arms are/aren’t necessary because the government owns them” is null and moot.

so, then...the First Amendment only applies to Quill and Papyrus?

well, THAT sucks!

and by the way...speak for YOURSELF regarding your lack of smarts.

She needs to retire.

Dirt,
If your quote from Ginsburg is correct and she did say that the Second Amendment "gave a qualified right to keep and bear arms", then that shows that she is ignorant about the Bill of Rights, so ignorant in fact that it's quite alarming.
The Bill of Rights did not give us rights, it recognized our rights, and recognized that these rights are inalienable and God-given. That means only God can take them away, not government. That philosophy is what makes our Bill of Rights uniquely different the rights of citizens of other countries.

Well, she missed yesterday and looks like today to. But they are saying this is ok. Rhenquist missed 44 oral arguments when he was going through treatment, and was still able to write opinions. Hmmmmm.....

I agree. But to people like Ginsburg, government IS God.

Good point!

Chris

Pretty much. The constitution says "arms", which generally means gun-type thingamajiggers things an individual soldier might use, so no nukes, aircraft carriers, etc. Allowing the military sole access to certain types of weaponry ensures that the military will have superior firepower to "the people", and will always be able to suppress "the people". That's the very thing the founders were trying to avoid with the 2A.

Not saying your wrong, just asking for more info.

Are you sure that's what the writers of the constitution meant when they wrote it?
Reason i ask is because citizens at the time could own cannons and war ships equipped with cannons equal to anything our military had.

An example i know of.................

During the Civil War, citizens could buy repeating rifles, something the military hasn't yet adopted them, so in reality, in the late 1800's, citizens had better guns than did our standing arny.