If the SCOTUS were to define the 2nd Amendt ...

[dogtag]

What exactly would they decide as to what is legal and what isn't ?
In 1791 the only arms that one could own and carry were flinters.
A rifle and a pistol - both single shots.
Would the Court consider that ?
The amendment doesn't say anything about weapons except that
you can own and bear them. Does this limit what one can reasonably
carry ? You can't walk around with a 50 cal Barrett.
So, is that grounds to exclude them as far as "bear" goes ?
The leftists would like to ban everything.
The amendt extremists would like Howitzers to be legal.
Somewhere there's a happy medium.
Once you open the door like a Con Con or having SCOTUS make a
decision as to what is and what isn't legal, you can't know what
you're to end up with.

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/washington-secrets/nra-predicts-supreme-court-will-finally-define-second-amendment

[bruce]

If sanity and common sense were normal and common, an idiot off the streets would be able to come to a rational understanding of the 2nd Amendment. The problem is that sanity, sense (common and uncommon), idiots and rational understanding of anything especially the 2nd Amendment are beyond the possible scope of a politically driven process. Once upon a time a now long-gone justice struggling in the midst of a delusion of grandeur foisted off on the nation the idea of the SC having the scope/power to review/rule on the constitutionality of law passed by the Congress and the individual states. That marked the beginning of the SC morphing into a quasi-legislative body given that, as it stands today, it can rule a law valid/invalid based on constitutional review, based on tweaking the law themselves changing words like tax to mandate, etc., etc., etc. JMHO. YMMV. Sincerely. bruce.

[Allen]

The 2nd is for Americans to be able to defend themselves against a corrupt government such as we have now.

The "government" will oppose any and every part of the amendment that is not fought against.

No mention is listed as to type of "arms" a citizen shall have.

Something everyone should consider is ONLY the democrats oppose the 2nd. ONLY the democrats want gun confiscation. Then ask themselves WHY?

[rayg]

All good! But especially like the last one, Lol

[dogtag]

I like the second one.
Maybe somebody can tell me what Bruce said.

[kj47]

All good, really like #5

[Art]

The Heller Decision said that the Second Amendment (keep and bear arms) applied to weapons in common use that could be carried and operated by one person (nothing crew served.) That should be settled and the courts have generally been on our side up to now. Scalia who decided the decision also said that the "reasonable restrictions" test still applied and what is a "reasonable restriction" is being contested every day in courts all over the country.

[Allen]

The Heller Decision said that the Second Amendment (keep and bear arms) applied to weapons in common use that could be carried and operated by one person (nothing crew served.) That should be settled and the courts have generally been on our side up to now. Scalia who decided the decision also said that the "reasonable restrictions" test still applied and what is a "reasonable restriction" is being contested every day in courts all over the country.

We (the militia) nor the government (the military) had much other than what could be carried and operated by one person at the time. But the amendment states nothing about time, future inventions, etc.. so I don't know where they would be getting this from.

However, for the amendment to hold water, if the government is allowed to obtain and use current and modern weapons then so should the militia in order to be able to defend ourselves. In fact, if congress wants to argue over BS, the militia being less organized and outnumbered if you get NATO involved, would need more armament and better technology than the military in order to keep a corrupt force at bay.

It was once said and now disputed of course that the Japs did not want to invade mainland America during WW2 because "there is a gun behind every blade of grass".

[Vern Humphrey]

I recommend reading The Debates (my copy is two bound volumes.) If you haven't read The Debates, you really don't know anything about the Constitution. But for a short primer, look up Tench Coxe. He's basically the man who wrote the 2nd Amendment.

Here's a thing -- does Freedom of the Press and Freedom of Speech apply to highspeed offset presses, radio, television and the Internet? Of course it does!!

[dogtag]

Back then if it became necessary for the Militia to take action,
members would gather "bearing" their arms. No dragging a canon
along by an individual member, but presumably the Militia as a whole
would be using any weaponry it wished, including canon. In any case,
if you're taking action against a corrupt government, anything goes.

[Vern Humphrey]

Back then if it became necessary for the Militia to take action,
members would gather "bearing" their arms. No dragging a canon
along by an individual member, but presumably the Militia as a whole
would be using any weaponry it wished, including canon. In any case,
if you're taking action against a corrupt government, anything goes.

Individuals could and did own cannon. For example, the people of Cincinnati gave two cannons to Sam Houston to use fighting the Mexicans. The ladies of Columbus, Georgia bought a cannon to give to their local militia unit -- it was called "The Ladies' Defender."

The Constitution authorizes Congress to issue Letters of Marque and Reprisal. A letter of marque and reprisal (French: lettre de marque; lettre de course) was a government license in the Age of Sail that authorized a private person, known as a privateer or corsair, to attack and capture vessels of a nation at war with the issuer. To do that, the private citizen had to own an armed vessel -- so you could own not just cannon, but whole warships.

[dogtag]

Individuals could and did own cannon. For example, the people of Cincinnati gave two cannons to Sam Houston to use fighting the Mexicans. The ladies of Columbus, Georgia bought a cannon to give to their local militia unit -- it was called "The Ladies' Defender."

The Constitution authorizes Congress to issue Letters of Marque and Reprisal. A letter of marque and reprisal (French: lettre de marque; lettre de course) was a government license in the Age of Sail that authorized a private person, known as a privateer or corsair, to attack and capture vessels of a nation at war with the issuer. To do that, the private citizen had to own an armed vessel -- so you could own not just cannon, but whole warships.

Errol Flyn would have loved that. His flag would have been either a pair
of knickers or a booze bottle pic.