As some of you may have heard, on September 4, 2007, the District of Columbia filed a Petition for a Writ of Certiorari with the Supreme Court appealing the decision of the D.C. Court of Appeals striking down the city law banning the private possession of handguns under the Second Amendment in the case of Parker v. District of Columbia, 478 F.3d 370 (D.C. Cir. 2007).

Just like the Nazis that ran Germany, modern American politicians know that rights have to be slowly taken away in order for there not to be public outcry.

I think there are better ways to argue the libertarian position without constantly calling laws or social programs "Nazi" or Stalinist. That really doesn't add anything to the debate.

__________________
Formerly W.E.B. Du Bois (you can still call me "WEB")

Current Diplomacy thread
WEB Music Playlist
Protest Animal Cruelty

Does anyone actually know what the 2nd amendment really is? What is says word for word? Or does everyone believe that it is just "the right to bare arms?"

Well it contains the words militia & people the right to keep and bare arms.

The militia is made up of the people. So in order for the militia to bare arms, the people must be able to keep arms first.

Unless of course in a time of uprising, the government (state or federal) is going to hand out guns to the very people trying to overthrow them which would be funny to see, never would such a thing occur of course, but it would at least be entertaining to see.

2nd amendment, word for word,
"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."

Says rather clearly that the right to bear arms is for a single purpose, to defend the country in a "well regulated militia." Not for the right to hunt, not for the right to collect cool old guns, but for the right to protect society.

No in order to come to that interpretation you must also leave out the word "people". That word is in there for a reason. The people are the militia.

Yes, but the gun rights are there for the people with the idea that they'll be used for a militia.

Unfortunately, our founding fathers phrased the second amendment somewhat ambiguously. However, it's clear that their intention was to allow American citizens to keep and own firearms for one reason or another. When you take into consideration the fact that it is the 2nd amendment, it's clear that they thought the right to bear arms was an important one, and I don't believe that right should be taken away.

That was simply one of the more important conditions/factors of the overall right to bear arms. The second amendment flat out states that American citizens have the right to bear arms.

The wording you're referring to doesn't deem the actual context of the right itself, but rather it merely emphasizes an idea that is separate from the right to bear arms itself. That wording states that "a well regulated militia" is one of the important benefits of the citizens right to bear arms. Also, newsflash: the colonists hunted with muskets... that completely proves your interpretation of the second amendment wrong as it is. They couldn't have possibly only intended the right to bear arms for self-defense and nothing but self-defense.

__________________
Political Diplomacy Game Map
Forum Diplomacy Game Discussion Thread
__________________
"Ask not what your country can do for you; ask what you can do for your country."
-John F. Kennedy

"Education begins the gentleman, but reading, good company and reflection must finish him."
-John Locke

"What worries you, masters you."
-John Locke