I contend that the 2nd amendment simply recognizes
a natural fact -- humans will defend themselves.
if that involves a threatening glance, a verbal warning,
a fist, a stick, a gun or a pushbutton, defense is an
innate truth. . just shoot straight. . that is gun control. -- j

I agree completely. Our right to self defense isn’t a product of the second amendment. It exists because we exist. The second amendment only codifies that right into law.

I may be putting my foot in my mouth because I didn’t read the whole case that you cited in your article. It is really long and I don’t have the time, so I skimmed it then read the judgement. My take from the judgement is that this was an issue of contracts.

Respectfully, I stand by my stance on Citizens United. Limiting the free speech of a corporation is not the same thing as limiting the free speech of the shareholders. The shareholders, as natural people, already have the right of free speech, so giving their corporation the same right is tantamount to letting the shareholders double dip in the social and political arenas.

If corporations are legally considered persons, and these persons are under the control of other persons (the shareholders) then isn’t that the equivalent of slavery? Would it be acceptable for a real-life slave holder to have his slaves vote and then claim fair-play?

Corporations are not Natural Beings. They are legal fictions. As a result, their rights are not the same rights reserved to Natural Beings. Those rights are bestowed by Nature or God (depending on your belief system). The rights of corporations are bestowed by Man and can be as limited as Man chooses. To be correct, corporations have no rights. They only have privileges.

I am often astounded by the convolutions being brought to bear by those who would change or eliminate parts of the Constitution. No matter how clearly written, some wordsmith with an agenda will seize upon a word or phrase in order to point out why the item in hand should be changed or voided. Then, this leads to the opposition to the changer to be even more convoluted in the reply. (Present company excluded).I'll bet that even the 10 Commandments were probably originally written more simply, seeing that they were carved in stone (a laborious task at best).. They probably read -- Don't Kill, Don't Covet, etc. The way we know them today is most likely the work of those who thought the simplicity needed elaboration, and only made things more obscure. It finally came out when the guy who wrote Obamacare confessed that he deliberately wrote it in such an obscure way so that those reading it wouldn't be able to understand it. The Constitution is a really simple document and easily understood. The left hates it because instead of telling them what to do, it tells them what Not to do.

The meaning of words changes over time. When the 2nd amendment was written "well regulated" meant "well functioning." The militia is not the state national guard. It is able bodied men.

Old dino knows how you feel.

Except that a well regulated militia is NOT a standing army.

This treatise is “All over the map” in trying to justify removing the right to keep and bear arms.
One of the “popular” arguments he attempts is using the wrong definition of “regulated.”
The word, at that time and in the amendments writing was synonyms to “equipped.” As in “Regulars” being fully outfitted soldiers.

Most significant though is the failure of most people to process the exact meaning of the amendments wording.

The Amendment states a particular reason to not infringe on the addressed right.

The wording acknowledges that right as already existing.

You could repeal the Amendment and that would only result in the need for a militia no longer being a reason not to infringe!

This is not a legal opinion; it is a semantic observation.

As Francisco said "Some day my friend, you will learn that words have exact meanings!"

I disagree that the preamble was a mistake. Read in context of Federalist Paper 46 it makes perfect sense. The Antifederalists argued that a strong federal government would have a strong standing army that could be used to subjugate the populace. The nascent nation had just won it's independence from such an army. So, when read in context (with my comments in parentheses) it says: "A well regulated Militia (I.e. standing federal army), being necessary to the security of a free State,(needed to protect the U.S. from invaders) the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, (to defend themselves from said sranding army) shall not be infringed."
Federalist #46 is a good read for anybody wanting to understand the second amendment and should be required reading for anybody studying the constitution.

"gives them pause to *maybe* think.", nah, it'll never happen. They have an agenda and there is nothing that can get in the way of that, not even the facts or the truth. It's like the Ferguson demonstrators, they have an agenda and the facts will not change that, period. And Al Sharpton will never be recognized for what he really does by that same group. It's also like me, you want my guns, then come and try to take them. I'm old enough now it doesn't matter what I do anymore, or how I go out.

Comrade citizen, our elite class (for a better) thinker just wants to hold our little hand so we can go goo-goo toddle across the street without getting a gun rights boo-boo..

You always know someone is lying when they qualify the phrase with "related".

Excellent points Of course the real basis for all Rights is Natural Rights which starts with the fact that you own yourself and therefore you have a right to self defense. Rights cannot be limited to certain ways of defending yourself.

Excellent point about the NRA's position.

I disagree with you on Citizens United (CU). I know this is not a popular position, but CU was based on well established law going back to before the Constitution. The reason corporations have rights is that they are owned by people. In the early 1800s a state essentially tried to make the take over a private university and argued the university (corporation) did not have rights This amounted to theft of the University by the state.
If you care you might want to check out my article on point http://hallingblog.com/corporations-have...

To limit a corporation's right to free speech is the same thing as limiting the right of free speech of the shareholders

I think it is important to place it in the context of natural rights and the right to self defense. BTW self defense includes self defense against the government. This eliminates all the nonsense about hunting or why do you need that sort of gun.

those who want to take away our gun rights will stop at nothing to try and do that. when i think that at least 1/3 of the citizens of the usa have a gun or multitudes of guns legally and we don't see them attacking each other but on occasion we see one of us try to stop a crime tells me that we have very responsible gun owners, by the same token those who commit crimes are not responsible legal gun owners. however those who would like to see our guns confiscated are blind deaf and dumb. there is no debate here, the 2nd amendment is as good as it gets and we need not add anything to it!

And they will continue do to o as it fits his/her own needs/wants. Bottom line is that they want us as their subjects.

What would be the point of a military that does not have guns? Only a liberal could think that wording makes any sense.

The guy does not understand how rights work in the constitution, which is based on Natural Rights. A right can never be conditioned on something else. The right to bear arms follows directly from the right to self defense, which follows directly from the fact that you own yourself.

Excellent point about preambles and the law. I agree that the founders botch the 2nd Amendment. I read an interesting article about the history of the 2nd amendment and the final wording. According to the article they were trying to combine two concepts, one about self defense and the right to own guns and another, which I don't remember exactly, about militias.

It's obvious that said Supreme Court Injustice doesn't get it. All the anti-firearm hyperbole in his argument shows that clearly.

He wants to make sure only the king and his government has firearms. Period. Not serfs like we the people or those who fought against King George's troops. People like Misjustice Stevens need to be retired from the bench.

Not a surprising statistical lie, coming from the Washington Compost: "Each year, more than 30,000 people die in the United States in firearm-related incidents." They "forgot" to mention that most of those deaths are actually police killing criminals, a number that is higher in areas of severe Second Amendment restrictions.

The preamble is actually an absolute phrase. When you use an absolute, you postulate whatever it asserts. You accept it as given. As indisputable fact.

The problem is, people are twisting that phrase beyond recognition.

"I think the author just doesn't get it." He gets it x.

He knows that the founding fathers were just a decade and a half away from having overthrown a tyranny.
He knows that the Bill of Rights were added to prevent the government from becoming a tyrannical state.
He knows that by chipping away at the 2nd Amendment, he and his kind move a step closer to again suppressing Americans under the dead weight of another tyranny.
He knows full well what he is doing.

Just because someone is in a position of power doesn't mean they have a clue. Many of our elected officials have little knowledge on the decisions they make. They vote without reading the bill or studying the subject. I stand by my comment that he doesn't have a clue.

Shall Not be Infringed. There is nothng else that need be said and certainly not listened to., It's really that simple.