It Is Our Living Constitution That Gave Us Our Right to a Bushmaster Rifle


The Second Amendment is ludicrously worded, but I concede it was probably inconceivable to the founders that the government could prevent people from owning personal weapons.

I say, "who cares?" but the better argument against "originalist" thinking on this specific point would be: "the framers could never have imagined the potential firepower currently readily available to citizens." That's the same basic argument originalists use to say "the founders could never have imagined legalized sodomy, or abortion rights, therefore the Constitution doesn't recognize them without a specific Amendment."

In sum: the better counter is "Originalism is both stupid, impossible to concretely assess, and by-the-way useless," but as another great American once said, "if you're going to play the game, boy, you better play it right."
Rights by their very nature are inalienable. .

The Second Amendment states that for the SECURITY of a free state, that the RIGHT of the PEOPLE to shall NOT be INFRINGED.

Regulated in this context means to be put in good order by the People…
Amendment II
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.
Gee, thanks for settling everything with that.
No one ever talks about the third amendment anymore.
Re: #4, that's because the military gets all the money it could ever want, so it has no need to quarter soldiers in citizens' homes.
@guspasho – that was never the intent of the 3rd, it was more of an Imminent Domain abuse, which is still carried out all over the world by occupying armies: take over civilian’s homes, kick out the civilians, tear holes in the wall, turn the place into a barracks. Then the army thrashes the home.

@Eli Sanders – Your definition is flat wrong: horribly and obviously incorrect. Did you even re-read the amendment before posting this article, as it explicitly states “right of the people.”

Anyways, if you want a judicial treatment of how we arrived at the place we have in regards to gun rights, the so-called “re-interpretation”, you could actually read the most recent Circuit Court Opinion: "Moore v. Madigan" (2012)

Just look it up before you start writing more on this topic. At least, then, you’ll have an informed perspective, as it equally weighs both sides of the debate and Judge Posner discuss the details of court decisions.

The “Militia” is clearly defined by the US Constitution, and has always been defined by States and the Federal Government. The definition of “militia” is altered, as originally it meant White-Land owners only back when it was written in 1792. In fact, today, Militia (as defined by the US Constitution 10:311) includes all able-bodied males 17-45 years of age (sorry, ladies). The term “militia” became popularized in 1634, but the concept dates back to the Greeks, and the definition has always varied, but it usually encompasses the entire military aged population, and the term is always specifically used to distinguish between a state-backed Standing Army and an army composed of volunteers.

FYI, The Oregon Constitution also gives the “Right to bear arms” under Section 27. Here, in Oregon, a clear and unambiguous “The people shall have the right to bear arms for the defence [sic] of themselves”

This, to me, is just sad propagandistic journalism, akin to saying that firearms cause HIV. I am absolutely in favor of discussing the role of firearms in our society, but it becomes impossible when simple inaccuracies are propagated.
Rights are for We The People to defend, not for government to grant.