Should the 2nd Amendment "Right to Bear Arms" only apply to Caucasian males?
Of course not! But, of course, in practice it does, often, sadly. There is no doubt that black people are treated differently by law enforcement and the criminal justice system. John Crawford would be alive today, I have absolutely no doubt, if he were white. No call to 911 would have been made, no lies told by Ronald Ritchie or the police, nothing. Ohio is an open carry state, btw. Even if Crawford had a real gun, it would have been within his rights to have it. Further, the lies told by Mr. Ritchie to the 911 operator would not have gone unpunished to this day. Walmart 911 Caller Ronald Ritchie Says John Crawford ‘Kind of Deserved It’Some years ago, a black girl and a white girl "shoplifted" the same item from the same store (different days) and appeared before the same judge. They had as identical profiles as two different people could, same grades, not previous trouble with the law, and acted with the same amount of "contrition" at their court appearances. The white girl was released to the custody of her parents; the black girl got YDC. What the judge did not know was that the girls set the whole thing up as an experiment for a paper at school. When they told the judge, he was furious, but not with himself and his own bigotry, but because they "played" him. In Florida several years ago, a 14 year old black kid took a gun to school to "scare" his teacher. Instead, he accidentally shot and killed him. Video clearly shows he was shocked that the gun went off and fled in a panic. Stupid, dumb, unacceptable, but...he was tried as an adult and received a life sentence.The same year, two adorable little white kids 11 and 13, I believe, beat their father to death with baseball bats, doused his bed with gasoline, and burned the house down around him. They then calmly went to a "friends" house to stay. They got YDC till they turned 21. After that---free as birds.It was only after the disparities in the two cases/punishments caught national attention that the black kid's sentence was reduced to that of the white kids. I'm sorry, but anyone, who doesn't recognize the double standard is just plain ignorant or willfully obtuse.
Are people misinterpreting the Second Amendment? The whole bit about the “Well Regulated Militia” seems to be ignored.
As the first poster stated, “well regulated” didn't have the same meaning most gun control advocates use, back in the Eighteenth Century.“Well regulated”, in the sense of “tightly bound by rules”, is a *much* later meaning of the phrase. In the Founding period, “well regulated” meant only what it still means to a clockmaker or gunsmith - “functioning properly”. The phrase that corresponds to the modern “tightly bound by rules” definition would be “ well regimented “ ; in fact, that is the source of the military unit title of “regiment” - it means a unit here the soldiers are under a strict regimen of control.But there is more. If you parse the Second Amendment grammatically, the opening phrase is revealed as a subordinate clause, which means it doesn't limit the right recognized in the main clause. It is an explanatory clause that gives a reason for *why* this right is being explicitly recognized. Such explanatory clauses are rather common in laws, particularly in the Eighteenth Century. Heck, the base Constitution has just such an explanatory clause as it's opening.The Founding Fathers were quite clear in their public writings as to what they meant by the Second Amendment - much of these discussions are contained in the Federalist Papers, which were the public discussions of why the Constitution was a good thing and why it should be adopted, before it was adopted. The arguments of the Antifederalists that the Constitution concentrated too much power in federal hands, and that a woupd be tyrant could use those powers to oppress the people, were addressed - the Federalists initially thought that no explicit recognition of the *private* right of individuals to keep and bear personal arms sufficient to rebel was necessary, because they thought no rational person would deny the fundamental right existed… just as they felt about the rest of the rights eventually enshrined in the Bill of Rights. The Bill of Rights represents the Federalists saying, in effect, “You guys are paranoid, and we don't *need* to explicitly protect these rights, because they are so bloody obvious, but if it makes you feel better, we will send out a bunch of amendments to be ratified as soon as this Constitution goes into effect to salve your fears - happy now? Going to ratify the Constitution?”
How would YOU rewrite the Second Amendment?
Why is there so much drivel and shite written about the 2nd Amendment and the Constitution in general? The 18th Amendment (prohibition) was repealed in fairly short order, so to say Amendments are set in stone is pure crap. Also, only a total moron would say cars/ropes/knives etc kill people so they should be banned as well. Cars & ropes & knives are made for specific purposes that have nothing to do with killing. A gun, on the other hand, is made for one purpose only-to kill. Why do the gun small-***** never mention this crucial fact in their p1ss weak arguments?
How can the 2nd Amendment be worded to restrict gun ownership to actual members of a well-regulated militia like the National Guard?
One biggest problem is the meaning of militia. The National Guard isn't really to entire militia of any nation.MilitiaNOUNa military force that is raised from the civil population to supplement a regular army in an emergency.a military force that engages in rebel or terrorist activities, typically in opposition to a regular army.all able-bodied civilians eligible by law for military service.For most of the nations in Earth, that is all the adult citizens of those nations.The bill of rights is based on the conditions, history, and situation of December 15, 1791, not today. U.S. Civilians with personal owned weapons were fighting in official declared US wars for a very, very long time. Many of the state units of the Civil War was just a gathering of local citizens, trained for maybe a week (only trained mainly to march).ItMuch of the British Home Guard in early WW2, was British citizens with a arm band and personal weapons.You seem to enjoy weakening parts of the bill of rights,so what do you think of Terry v. Ohio?In 1968, the Supremes ruled in Terry v. Ohio that the police did not need "probable cause" to stop a person, it was sufficient that they have "reasonable suspicion."It was a weakening of the 4th amendment. Terry created the crimes of Walking While Black, Driving While Black, Going to Starbucks While Black, and Being Alive While Black.Maybe you should leave all the bills of rights at full power?
Do you think the 2nd amendment should be changed?
Yes, I agree it should be changed. Changed to allow people explosives and MORE harmful weapons. The second amendment was put in place so that in the event our government became oppressive, we could over throw it. "the second amendment is second only in importance to the constitution, they are the people's liberties' teeth" -- George washington Whenever I hear the question "do you really need a bazooka?".. I laugh and say "Yes, you don't think a .22 Long rifle is going to take down an M1 abrham, do you?" The answer to what we need as far as weapons go, is whatever it takes to defend against the government. --The patriot must always be ready to defend his country, from its government.