Suing Rep. Angel Cruz

[frankie385]

Ok I am for once fed up with all this gun control crap! I want to sue someone for trying to take away my Second Amendment right! Why does it always have to be that someone else have to attack us? We always have to react after the fact, after someone else has already taken the first punch. Why can't we be pre-active, and prevent any of this things? We should make it so difficult for any body to try to impose these rules and regulations, It should go beyond the "I will not vote for you" compaign! Yes I know the Second it's very clear in it language! Just venting some steam yall!
Franklin

[zackattack784]

Part of the problem is that the second amendment is NOT very clear in its language

[steamtownwelder]

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State,

Yes it is.

the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Seems pretty clear to me

[Scrumpyjack]

Part of the problem is that the second amendment is NOT very clear in its language

“ 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. ”


What, exactly do you find unclear?

[frankie385]

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State,

Yes it is.

the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Seems pretty clear to me

and yet the need arises for somebody to come up with some restrictions

[MichaelJ]

and yet the need arises for somebody to come up with some restrictions

People always find a reason to meddle in affairs that they should not. A citizen of the United States should have access to any arms the military uses, without restrictions. Considering the reason the amendment was written, it would be silly to think that it ment We the People were to bring a nerf bat to a gun fight.

[LittleRedToyota]

Part of the problem is that the second amendment is NOT very clear in its language

actually, it is extremely clear. there is absolutely nothing ambiguous about it.

most of the constitution is very clear.

our legal system likes to pretend that the 2nd amendment is ambiguous, that the "commerce clause" says things it does not, that the 9th and 10th amendments don't exist, etc. etc. because they need some way to get around what those things actually say in order to use the government in ways the constitution expressly prohibits.

don't believe the hype. read it yourself in an intellectually honest way.

the militia is the people (even to this day, federal law defines it as all males of fighting age plus some women)...and the 2nd says the right of the "people", and not the right of the "militia" anyway. it clearly protects and invidual right.

keep is obvious.

bear means "to carry". so it protects not only the right to own firearms, but the right to carry them.

arms (especially militia arms) means, at a minimum, any weapon carried by individual militiamen, or in today's world, individual soldiers.

"shall not be" is obvious and absolute.

infringed means "to encroach upon". it is an absolute, not a relative, word...there is no matter of degree in the definition. any degree of encroachment is, by definition, encroachment. any degree of infringement is infringement.

the 2nd contains no matter of degree at all--no standard of "reasonableness" as does the 4th. it does not say "shall not be unreasonably infringed." it does not say "shall not be completely denied". it doers not say "shall not be infringed except...".

it just says "shall not be infringed" (which, by definition, means to any degree. any infringement is infringment.)

federal gun control, other than that levied against an individual as part of a specific sentence handed down via due process, is clearly unconstitutional even if our legal system pretends it is not.

[frankie385]

Is there enough of us out there willing to do what ever it takes to protect our rights? Will we just settle on buying stocking up on AR-15 and ammo before the Obama administrations bans this weapons? I am very angry, appalled, and fed up of how easy this elected politicians are taking away our right a little bit at a time! Is it a matter of "guns killing people". some dumb kid killing people and all hell breaks loose.

[frankie385]

can one sue the goverment or any politician for trying to take away our rights?

[zackattack784]

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State,

Yes it is.

the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Seems pretty clear to me

It took until 2008 for the courts to rule that the 2nd amendment is an individual right as opposed to a collective right that applies only to state-regulated militias. If the 2nd amendment is so clear why it did take nearly 230 years to address this issue? You got to read the WHOLE amendment, not just focus on the parts that you want to be true.

Same with the first amendment, some people say, I have free speech, yet the moderators on this board can delete any message of mine for any reason they want and they aren't breaking any law. Most people forget the beginning: "Congress shall make no law..." Congress can't make a law infringing on my freedom of speech, yet any private company, newspaper, radio station, tv station, etc. can filter and prohibit free speech.

The unclear part about the second amendment, now that they addressed the individualism of the right, is how far does your right to keep and bear arms go? I can't yell fire in a crowded movie theater. Doesn't that violate my 1a right? Well, no. So I still stick with the position that the 2a is unclear. It says I can bear arms, but doesn't say how many, what types, where, etc., etc. See my point?