I believe that there are anti-gun politicians who view the 2nd ammendment as referring only to 'organized militias' and this interpretation has been considered by the court. Believing this about the second ammendment doesn't make one anti-Constitution because a lot of the Constitution depends on the interpretation by the courts.
I would say that the second Ammendment needs more clarification in order to remove this dubious claim (that it refers only to an organized militia).
YOu're wrong, but we will agree to disagree perhaps? The Second Amendment makes very clear that the rights of
THE PEOPLE to keep and bear arms
SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED. People like Bloomberg try to twist the meaning of our Constitution to promote their own agenda, which is to disarm the American people and empower themselves. Back when the Constitution was written, all citizens of the country were part of the Militia and every person was expected to have a personal firearm for the defense of the country as well as his individual area of residence. Owning a gun was considered an INHERIT right in our Constitution and the forming of private militias was considered another right. The Constitution would not make such a fallacious and grammatically incorrect statement as to say Soldiers have the right to own guns, as it is obvious that every military's soldier will have weapons. Rather, the 2nd Amendment was formulated to guarantee the rights of every citizen in the country to own a gun and to be part of local and national militas.
Here is a very well written article that discusses this misnomer which is the main fuel behind the anti-gunner liberals argument, including the most notorious anti-gun politician of them all, Michael Bloomberg:
The first argument often rolled out by gun-grabbers is a textual one, claiming that the Second Amendment itself does not actually defend individuals’ right to keep and bear arms, but instead outlines the need for an armed “well-regulated militia.” According to progressives, that first phrase, “A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state,” indicates that the purpose of the amendment is to establish and maintain a regulated militia whose purpose is to defend the state. On this interpretation, the amendment does not secure the right of individuals to own weapons as individuals.
There are two counters to this claim that demonstrate how facile it is. The first argument is simply a matter of understanding the grammar of the actual text of the Second Amendment. The first phrase is under proper grammar, and as confirmed by the United States Supreme Court, a prefatory phrase. It is not a statement of the sole purpose of the right to bear arms, but is an understanding of the way in which the right would be used in the defense of the state.
Furthermore, the Second Amendment clearly identifies right as belonging to ‘the people.’ This identification clearly shows to whom the right belongs. As Justice Antonin Scalia pointed out in one of his most magisterial opinions:
“Nowhere else in the Constitution does a ‘right’ attributed to ‘the people’ refer to anything other than an individual right. What is more, in all six other provisions of the Constitution that mention ‘the people,’ the term unambiguously refers to all members of the political community, not an unspecified subset.”
If “the people” does not apply to all the individual citizens in the Second Amendment, then how can it do so for those other amendments? The meaning of the statement is clear, despite the obfuscation of progressive activism.
The second counterargument relies on examining what the framers of the Constitution meant. Fortunately for supporters of the right to bear arms, and unfortunately for their opponents, many of the people who wrote the Constitution wrote elsewhere about its meaning. Many of the founding fathers, including Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, and Samuel Adams all explicitly endorsed individual ownership of arms. Even Alexander Hamilton, the founder most in favor of big government and a standing army, agreed that private citizens ought to be allowed to own weapons.
The founders were also clear about what they meant by the term militia. Richard Henry Lee stated it very succinctly: “A militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves… and include all men capable of bearing arms.” In other words, whether a militia is the proper holder of arms or the people is irrelevant, because they are one and the same. Only by ignoring the words of the founders, as well as the basic rules of grammar, can the progressives’ case even appear valid. Once the ignorance is cured, their case crumbles to dust.
Some progressives pursue a different tack and argue that the defensive purpose of the Second Amendment has been made obsolete by the establishment of a standing army. There are two critical problems with this line of reasoning. First, the presence of standing army was exactly the sort of overbearing and asymmetric power the Second Amendment was meant to be a defense against, so it seems to make little sense that the right would somehow be invalidated by this.
Second, Americans are now more than ever subject to the possibility of being “called up” to military service. Conscription was not even considered by the founders as a means of raising troops. Today most citizens are required to be registered in the Selective Service system. The pressures of over-mighty government and the possibility of being drafted serve as joint forces in favor of the maintenance of the Second Amendment rights as they are now understood.
Another bizarre argument wheeled out in recent years that has a similar line of reasoning is the claim that the right is moot with regard to overthrowing domestic tyrants or oppressors because the federal government is so asymmetrically powerful that any such resistance would be quickly dealt with. This argument is laughable for two reasons. First, it seems to suggest that the force discrepancy is so asymmetric that people ought to just give up the weapons they have. Yet that could only further diminish the capacity of citizens to defend themselves, both against criminals and a potentially aggressive government.
Second, the idea that asymmetries of power render a group militarily helpless is little better than a joke. The lessons of Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan ought to be enough to put to rest the idea that a smaller, less well-armed force cannot put up a lasting resistance to a mighty military.
In the end, it is important to realize that the Second Amendment is just as relevant today as it ever was. Human nature has hardly changed in 200 years, and the rights we possess are no less inalienable or self-evident. Anyone trying to erode our constitutionally-enshrined rights should be immediately held suspect. If we do not protect our own rights, who will?
http://blog.heartland.org/2014/06/the-militia-myth-understanding-the-language-of-the-2nd-amendment/And, from the Supreme Court ruling in the DC vs Heller case:
Justice Antonin Scalia, writing for the majority in Heller, stated:
Nowhere else in the Constitution does a “right” attributed to “the people” refer to anything other than an individual right. What is more, in all six other provisions of the Constitution that mention “the people,” the term unambiguously refers to all members of the political community, not an unspecified subset. This contrasts markedly with the phrase “the militia” in the prefatory clause. As we will describe below, the “militia” in colonial America consisted of a subset of “the people”— those who were male, able bodied, and within a certain age range. Reading the Second Amendment as protecting only the right to “keep and bear Arms” in an organized militia therefore fits poorly with the operative clause’s description of the holder of that right as “the people”.[157]
P.S.
I Never said JTF endorsed Bloomberg, but don't ever want to see JTF or any other Kahanist or Pro-Jewish group endorse this tyrant. We can respect that a JEw does something good for Jews, but we cannot overlook the wrong he does to others. Bloomberg's wrongs outdoes his wrights.
The Founding Fathers of the United States of America would turn in their graves to know that tyrants like Michael Bloomberg would be leaders of this country.. Yes, being the Mayor of the country's largest city and an outspoken critic as well as one of the fiercest anti-gun activists in the USA makes him very much a tyrant.
Poll
Topic: What do you think of Mike Bloomberg now? (Read 4677 times)