Ted Nugent on Gun Control

I don't see how anybody could say they made the wrong ruling. It says it right in the second amendment that the people have the right to bear arms.

What militia do you belong to? And are you well regulated?

I guess "activist judges" applies only to liberal judges.

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.

It also states "the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed". Its does not say that to bear the arms you have to be a well regulated militla. With those comas it breaks it up into different groups.

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.

It also states "the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed". Its does not say that to bear the arms you have to be a well regulated militla. With those comas it breaks it up into different groups.

What does "arms" mean? We seem to have arbitrarily determined that "arms" includes handguns, but not M-60s, RPGs, tanks, etc.

Well, the 14th amendment incorporated the Bill of Rights to apply to the states. So technically, the idea of "states rights" were thrown out the window around April of 1861.

Personally, I prefer the idea that the states cannot abridge our freedom of religion, freedom to assemble, our freedom to own firearms, and so on. Call me crazy, but the Bill of Rights, and forcing government at the local, state, and federal levels to abide by them seems like a pretty good idea.

It's not so simple. In interpreting the scope of the various rights conferred by the Bill of Rights (not in determining whether they even apply), the more conservative justices tend to defer to the states' "reasonable" restrictions on individual liberties. For example, conservative justices tend to grant the states broad rights to impose restrictions on free speech (e.g., porn). They just subscribe to a different philosophy when passing judgment on 2nd Amendment issues.

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.

It also states "the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed". Its does not say that to bear the arms you have to be a well regulated militla. With those comas it breaks it up into different groups.
Agreed, and in light of the Framers breaking away from an oppresive government, I think their intent was pretty clear to allow "the people" to keep arms so that a new government would be less likely to become oppressive. The mention to the "well regulated militia" was intented to provide the Constitutional right to each state to have its own "militia" so that the federal government would be less likely to use military force against a state. The Framers intent was for the federal government to have FAR less control than it does today.

State rights go out the window when it comes to guns but when it comes to abortion and gay marriage it's god's gift to mankind.

Scalia and crew strike again.
Not allowing gun ownership is a direct violation of the 2nd Ammendment. There is no constitutional right to abortion or gay marriage. The "right" to an abortion was based on the Roe v. Wade ruling, not by any legislation.

I'm all for states rights concerning abortion and gay marriage. If the people of a state want abortion and gay marriage, and it is voted into law, so be it. If other states don't want abortion and don't want gay marriage, so be it. The Supreme Court should only get involved in disputes between states, it should not be "legislating morality" one way or the other.

What militia do you belong to? And are you well regulated?

I guess "activist judges" applies only to liberal judges.

The "militia" was made up of citizens. "Well regulated" meant that you knew how to use a gun.

It's all about how you choose to interpret the constitution.

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.

Segments of the above quote are not disjoint otherwise they would be on separate line. The founders are people who mastered the English language after all. The "right of the people to keep and bear arms" portion would be nonsensical without the first part of the sentence.

The constitution doesn't say following which is how you interpret the constitution:

1. The Congress shall permit the formation of a militia.
3. The Congress shall be responsible for regulating militias.
2. The Congress shall not infringe on the peoples right to bear arms.


As for gay marriage and abortion, that's easy one. Clearly the 1'st and the 14th amendments are interpreted by you differently. When you think of it abortion and gay marriage are after all morally reprehensible because of religious dogma.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.


All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

It's all about interpretation though that dip shit Scallia will have you believe his interpretation is better than everyone else's.

What does "arms" mean? We seem to have arbitrarily determined that "arms" includes handguns, but not M-60s, RPGs, tanks, etc.

Yes, "arms" means guns. There is little doubt to any rational person that the founders intended for the citizens to have the ability to kill government soldiers if the government got out of hand.

Knowing what they had to go through in order to separate from the king, is anyone here actually trying to argue that Madison wanted to make it more difficult for the citizens to overthrow another tyrant should they ever gain control of the government?