User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 6/28/2016 12:02:05 PM EDT
[#1]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
"The right of the people",NOT,the right of the State.  Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Can anyone chime in here and say whether or not Hillary would be able to implement an Assault Weapons Ban if she was elected? And what will that mean for us? Do we get to keep what we have? Can we still buy replacement barrels and parts? Can you still buy uppers? What things might they sneak in there? If she got elected what does that mean for the Senate and House and Supreme Court and all the people who the legislation would have to go through? Now that they're saying gun control has to do with terrorism, does that mean she could take executive action? How can/does our 2nd Amendment, our constitutional right to keep and bear arms protect us? I'm not sure that it does. The purpose of the 2nd Amendment was -- as noted in the Amendment itself -- to provide for the security of the state. The Founding Fathers did not want a large, standing army, and therefore placed primary responsibility for national defense on state militias, whose members were required, by law, to acquire their own individual weapons. In marked contrast, today we have a large, standing army, and the state militias were long ago disbanded and superseded by the National Guard, in which individuals weapons are provided to the members, not by them. Therefore, the original rationale for the 2nd Amendment is no longer relevant, and I'm rather surprised it hasn't yet been ruled null and void. "The right of the people",NOT,the right of the State. But only because "the people" -- or, more precisely, free, able-bodied, white male citizens -- were required by law to be militia members and provide security for the State. The individual right "to keep and bear" is inextricably connected with, and integral to, the perceived necessity of state militias. They are not separate issues, despite the desire of most gun people to ignore the "well regulated militia" part. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/28/2016 12:02:41 PM EDT
[#2]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I'm pretty sure that the second digit is the index finger. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: 15er And his user name is "Middle Finger." Go figure. I'm pretty sure that the second digit is the index finger. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/28/2016 12:03:20 PM EDT
[#3]
Look for her fingers to be crossed behind her back when taking oath of office, that gives her power to do anything she wants
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/28/2016 12:05:30 PM EDT
[#4]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I'm not sure that it does. The purpose of the 2nd Amendment was -- as noted in the Amendment itself -- to provide for the security of the state. The Founding Fathers did not want a large, standing army, and therefore placed primary responsibility for national defense on state militias, whose members were required, by law, to acquire their own individual weapons. In marked contrast, today we have a large, standing army, and the state militias were long ago disbanded and superseded by the National Guard, in which individuals weapons are provided to the members, not by them. Therefore, the original rationale for the 2nd Amendment is no longer relevant, and I'm rather surprised it hasn't yet been ruled null and void. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Can anyone chime in here and say whether or not Hillary would be able to implement an Assault Weapons Ban if she was elected? And what will that mean for us? Do we get to keep what we have? Can we still buy replacement barrels and parts? Can you still buy uppers? What things might they sneak in there? If she got elected what does that mean for the Senate and House and Supreme Court and all the people who the legislation would have to go through? Now that they're saying gun control has to do with terrorism, does that mean she could take executive action? How can/does our 2nd Amendment, our constitutional right to keep and bear arms protect us? I'm not sure that it does. The purpose of the 2nd Amendment was -- as noted in the Amendment itself -- to provide for the security of the state. The Founding Fathers did not want a large, standing army, and therefore placed primary responsibility for national defense on state militias, whose members were required, by law, to acquire their own individual weapons. In marked contrast, today we have a large, standing army, and the state militias were long ago disbanded and superseded by the National Guard, in which individuals weapons are provided to the members, not by them. Therefore, the original rationale for the 2nd Amendment is no longer relevant, and I'm rather surprised it hasn't yet been ruled null and void. You have bought and swallowed the lefts interpretation hook, line, and sinker, and have spent zero time or effort researching, studying, or understanding the Amendment as it was written, the debates surrounding it, or the intentions of the founders. You should be ashamed of yourself.
"As civil rulers, not having their duty to the people before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as the military forces which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the article in their right to keep and bear their private arms." (Tench Coxe in ‘Remarks on the First Part of the Amendments to the Federal Constitution' under the Pseudonym ‘A Pennsylvanian' in the Philadelphia Federal Gazette, June 18, 1789 at 2 col. 1) "Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man gainst his own bosom. Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American.... [T]he unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people." (Tench Coxe, The Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788.) |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/28/2016 12:08:46 PM EDT
[#5]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I'm not sure that it does. The purpose of the 2nd Amendment was -- as noted in the Amendment itself -- to provide for the security of the state. The Founding Fathers did not want a large, standing army, and therefore placed primary responsibility for national defense on state militias, whose members were required, by law, to acquire their own individual weapons. In marked contrast, today we have a large, standing army, and the state militias were long ago disbanded and superseded by the National Guard, in which individuals weapons are provided to the members, not by them. Therefore, the original rationale for the 2nd Amendment is no longer relevant, and I'm rather surprised it hasn't yet been ruled null and void. UM, not just no, but this is so stupid no doesn't cut it. We just fought a war against a tyrannical government when the second was written. It wasn't written to replace an army, it was written to make sure we never had to face a tyrannical government again. you should be banned. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/28/2016 12:15:26 PM EDT
[#6]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
What do you mean "you people"??? You are spot on. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
You people need to quit worrying about what that cunt or any politician is going to do and make peace with what you're going to do, whatever that may be. <sigh> What do you mean "you people"??? You are spot on. lol, I knew that was coming. "You people" as in those that start these ridiculous threads re OMGWFTBBQ are we going to do if.... |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/28/2016 12:17:01 PM EDT
[#7]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Your opinion is fundamentally flawed in that you attribute the statement about the militia as some kind of limiting factor to the right of the People. It isn't, at least according to the framer's intent and English. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Can anyone chime in here and say whether or not Hillary would be able to implement an Assault Weapons Ban if she was elected? And what will that mean for us? Do we get to keep what we have? Can we still buy replacement barrels and parts? Can you still buy uppers? What things might they sneak in there? If she got elected what does that mean for the Senate and House and Supreme Court and all the people who the legislation would have to go through? Now that they're saying gun control has to do with terrorism, does that mean she could take executive action? How can/does our 2nd Amendment, our constitutional right to keep and bear arms protect us? I'm not sure that it does. The purpose of the 2nd Amendment was -- as noted in the Amendment itself -- to provide for the security of the state. The Founding Fathers did not want a large, standing army, and therefore placed primary responsibility for national defense on state militias, whose members were required, by law, to acquire their own individual weapons. In marked contrast, today we have a large, standing army, and the state militias were long ago disbanded and superseded by the National Guard, in which individuals weapons are provided to the members, not by them. Therefore, the original rationale for the 2nd Amendment is no longer relevant, and I'm rather surprised it hasn't yet been ruled null and void. Your opinion is fundamentally flawed in that you attribute the statement about the militia as some kind of limiting factor to the right of the People. It isn't, at least according to the framer's intent and English. Not sure how you reached that conclusion, since the framers' intent is clearly stated in the 2nd Amendment. The right to keep and bear arms was not limited to those people in the militia... The framers were addressing the "rights" of free, white, adult males, and it was that segment of the population who were required to serve in the militia. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/28/2016 12:17:34 PM EDT
[#8]
Quote HistoryQuoted: But only because "the people" -- or, more precisely, free, able-bodied, white male citizens -- were required by law to be militia members and provide security for the State. The individual right "to keep and bear" is inextricably connected with, and integral to, the perceived necessity of state militias. They are not separate issues, despite the desire of most gun people to ignore the "well regulated militia" part. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Can anyone chime in here and say whether or not Hillary would be able to implement an Assault Weapons Ban if she was elected? And what will that mean for us? Do we get to keep what we have? Can we still buy replacement barrels and parts? Can you still buy uppers? What things might they sneak in there? If she got elected what does that mean for the Senate and House and Supreme Court and all the people who the legislation would have to go through? Now that they're saying gun control has to do with terrorism, does that mean she could take executive action? How can/does our 2nd Amendment, our constitutional right to keep and bear arms protect us? I'm not sure that it does. The purpose of the 2nd Amendment was -- as noted in the Amendment itself -- to provide for the security of the state. The Founding Fathers did not want a large, standing army, and therefore placed primary responsibility for national defense on state militias, whose members were required, by law, to acquire their own individual weapons. In marked contrast, today we have a large, standing army, and the state militias were long ago disbanded and superseded by the National Guard, in which individuals weapons are provided to the members, not by them. Therefore, the original rationale for the 2nd Amendment is no longer relevant, and I'm rather surprised it hasn't yet been ruled null and void. "The right of the people",NOT,the right of the State. But only because "the people" -- or, more precisely, free, able-bodied, white male citizens -- were required by law to be militia members and provide security for the State. The individual right "to keep and bear" is inextricably connected with, and integral to, the perceived necessity of state militias. They are not separate issues, despite the desire of most gun people to ignore the "well regulated militia" part. "A free people ought not only to be armed, but disciplined..." - George Washington, First Annual Address, to both House of Congress, January 8, 1790 "No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." - Thomas Jefferson, Virginia Constitution, Draft 1, 1776 "I prefer dangerous freedom over peaceful slavery." - Thomas Jefferson, letter to James Madison, January 30, 1787 "What country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance. Let them take arms." - Thomas Jefferson, letter to James Madison, December 20, 1787 "The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes.... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man." - Thomas Jefferson, Commonplace Book (quoting 18th century criminologist Cesare Beccaria), 1774-1776 "A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercises, I advise the gun. While this gives moderate exercise to the body, it gives boldness, enterprise and independence to the mind. Games played with the ball, and others of that nature, are too violent for the body and stamp no character on the mind. Let your gun therefore be your constant companion of your walks." - Thomas Jefferson, letter to Peter Carr, August 19, 1785 "The Constitution of most of our states (and of the United States) assert that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed." - Thomas Jefferson, letter to to John Cartwright, 5 June 1824 "On every occasion [of Constitutional interpretation] let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying [to force] what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, [instead let us] conform to the probable one in which it was passed." - Thomas Jefferson, letter to William Johnson, 12 June 1823 Yeah, clearly they only intended the right to be for the militia. The militia was there so that folks understood this was for MILITARY arms, those the Left would call' weapons of war." The founders could not conceive of anyone taking away guns for personal defense and hunting. And there were free blacks at the time, not all were "white," which you seem to fixate on. I do not see the term "white" in the amendment at all. Go here and read: http://www.madisonbrigade.com/library_bor.htm |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/28/2016 12:19:45 PM EDT
[#9]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
But only because "the people" -- or, more precisely, free, able-bodied, white male citizens -- were required by law to be militia members and provide security for the State. The individual right "to keep and bear" is inextricably connected with, and integral to, the perceived necessity of state militias. They are not separate issues, despite the desire of most gun people to ignore the "well regulated militia" part. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Can anyone chime in here and say whether or not Hillary would be able to implement an Assault Weapons Ban if she was elected? And what will that mean for us? Do we get to keep what we have? Can we still buy replacement barrels and parts? Can you still buy uppers? What things might they sneak in there? If she got elected what does that mean for the Senate and House and Supreme Court and all the people who the legislation would have to go through? Now that they're saying gun control has to do with terrorism, does that mean she could take executive action? How can/does our 2nd Amendment, our constitutional right to keep and bear arms protect us? I'm not sure that it does. The purpose of the 2nd Amendment was -- as noted in the Amendment itself -- to provide for the security of the state. The Founding Fathers did not want a large, standing army, and therefore placed primary responsibility for national defense on state militias, whose members were required, by law, to acquire their own individual weapons. In marked contrast, today we have a large, standing army, and the state militias were long ago disbanded and superseded by the National Guard, in which individuals weapons are provided to the members, not by them. Therefore, the original rationale for the 2nd Amendment is no longer relevant, and I'm rather surprised it hasn't yet been ruled null and void. "The right of the people",NOT,the right of the State. But only because "the people" -- or, more precisely, free, able-bodied, white male citizens -- were required by law to be militia members and provide security for the State. The individual right "to keep and bear" is inextricably connected with, and integral to, the perceived necessity of state militias. They are not separate issues, despite the desire of most gun people to ignore the "well regulated militia" part. Again, not a limit to, it is in support of. It's not just me saying that, it's both the framers of the amendment and the English language. A "well regulated militia" in the time of the framing of the amendment was "all able-bodied men outfitted with fully functional implements of war necessary to defend home, city, state or country" (hate to break it to you, but "militias" weren't and are not now only for National Defense). Anti-gunners with a penchant for statism tend to forget "well-regulated" had absolutely nothing to do with "restricted by various laws". Even if the first part of the 2nd were meant as a limit to, and not support of, the second part, it still wouldn't mean that the state can ban whatever they want whenever they want in order to "well-regulate" the right of the people to keep and bear arms. They specifically say that right "shall not be infringed" right in the second half of the thing. You would have us believe that the "A National Guard, well restricted by various laws, rules and regulations, being necessary to a free state, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" makes any sense what-so-ever? So a restricted and regulated right shall not be infringed? Seems a bit contradictory to me, but you can believe what Diane and Chuck want you to, I'll stay over here in Freedomland with facts and grammatical rules to back me up. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/28/2016 12:21:08 PM EDT
[#10]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
lol, I knew that was coming. "You people" as in those that start these ridiculous threads re OMGWFTBBQ are we going to do if.... Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
You people need to quit worrying about what that cunt or any politician is going to do and make peace with what you're going to do, whatever that may be. <sigh> What do you mean "you people"??? You are spot on. lol, I knew that was coming. "You people" as in those that start these ridiculous threads re OMGWFTBBQ are we going to do if.... Tropic Thunder forever altered that phrase. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/28/2016 12:21:48 PM EDT
[#11]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I actually have not seen a ban / panic thread in a week or so..... is everything sold out yet? Nah, waiting for 4th sales. Best panic is on sale. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/28/2016 12:30:19 PM EDT
[#12]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
UM, not just no, but this is so stupid no doesn't cut it. We just fought a war against a tyrannical government when the second was written. It wasn't written to replace an army, it was written to make sure we never had to face a tyrannical government again. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
I'm not sure that it does. The purpose of the 2nd Amendment was -- as noted in the Amendment itself -- to provide for the security of the state. The Founding Fathers did not want a large, standing army, and therefore placed primary responsibility for national defense on state militias, whose members were required, by law, to acquire their own individual weapons. In marked contrast, today we have a large, standing army, and the state militias were long ago disbanded and superseded by the National Guard, in which individuals weapons are provided to the members, not by them. Therefore, the original rationale for the 2nd Amendment is no longer relevant, and I'm rather surprised it hasn't yet been ruled null and void. UM, not just no, but this is so stupid no doesn't cut it. We just fought a war against a tyrannical government when the second was written. It wasn't written to replace an army, it was written to make sure we never had to face a tyrannical government again. Then how do you explain that security of the State is given as the reason, and not the ability to oppose/overthrow the government? |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/28/2016 12:37:41 PM EDT
[#13]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Then how do you explain that security of the State is given as the reason, and not the ability to oppose/overthrow the government? Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: I'm not sure that it does. The purpose of the 2nd Amendment was -- as noted in the Amendment itself -- to provide for the security of the state. The Founding Fathers did not want a large, standing army, and therefore placed primary responsibility for national defense on state militias, whose members were required, by law, to acquire their own individual weapons. In marked contrast, today we have a large, standing army, and the state militias were long ago disbanded and superseded by the National Guard, in which individuals weapons are provided to the members, not by them. Therefore, the original rationale for the 2nd Amendment is no longer relevant, and I'm rather surprised it hasn't yet been ruled null and void. UM, not just no, but this is so stupid no doesn't cut it. We just fought a war against a tyrannical government when the second was written. It wasn't written to replace an army, it was written to make sure we never had to face a tyrannical government again. Then how do you explain that security of the State is given as the reason, and not the ability to oppose/overthrow the government? Don Kates gave me a clearer appreciation of what the controversy between the Federalists and the Anti-federalists was all about: "While none of the Founders liked the idea of a standing army, the majority (Madison strongly included) believed it to be necessary. The Second Amendment was not a response to Anti-federalist criticism of the standing army. All the Bill of Rights were added because of a desire to disarm what Madison and the other Federalists saw as an Anti-federalist quibble, a strawman objection to the lack of a Bill of Rights which was intended to excite the fear and passion of the masses but which statesmen on both sides viewed as negligible. Madison just wrote up a set of principles ? of truisms ? in which everybody believed, and the Congress duly passed it as the Bill of Rights. Two of these truisms that got cobbled into one article were: that there is a natural right to be armed; and that militias are a good thing, a much better thing than a standing army, however necessary it may be." Again, go here and read: http://www.madisonbrigade.com/library_bor.htm |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/28/2016 12:42:04 PM EDT
[#14]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Then how do you explain that security of the State is given as the reason, and not the ability to oppose/overthrow the government? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I'm not sure that it does. The purpose of the 2nd Amendment was -- as noted in the Amendment itself -- to provide for the security of the state. The Founding Fathers did not want a large, standing army, and therefore placed primary responsibility for national defense on state militias, whose members were required, by law, to acquire their own individual weapons. In marked contrast, today we have a large, standing army, and the state militias were long ago disbanded and superseded by the National Guard, in which individuals weapons are provided to the members, not by them. Therefore, the original rationale for the 2nd Amendment is no longer relevant, and I'm rather surprised it hasn't yet been ruled null and void. UM, not just no, but this is so stupid no doesn't cut it. We just fought a war against a tyrannical government when the second was written. It wasn't written to replace an army, it was written to make sure we never had to face a tyrannical government again. Then how do you explain that security of the State is given as the reason, and not the ability to oppose/overthrow the government? OK, looks like we need another exercise in English, here's another grammatically identical sentence... A well-made taco, being necessary to creation of fine Mexican cuisine, the right of the People to keep and use cumin shall not be infringed. A. Cumin can only be used in well-made tacos (well-made of course means ground filet mignon, everybody knows that) B. Cumin can only be used by those endeavoring to create fine Mexican cuisine (only by those in expensive Mexican restaurants, no home use is allowed) C. The mention of tacos and Mexican cuisine supports the right of the People to keep and use cumin for whatever purpose they have |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/28/2016 12:42:58 PM EDT
[#15]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
You people need to quit worrying about what that cunt or any politician is going to do and make peace with what you're going to do, whatever that may be. <sigh> Preach it. Figure out what your response is then plan and prep accordingly. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/28/2016 12:44:58 PM EDT
[#16]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The militia was there so that folks understood this was for MILITARY arms, those the Left would call' weapons of war." The founders could not conceive of anyone taking away guns for personal defense and hunting. And there were free blacks at the time, not all were "white," which you seem to fixate on. I do not see the term "white" in the amendment at all. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Can anyone chime in here and say whether or not Hillary would be able to implement an Assault Weapons Ban if she was elected? And what will that mean for us? Do we get to keep what we have? Can we still buy replacement barrels and parts? Can you still buy uppers? What things might they sneak in there? If she got elected what does that mean for the Senate and House and Supreme Court and all the people who the legislation would have to go through? Now that they're saying gun control has to do with terrorism, does that mean she could take executive action? How can/does our 2nd Amendment, our constitutional right to keep and bear arms protect us? I'm not sure that it does. The purpose of the 2nd Amendment was -- as noted in the Amendment itself -- to provide for the security of the state. The Founding Fathers did not want a large, standing army, and therefore placed primary responsibility for national defense on state militias, whose members were required, by law, to acquire their own individual weapons. In marked contrast, today we have a large, standing army, and the state militias were long ago disbanded and superseded by the National Guard, in which individuals weapons are provided to the members, not by them. Therefore, the original rationale for the 2nd Amendment is no longer relevant, and I'm rather surprised it hasn't yet been ruled null and void. "The right of the people",NOT,the right of the State. But only because "the people" -- or, more precisely, free, able-bodied, white male citizens -- were required by law to be militia members and provide security for the State. The individual right "to keep and bear" is inextricably connected with, and integral to, the perceived necessity of state militias. They are not separate issues, despite the desire of most gun people to ignore the "well regulated militia" part. The militia was there so that folks understood this was for MILITARY arms, those the Left would call' weapons of war." The founders could not conceive of anyone taking away guns for personal defense and hunting. And there were free blacks at the time, not all were "white," which you seem to fixate on. I do not see the term "white" in the amendment at all. From the Militia Act of 1792: "Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, That each and every free able-bodied white male citizen of the respective States, resident therein, who is or shall be of age of eighteen years, and under the age of forty-five years (except as is herein after excepted) shall severally and respectively be enrolled in the militia..." http://www.constitution.org/mil/mil_act_1792.htm |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/28/2016 12:52:09 PM EDT
[#17]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Again, not a limit to, it is in support of. It's not just me saying that, it's both the framers of the amendment and the English language. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I'm not sure that it does. The purpose of the 2nd Amendment was -- as noted in the Amendment itself -- to provide for the security of the state. The Founding Fathers did not want a large, standing army, and therefore placed primary responsibility for national defense on state militias, whose members were required, by law, to acquire their own individual weapons. In marked contrast, today we have a large, standing army, and the state militias were long ago disbanded and superseded by the National Guard, in which individuals weapons are provided to the members, not by them. Therefore, the original rationale for the 2nd Amendment is no longer relevant, and I'm rather surprised it hasn't yet been ruled null and void. "The right of the people",NOT,the right of the State. But only because "the people" -- or, more precisely, free, able-bodied, white male citizens -- were required by law to be militia members and provide security for the State. The individual right "to keep and bear" is inextricably connected with, and integral to, the perceived necessity of state militias. They are not separate issues, despite the desire of most gun people to ignore the "well regulated militia" part. Again, not a limit to, it is in support of. It's not just me saying that, it's both the framers of the amendment and the English language. Regardless of whatever else the framers said elsewhere, that's certainly not what the English language in the 2nd Amendment says. Anti-gunners with a penchant for statism tend to forget "well-regulated" had absolutely nothing to do with "restricted by various laws". Even if the first part of the 2nd were meant as a limit to, and not support of, the second part, it still wouldn't mean that the state can ban whatever they want whenever they want in order to "well-regulate" the right of the people to keep and bear arms. They specifically say that right "shall not be infringed" right in the second half of the thing.
You would have us believe that the "A National Guard, well restricted by various laws, rules and regulations, being necessary to a free state, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" makes any sense what-so-ever? You're being blatantly dishonest. I said nothing that even remotely resembles that. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/28/2016 12:54:43 PM EDT
[#18]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Then how do you explain that security of the State is given as the reason, and not the ability to oppose/overthrow the government? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I'm not sure that it does. The purpose of the 2nd Amendment was -- as noted in the Amendment itself -- to provide for the security of the state. The Founding Fathers did not want a large, standing army, and therefore placed primary responsibility for national defense on state militias, whose members were required, by law, to acquire their own individual weapons. In marked contrast, today we have a large, standing army, and the state militias were long ago disbanded and superseded by the National Guard, in which individuals weapons are provided to the members, not by them. Therefore, the original rationale for the 2nd Amendment is no longer relevant, and I'm rather surprised it hasn't yet been ruled null and void. UM, not just no, but this is so stupid no doesn't cut it. We just fought a war against a tyrannical government when the second was written. It wasn't written to replace an army, it was written to make sure we never had to face a tyrannical government again. Then how do you explain that security of the State is given as the reason, and not the ability to oppose/overthrow the government? security of a FREE state.........
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/28/2016 12:57:36 PM EDT
[#19]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
OK, looks like we need another exercise in English, here's another grammatically identical sentence... A well-made taco, being necessary to creation of fine Mexican cuisine, the right of the People to keep and use cumin shall not be infringed. A. Cumin can only be used in well-made tacos (well-made of course means ground filet mignon, everybody knows that) B. Cumin can only be used by those endeavoring to create fine Mexican cuisine (only by those in expensive Mexican restaurants, no home use is allowed) C. The mention of tacos and Mexican cuisine supports the right of the People to keep and use cumin for whatever purpose they have Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I'm not sure that it does. The purpose of the 2nd Amendment was -- as noted in the Amendment itself -- to provide for the security of the state. The Founding Fathers did not want a large, standing army, and therefore placed primary responsibility for national defense on state militias, whose members were required, by law, to acquire their own individual weapons. In marked contrast, today we have a large, standing army, and the state militias were long ago disbanded and superseded by the National Guard, in which individuals weapons are provided to the members, not by them. Therefore, the original rationale for the 2nd Amendment is no longer relevant, and I'm rather surprised it hasn't yet been ruled null and void. UM, not just no, but this is so stupid no doesn't cut it. We just fought a war against a tyrannical government when the second was written. It wasn't written to replace an army, it was written to make sure we never had to face a tyrannical government again. Then how do you explain that security of the State is given as the reason, and not the ability to oppose/overthrow the government? OK, looks like we need another exercise in English, here's another grammatically identical sentence... A well-made taco, being necessary to creation of fine Mexican cuisine, the right of the People to keep and use cumin shall not be infringed. A. Cumin can only be used in well-made tacos (well-made of course means ground filet mignon, everybody knows that) B. Cumin can only be used by those endeavoring to create fine Mexican cuisine (only by those in expensive Mexican restaurants, no home use is allowed) C. The mention of tacos and Mexican cuisine supports the right of the People to keep and use cumin for whatever purpose they have That does not answer the question. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/28/2016 12:57:55 PM EDT
[#20]
Quoted:
Can anyone chime in here and say whether or not Hillary would be able to implement an Assault Weapons Ban if she was elected? And what will that mean for us? Do we get to keep what we have? Can we still buy replacement barrels and parts? Can you still buy uppers? What things might they sneak in there? If she got elected what does that mean for the Senate and House and Supreme Court and all the people who the legislation would have to go through? Now that they're saying gun control has to do with terrorism, does that mean she could take executive action? How can/does our 2nd Amendment, our constitutional right to keep and bear arms protect us? Please help put my mind at ease. Thanks. __________________________________ Libertas illis volentibus ad pugnam. I would suspect, that we cannot do that for you. A.W.D. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/28/2016 1:00:17 PM EDT
[#21]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
security of a FREE state......... Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I'm not sure that it does. The purpose of the 2nd Amendment was -- as noted in the Amendment itself -- to provide for the security of the state. The Founding Fathers did not want a large, standing army, and therefore placed primary responsibility for national defense on state militias, whose members were required, by law, to acquire their own individual weapons. In marked contrast, today we have a large, standing army, and the state militias were long ago disbanded and superseded by the National Guard, in which individuals weapons are provided to the members, not by them. Therefore, the original rationale for the 2nd Amendment is no longer relevant, and I'm rather surprised it hasn't yet been ruled null and void. UM, not just no, but this is so stupid no doesn't cut it. We just fought a war against a tyrannical government when the second was written. It wasn't written to replace an army, it was written to make sure we never had to face a tyrannical government again. Then how do you explain that security of the State is given as the reason, and not the ability to oppose/overthrow the government? security of a FREE state......... Another non-answer. Everybody keeps evading the question. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/28/2016 1:03:36 PM EDT
[#22]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Another non-answer. Everybody keeps evading the question. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I'm not sure that it does. The purpose of the 2nd Amendment was -- as noted in the Amendment itself -- to provide for the security of the state. The Founding Fathers did not want a large, standing army, and therefore placed primary responsibility for national defense on state militias, whose members were required, by law, to acquire their own individual weapons. In marked contrast, today we have a large, standing army, and the state militias were long ago disbanded and superseded by the National Guard, in which individuals weapons are provided to the members, not by them. Therefore, the original rationale for the 2nd Amendment is no longer relevant, and I'm rather surprised it hasn't yet been ruled null and void. UM, not just no, but this is so stupid no doesn't cut it. We just fought a war against a tyrannical government when the second was written. It wasn't written to replace an army, it was written to make sure we never had to face a tyrannical government again. Then how do you explain that security of the State is given as the reason, and not the ability to oppose/overthrow the government? security of a FREE state......... Another non-answer. Everybody keeps evading the question. So why did they add "the right of the people"? Does the 1st only grant freedom of speech to the State? |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/28/2016 1:06:07 PM EDT
[#23]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I'm not sure that it does. The purpose of the 2nd Amendment was -- as noted in the Amendment itself -- to provide for the security of the state. The Founding Fathers did not want a large, standing army, and therefore placed primary responsibility for national defense on state militias, whose members were required, by law, to acquire their own individual weapons. In marked contrast, today we have a large, standing army, and the state militias were long ago disbanded and superseded by the National Guard, in which individuals weapons are provided to the members, not by them. Therefore, the original rationale for the 2nd Amendment is no longer relevant, and I'm rather surprised it hasn't yet been ruled null and void. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Can anyone chime in here and say whether or not Hillary would be able to implement an Assault Weapons Ban if she was elected? And what will that mean for us? Do we get to keep what we have? Can we still buy replacement barrels and parts? Can you still buy uppers? What things might they sneak in there? If she got elected what does that mean for the Senate and House and Supreme Court and all the people who the legislation would have to go through? Now that they're saying gun control has to do with terrorism, does that mean she could take executive action? How can/does our 2nd Amendment, our constitutional right to keep and bear arms protect us? I'm not sure that it does. The purpose of the 2nd Amendment was -- as noted in the Amendment itself -- to provide for the security of the state. The Founding Fathers did not want a large, standing army, and therefore placed primary responsibility for national defense on state militias, whose members were required, by law, to acquire their own individual weapons. In marked contrast, today we have a large, standing army, and the state militias were long ago disbanded and superseded by the National Guard, in which individuals weapons are provided to the members, not by them. Therefore, the original rationale for the 2nd Amendment is no longer relevant, and I'm rather surprised it hasn't yet been ruled null and void. You can stay in CA and interpret your rights however you want, stay away from mine. Your rational is frankly, stupid and short sighted. The purpose of the power of arms remaining with the population was to provide security against tyranny. You obviously don't, or choose to not understand that. How does a standing army help in that regard? I will keep and bear, you can kindly go fuck yourself. Edit As in the State remaining free. You think the only thing that could allow tyranny is an outside force? I agree that you should be banned to DU or whatever shithole you usually peruse. Take your Hilldog bumper stickers and your Prius on the way out. Eat a giant bag of dicks. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/28/2016 1:23:13 PM EDT
[#24]
Quoted:
Can anyone chime in here and say whether or not Hillary would be able to implement an Assault Weapons Ban if she was elected? And what will that mean for us? Do we get to keep what we have? Can we still buy replacement barrels and parts? Can you still buy uppers? What things might they sneak in there? If she got elected what does that mean for the Senate and House and Supreme Court and all the people who the legislation would have to go through? Now that they're saying gun control has to do with terrorism, does that mean she could take executive action? How can/does our 2nd Amendment, our constitutional right to keep and bear arms protect us? Please help put my mind at ease. Thanks. __________________________________ Libertas illis volentibus ad pugnam. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/28/2016 1:25:20 PM EDT
[#25]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I'm not sure that it does. The purpose of the 2nd Amendment was -- as noted in the Amendment itself -- to provide for the security of the state. The Founding Fathers did not want a large, standing army, and therefore placed primary responsibility for national defense on state militias, whose members were required, by law, to acquire their own individual weapons. In marked contrast, today we have a large, standing army, and the state militias were long ago disbanded and superseded by the National Guard, in which individuals weapons are provided to the members, not by them. Therefore, the original rationale for the 2nd Amendment is no longer relevant, and I'm rather surprised it hasn't yet been ruled null and void. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Can anyone chime in here and say whether or not Hillary would be able to implement an Assault Weapons Ban if she was elected? And what will that mean for us? Do we get to keep what we have? Can we still buy replacement barrels and parts? Can you still buy uppers? What things might they sneak in there? If she got elected what does that mean for the Senate and House and Supreme Court and all the people who the legislation would have to go through? Now that they're saying gun control has to do with terrorism, does that mean she could take executive action? How can/does our 2nd Amendment, our constitutional right to keep and bear arms protect us? I'm not sure that it does. The purpose of the 2nd Amendment was -- as noted in the Amendment itself -- to provide for the security of the state. The Founding Fathers did not want a large, standing army, and therefore placed primary responsibility for national defense on state militias, whose members were required, by law, to acquire their own individual weapons. In marked contrast, today we have a large, standing army, and the state militias were long ago disbanded and superseded by the National Guard, in which individuals weapons are provided to the members, not by them. Therefore, the original rationale for the 2nd Amendment is no longer relevant, and I'm rather surprised it hasn't yet been ruled null and void.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/28/2016 1:27:12 PM EDT
[#26]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
That does not answer the question. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I'm not sure that it does. The purpose of the 2nd Amendment was -- as noted in the Amendment itself -- to provide for the security of the state. The Founding Fathers did not want a large, standing army, and therefore placed primary responsibility for national defense on state militias, whose members were required, by law, to acquire their own individual weapons. In marked contrast, today we have a large, standing army, and the state militias were long ago disbanded and superseded by the National Guard, in which individuals weapons are provided to the members, not by them. Therefore, the original rationale for the 2nd Amendment is no longer relevant, and I'm rather surprised it hasn't yet been ruled null and void. UM, not just no, but this is so stupid no doesn't cut it. We just fought a war against a tyrannical government when the second was written. It wasn't written to replace an army, it was written to make sure we never had to face a tyrannical government again. Then how do you explain that security of the State is given as the reason, and not the ability to oppose/overthrow the government? OK, looks like we need another exercise in English, here's another grammatically identical sentence... A well-made taco, being necessary to creation of fine Mexican cuisine, the right of the People to keep and use cumin shall not be infringed. A. Cumin can only be used in well-made tacos (well-made of course means ground filet mignon, everybody knows that) B. Cumin can only be used by those endeavoring to create fine Mexican cuisine (only by those in expensive Mexican restaurants, no home use is allowed) C. The mention of tacos and Mexican cuisine supports the right of the People to keep and use cumin for whatever purpose they have That does not answer the question. But it DOES answer the question in showing the absurdity of the idea that "the security of a free state" is being singled out as "the reason" for the right of the People to exist. Just as it's absurd to believe that the right of the People to keep and use cumin in my grammatically identical, faux right is somehow ONLY available for use in fine Mexican cuisine. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/28/2016 1:28:50 PM EDT
[#27]
Executive order.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/28/2016 1:40:33 PM EDT
[#28]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Another non-answer. Everybody keeps evading the question. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I'm not sure that it does. The purpose of the 2nd Amendment was -- as noted in the Amendment itself -- to provide for the security of the state. The Founding Fathers did not want a large, standing army, and therefore placed primary responsibility for national defense on state militias, whose members were required, by law, to acquire their own individual weapons. In marked contrast, today we have a large, standing army, and the state militias were long ago disbanded and superseded by the National Guard, in which individuals weapons are provided to the members, not by them. Therefore, the original rationale for the 2nd Amendment is no longer relevant, and I'm rather surprised it hasn't yet been ruled null and void. UM, not just no, but this is so stupid no doesn't cut it. We just fought a war against a tyrannical government when the second was written. It wasn't written to replace an army, it was written to make sure we never had to face a tyrannical government again. Then how do you explain that security of the State is given as the reason, and not the ability to oppose/overthrow the government? security of a FREE state......... Another non-answer. Everybody keeps evading the question. The security of a free state is just one of the the important reasons that the people have the RKBA. It wasn't the reason for the RKBA. The people having the RKBA was necessary to have a well regulated militia and thus be able to maintain the security of a free state. The RKBA is not dependent on a well regulated militia, but rather the other way around. I don't have all the cites off the top of my head but the Federalist Papers goes into good detail regarding the RKBA. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/28/2016 1:47:09 PM EDT
[#29]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
You can stay in CA and interpret your rights however you want, stay away from mine. Your rational is frankly, stupid and short sighted. The purpose of the power of arms remaining with the population was to provide security against tyranny. You obviously don't, or choose to not understand that. How does a standing army help in that regard? I will keep and bear, you can kindly go fuck yourself. Edit As in the State remaining free. You think the only thing that could allow tyranny is an outside force? I agree that you should be banned to DU or whatever shithole you usually peruse. Take your Hilldog bumper stickers and your Prius on the way out. Eat a giant bag of dicks. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Can anyone chime in here and say whether or not Hillary would be able to implement an Assault Weapons Ban if she was elected? And what will that mean for us? Do we get to keep what we have? Can we still buy replacement barrels and parts? Can you still buy uppers? What things might they sneak in there? If she got elected what does that mean for the Senate and House and Supreme Court and all the people who the legislation would have to go through? Now that they're saying gun control has to do with terrorism, does that mean she could take executive action? How can/does our 2nd Amendment, our constitutional right to keep and bear arms protect us? I'm not sure that it does. The purpose of the 2nd Amendment was -- as noted in the Amendment itself -- to provide for the security of the state. The Founding Fathers did not want a large, standing army, and therefore placed primary responsibility for national defense on state militias, whose members were required, by law, to acquire their own individual weapons. In marked contrast, today we have a large, standing army, and the state militias were long ago disbanded and superseded by the National Guard, in which individuals weapons are provided to the members, not by them. Therefore, the original rationale for the 2nd Amendment is no longer relevant, and I'm rather surprised it hasn't yet been ruled null and void. You can stay in CA and interpret your rights however you want, stay away from mine. Your rational is frankly, stupid and short sighted. The purpose of the power of arms remaining with the population was to provide security against tyranny. You obviously don't, or choose to not understand that. How does a standing army help in that regard? I will keep and bear, you can kindly go fuck yourself. Edit As in the State remaining free. You think the only thing that could allow tyranny is an outside force? I agree that you should be banned to DU or whatever shithole you usually peruse. Take your Hilldog bumper stickers and your Prius on the way out. Eat a giant bag of dicks. Two things: First, how do you think the part in blue above could be accomplished, other than via an amendment to the Constitution? Second, the purpose of the 2nd amendment (and the other amendments included in the "Bill of Rights") was to address the fact that some of the states would not ratify the Constitution unless the document explicitly underscored things that the fed could NOT do to the states and/or the people. I don't think the Framers would agree that the fact we've allowed a large, standing national army to exist and national guards at the state level to exist changes the intent or the rationale for the 2A in any way. Their context was fighting to free themselves from their version of Washington DC. They would say we're long overdue for a revolt against Wash DC, and probably several state governments as well, and the 2A is necessary to that end. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/28/2016 1:52:17 PM EDT
[#30]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Then how do you explain that security of the State is given as the reason, and not the ability to oppose/overthrow the government? The majority opinion in Heller explains the prefatory clause and the operative clause of the Second Amendment. "Held: 1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2–53. (a) The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms. Pp. 2–22. (b) The prefatory clause comports with the Court’s interpretation of the operative clause. The “militia” comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. The Antifederal-ists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to disable this citizens’ militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, so that the ideal of a citizens’ militia would be preserved. Pp. 22–28." (page 1-2) "The Second Amendment is naturally divided into two parts: its prefatory clause and its operative clause. The former does not limit the latter grammatically, but rather announces a purpose." (page 6) "2. Prefatory Clause. The prefatory clause reads: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State . . . .”" (page 25) "b. “Security of a Free State.” The phrase “security of a free state” meant “security of a free polity,” not security of each of the several States as the dissent below argued, see 478 F. 3d, at 405, and n. 10. Joseph Story wrote in his treatise on the Constitution that “the word ‘state’ is used in various senses [and in] its most enlarged sense, it means the people composing a particular nation or community.” 1 Story §208; see also 3 id., §1890 (in reference to the Second Amendment’s prefatory clause: “The militia is the natural defence of a free country”). It is true that the term “State” elsewhere in the Constitution refers to individual States, but the phrase “security of a free state” and close variations seem to have been terms of art in 18th-century political discourse, meaning a “ ‘free coun-try’ ” or free polity. See Volokh, “Necessary to the Security of a Free State,” 83 Notre Dame L. Rev. 1, 5 (2007); see, e.g., 4 Blackstone 151 (1769); Brutus Essay III (Nov. 15, 1787), in The Essential Antifederalist 251, 253 (W. Allen & G. Lloyd eds., 2d ed. 2002). Moreover, the other instances of “state” in the Constitution are typically accompanied by modifiers making clear that the reference is to the several States—“each state,” “several states,” “any state,” “that state,” “particular states,” “one state,” “no state.” And the presence of the term “foreign state” in Article I and Article III shows that the word “state” did not have a single meaning in the Constitution. There are many reasons why the militia was thought to be “necessary to the security of a free state.” See 3 Story §1890. First, of course, it is useful in repelling invasions and suppressing insurrections. Second, it renders large standing armies unnecessary—an argument that Alexander Hamilton made in favor of federal control over the militia. The Federalist No. 29, pp. 226, 227 (B. Wright ed. 1961) (A. Hamilton). Third, when the able-bodied men of a nation are trained in arms and organized, they are better able to resist tyranny." (page 27-28) "It is therefore entirely sensible that the Second Amendment’s prefatory clause announces the purpose for which the right was codified: to prevent elimination of the militia. The prefatory clause does not suggest that preserving the militia was the only reason Americans valued the ancient right; most undoubtedly thought it even more important for self-defense and hunting. But the threat that the new Federal Government would destroy the citizens’ militia by taking away their arms was the reason that right—unlike some other English rights—was codified in a written Constitution." (page 29) Note: Bold/red emphasis mine. Note: Post edited and expanded. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/28/2016 2:42:35 PM EDT
[#31]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
So why did they add "the right of the people"? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
We just fought a war against a tyrannical government when the second was written. It wasn't written to replace an army, it was written to make sure we never had to face a tyrannical government again. Then how do you explain that security of the State is given as the reason, and not the ability to oppose/overthrow the government? security of a FREE state......... Another non-answer. Everybody keeps evading the question. So why did they add "the right of the people"? I already covered that. The people were required to serve in the state militias, and were also required to provide their own individual weapons. In placing such a requirement on the people, it would necessarily also require that the government not pass laws which would prevent the people from acquiring and possessing the mandated arms. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/28/2016 2:47:14 PM EDT
[#32]
In on 2! ummm yeah
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/28/2016 2:55:35 PM EDT
[#33]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
That's the plan. She doesn't need Congress or EO's. She just has to wait for the right case to be in front of the SCOTUS that she stacked and it's all over. This is GOING to happen. The 2ND will be ruled a collective right and we are fucked. So, whatcha gonna do about it? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Insert the clip of chelsea stating that we are 1 supreme court justice from unwinding the 2nd amendment by applying it only to the national guard. That's the plan. She doesn't need Congress or EO's. She just has to wait for the right case to be in front of the SCOTUS that she stacked and it's all over. This is GOING to happen. The 2ND will be ruled a collective right and we are fucked. So, whatcha gonna do about it? I honestly think that most people are at the point where they just don't give a damn what 9 people wearing funny looking robes have to say. YMMV |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/28/2016 3:36:19 PM EDT
[#34]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The purpose of the power of arms remaining with the population was to provide security against tyranny. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Can anyone chime in here and say whether or not Hillary would be able to implement an Assault Weapons Ban if she was elected? And what will that mean for us? Do we get to keep what we have? Can we still buy replacement barrels and parts? Can you still buy uppers? What things might they sneak in there? If she got elected what does that mean for the Senate and House and Supreme Court and all the people who the legislation would have to go through? Now that they're saying gun control has to do with terrorism, does that mean she could take executive action? How can/does our 2nd Amendment, our constitutional right to keep and bear arms protect us? I'm not sure that it does. The purpose of the 2nd Amendment was -- as noted in the Amendment itself -- to provide for the security of the state. The Founding Fathers did not want a large, standing army, and therefore placed primary responsibility for national defense on state militias, whose members were required, by law, to acquire their own individual weapons. In marked contrast, today we have a large, standing army, and the state militias were long ago disbanded and superseded by the National Guard, in which individuals weapons are provided to the members, not by them. Therefore, the original rationale for the 2nd Amendment is no longer relevant, and I'm rather surprised it hasn't yet been ruled null and void. The purpose of the power of arms remaining with the population was to provide security against tyranny. If that's true, then why doesn't the 2nd Amendment say that, instead of saying it's to provide security of the State? I agree that you should be banned to DU or whatever shithole you usually peruse. Heh, heh. GD is the shithole I usually peruse...
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/28/2016 3:53:04 PM EDT
[#35]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The security of a free state is just one of the the important reasons that the people have the RKBA. It wasn't the reason for the RKBA. The people having the RKBA was necessary to have a well regulated militia and thus be able to maintain the security of a free state. The RKBA is not dependent on a well regulated militia, but rather the other way around. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
We just fought a war against a tyrannical government when the second was written. It wasn't written to replace an army, it was written to make sure we never had to face a tyrannical government again. Then how do you explain that security of the State is given as the reason, and not the ability to oppose/overthrow the government? security of a FREE state......... Another non-answer. Everybody keeps evading the question. The security of a free state is just one of the the important reasons that the people have the RKBA. It wasn't the reason for the RKBA. The people having the RKBA was necessary to have a well regulated militia and thus be able to maintain the security of a free state. The RKBA is not dependent on a well regulated militia, but rather the other way around. That is just not true. It's not only possible to have a well regulated militia in which all weapons are provided by the government, it was actually done by some militias before and during the Revolutionary War. Even in the modern counterpart to the old state militias -- the National Guard -- members are armed by the government. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/28/2016 3:56:29 PM EDT
[#36]
Quote HistoryQuoted: From the Militia Act of 1792: "Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, That each and every free able-bodied white male citizen of the respective States, resident therein, who is or shall be of age of eighteen years, and under the age of forty-five years (except as is herein after excepted) shall severally and respectively be enrolled in the militia..." http://www.constitution.org/mil/mil_act_1792.htm Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: "The right of the people",NOT,the right of the State. But only because "the people" -- or, more precisely, free, able-bodied, white male citizens -- were required by law to be militia members and provide security for the State. The individual right "to keep and bear" is inextricably connected with, and integral to, the perceived necessity of state militias. They are not separate issues, despite the desire of most gun people to ignore the "well regulated militia" part. The militia was there so that folks understood this was for MILITARY arms, those the Left would call' weapons of war." The founders could not conceive of anyone taking away guns for personal defense and hunting. And there were free blacks at the time, not all were "white," which you seem to fixate on. I do not see the term "white" in the amendment at all. From the Militia Act of 1792: "Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, That each and every free able-bodied white male citizen of the respective States, resident therein, who is or shall be of age of eighteen years, and under the age of forty-five years (except as is herein after excepted) shall severally and respectively be enrolled in the militia..." http://www.constitution.org/mil/mil_act_1792.htm |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/28/2016 3:57:10 PM EDT
[#37]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
If that's true, then why doesn't the 2nd Amendment say that, instead of saying it's to provide security of the State? Much that is a mystery to you was perfectly obvious to well educated men of that time, so obvious that it did not have to be stated. The difference is that they were not victims of a "liberal" education indoctrination imposed in government run "schools". |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/28/2016 4:01:22 PM EDT
[#38]
StanC,
What do you believe the moral and rational basis of rights is (or do you believe there is a moral and rational basis)? |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/28/2016 4:02:22 PM EDT
[#39]
if she gets a 5-4 SCOTUS majority she can literally do whatever the fuck she wants through the oligarchy of federal agencies. They will call them rules and regulations rather than laws but you go to prison of the grave if you dont obey them regardless.
Her only boundary with a Supreme court majority is worrying about pushing people to the point of using their rifle for what the second amendment intended. So no she wont kick in our door and take our AR 15 but you can expect a mountain of "regulations' that will roundabout accomplish the task of stopping further manufacture and sale of semi automatic or making it too expensive to afford ammo. setting up registration and impossible standards for licsensing, making you own gun insurance that doesn't exist and penalties for getting caught without it. maybe not all and maybe i missed some but these things will get started by a clinton administration with no court to stop them. The goal is attrition of culture. You cant take away guns but you can decimate the future gun culture which puts a huge dent in the culture of independence. Creates better sheep in the next generation that are unarmed and can be bossed around easily. Thats the goal. That is why it is more important than ever to shut the fuck up with criticism about any republican even if you hate their guts. Support trump or whoever the fuck wins the nomination 100 percent. Our future absolutely depends on it. The mechanisms of tyranny are in place. All they need is the judicial branch under control. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/28/2016 4:03:40 PM EDT
[#40]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Two things: First, how do you think the part in blue above could be accomplished, other than via an amendment to the Constitution? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Can anyone chime in here and say whether or not Hillary would be able to implement an Assault Weapons Ban if she was elected? And what will that mean for us? Do we get to keep what we have? Can we still buy replacement barrels and parts? Can you still buy uppers? What things might they sneak in there? If she got elected what does that mean for the Senate and House and Supreme Court and all the people who the legislation would have to go through? Now that they're saying gun control has to do with terrorism, does that mean she could take executive action? How can/does our 2nd Amendment, our constitutional right to keep and bear arms protect us? I'm not sure that it does. The purpose of the 2nd Amendment was -- as noted in the Amendment itself -- to provide for the security of the state. The Founding Fathers did not want a large, standing army, and therefore placed primary responsibility for national defense on state militias, whose members were required, by law, to acquire their own individual weapons. In marked contrast, today we have a large, standing army, and the state militias were long ago disbanded and superseded by the National Guard, in which individuals weapons are provided to the members, not by them. Therefore, the original rationale for the 2nd Amendment is no longer relevant, and I'm rather surprised it hasn't yet been ruled null and void. You can stay in CA and interpret your rights however you want, stay away from mine. Your rational is frankly, stupid and short sighted. The purpose of the power of arms remaining with the population was to provide security against tyranny. You obviously don't, or choose to not understand that. How does a standing army help in that regard? I will keep and bear, you can kindly go fuck yourself. As in the State remaining free. You think the only thing that could allow tyranny is an outside force? I agree that you should be banned to DU or whatever shithole you usually peruse. Take your Hilldog bumper stickers and your Prius on the way out. Eat a giant bag of dicks. Two things: First, how do you think the part in blue above could be accomplished, other than via an amendment to the Constitution? I dunno. Perhaps a SCOTUS ruling could effectively gut the 2nd? Second, the purpose of the 2nd amendment (and the other amendments included in the "Bill of Rights") was to address the fact that some of the states would not ratify the Constitution unless the document explicitly underscored things that the fed could NOT do to the states and/or the people. I don't think the Framers would agree that the fact we've allowed a large, standing national army to exist and national guards at the state level to exist changes the intent or the rationale for the 2A in any way. Their context was fighting to free themselves from their version of Washington DC. They would say we're long overdue for a revolt against Wash DC, and probably several state governments as well, and the 2A is necessary to that end. Then why didn't they specify that as the purpose of the "right to keep and bear," instead of saying exactly the opposite? |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/28/2016 4:12:57 PM EDT
[#41]
I guess someone needs to take him aside and teach him about the Constitution being the law of the land. Then, clue him in about how "reasonable and common sense gun laws" (according to Hillary) do not equate with ".......the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."
Also, he'll need to understand how the Govt can pass a law and if it doesn't go to the USSC then the police will enforce it. Aloha, Mark |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/28/2016 4:15:58 PM EDT
[#42]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
YOU say it is all about the militia, I, the Founding Fathers, and the folks who wrote the amendment disagree with you. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
"The right of the people",NOT,the right of the State. But only because "the people" -- or, more precisely, free, able-bodied, white male citizens -- were required by law to be militia members and provide security for the State. The individual right "to keep and bear" is inextricably connected with, and integral to, the perceived necessity of state militias. They are not separate issues, despite the desire of most gun people to ignore the "well regulated militia" part. The militia was there so that folks understood this was for MILITARY arms, those the Left would call' weapons of war." The founders could not conceive of anyone taking away guns for personal defense and hunting. And there were free blacks at the time, not all were "white," which you seem to fixate on. I do not see the term "white" in the amendment at all. From the Militia Act of 1792: "Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, That each and every free able-bodied white male citizen of the respective States, resident therein, who is or shall be of age of eighteen years, and under the age of forty-five years (except as is herein after excepted) shall severally and respectively be enrolled in the militia..." http://www.constitution.org/mil/mil_act_1792.htm YOU say it is all about the militia, I, the Founding Fathers, and the folks who wrote the amendment disagree with you. You are entitled to your opinion. As to the folks who wrote the 2nd Amendment, I can only point out (again) that it was they who linked the "right to keep and bear" with the need for state militias. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/28/2016 4:17:12 PM EDT
[#43]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Much that is a mystery to you was perfectly obvious to well educated men of that time, so obvious that it did not have to be stated. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
If that's true, then why doesn't the 2nd Amendment say that, instead of saying it's to provide security of the State? Much that is a mystery to you was perfectly obvious to well educated men of that time, so obvious that it did not have to be stated. Non-answer. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/28/2016 4:21:10 PM EDT
[#44]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Executive order. That's what Hitlery will use. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/28/2016 4:24:47 PM EDT
[#45]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
That's the plan. She doesn't need Congress or EO's. She just has to wait for the right case to be in front of the SCOTUS that she stacked and it's all over. This is GOING to happen. The 2ND will be ruled a collective right and we are fucked. So, whatcha gonna do about it? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Insert the clip of chelsea stating that we are 1 supreme court justice from unwinding the 2nd amendment by applying it only to the national guard. That's the plan. She doesn't need Congress or EO's. She just has to wait for the right case to be in front of the SCOTUS that she stacked and it's all over. This is GOING to happen. The 2ND will be ruled a collective right and we are fucked. So, whatcha gonna do about it? We convened over the dinner table and declared our house a Sanctuary House. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/28/2016 4:33:14 PM EDT
[#46]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
StanC, What do you believe the moral and rational basis of rights is (or do you believe there is a moral and rational basis)? Well, I do not operate on belief, so your question has a faulty premise. However, I'll try to answer what I think you're asking. a. As best I can tell, morality (like sin) is invented nonsense. Morality does not exist in nature. b. As best I can tell, rights are also an invented concept. Rights do not exist in nature. Both morality and rights serve some useful purpose in society, mainly helping to maintain order and protecting the weak from the strong. Does that answer your question adequately? |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/28/2016 4:36:37 PM EDT
[#47]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Well, I do not operate on belief, so your question has a faulty premise. However, I'll try to answer what I think you're asking. a. As best I can tell, morality (like sin) is invented nonsense. Morality does not exist in nature. b. As best I can tell, rights are also an invented concept. Rights do not exist in nature. Both morality and rights serve some useful purpose in society, mainly helping to maintain order and protecting the weak from the strong. Does that answer your question adequately? I do believe I concur. A.W.D. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/28/2016 4:39:51 PM EDT
[#48]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Then how do you explain that security of the State is given as the reason, and not the ability to oppose/overthrow the government? a free state of being. It says a free state. doesn't say the security of the state, doesn't say the security of the country. "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 doesn't say "A well regulated Militia is required and only members of a militia may bear arms" the PEOPLE is exactly that, the PEOPLE. All people. Even applies to non-citizens. The Bill of rights lists the things no government can do or infringe upon. These are inalienable, or natural rights. By definition, these exists outside of government. For this reason alone, your viewpoint is incorrect. You're either being deliberately obtuse, or you are trolling. There is a third option, but naming it would probably be a CoC. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/28/2016 4:41:12 PM EDT
[#49]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Non-answer. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
If that's true, then why doesn't the 2nd Amendment say that, instead of saying it's to provide security of the State? Much that is a mystery to you was perfectly obvious to well educated men of that time, so obvious that it did not have to be stated. Non-answer. The fact that you don't understand the answer doesn't mean it isn't one. It simply means you don't understand. 
The key to your inability to understand it is actually contained within the complete answer, if you could only find it. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/28/2016 4:43:22 PM EDT
[#50]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
You are entitled to your opinion. As to the folks who wrote the 2nd Amendment, I can only point out (again) that it was they who linked the "right to keep and bear" with the need for state militias. Stanc, seriously go read the Heller opinion linked above if you haven't done so. It lays out, in the majority opinion, with much historical background on why the 2nd was written the way it was. You keep asking why it was written the way it was, the Heller opinion attempts to answer those and other questions. They even broke it down to explain what each element or word means. |
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
