Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
PSA
Member Login

Site Notices
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Posted: 4/21/2016 12:51:55 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 4/21/2016 12:54:12 PM EDT by gym007]
I can't even keep track of how many liberals think the 2nd amendment only applies to a "regulated militia" as they interpret it

Would it have been better if instead of:

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.
View Quote

it was...

Being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
View Quote
Link Posted: 4/21/2016 12:53:32 PM EDT
Originally Posted By gym007:
I can't even keep track of how many liberals think the 2nd amendment only applies to a "regulated militia" as they say

Would it have been better if instead of:

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.
View Quote

it was

Being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
View Quote
View Quote


nope. The first half of the 2nd Amendment justifies the need for the rights it gives.
Link Posted: 4/21/2016 12:53:44 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 4/21/2016 12:55:36 PM EDT by mjohn3006]

Here is Virginia's state constitution wording. It still has the militia thing, but just adding the word "therefore" clears up so much.

That a well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defense of a free state, therefore, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed;
View Quote

Link Posted: 4/21/2016 12:54:03 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 4/21/2016 12:55:54 PM EDT by chase45]
Logically thinking the 2nd amendment is in the Bill Of Rights which is about specific personal guarantees and government limitations....

I have no idea how the fuck anyone could think it applies to governemnt militaries only.

When people point out the militia part and say thats for the military, I want to punch them in the face as they simply dont get it.

In short I wish the militia part was replaced by the people or something to make it blatently clear
Link Posted: 4/21/2016 12:54:11 PM EDT
No.  Because "the people" is easily corrupted to mean "the government allowed to be in place by the people."

Militia is strictly referring to a civilian body.

The problem is not the wording, but rather that most people are idiotic pussies who don't know shit and want to gov to protect them from mean people and icky guns.
Link Posted: 4/21/2016 12:54:15 PM EDT
No it is fine, just like a penis goes in men bathroom and a vagina goes in female bathroom...fuck all these Liberal cum guzzlers...argh!!!!!!!!!
Link Posted: 4/21/2016 12:54:57 PM EDT
The left would disregard and twist it no matter what the wording says.
Link Posted: 4/21/2016 12:57:09 PM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By BadBobTheAlbino:
nope. The first half of the 2nd Amendment justifies the need for the rights it gives.
View Quote


It needs no justification.  The First Amendment offers no justification for the rights it lists, why should the Second?
Link Posted: 4/21/2016 12:57:54 PM EDT
Good thing the SCOTUS already ruled on this and determined it is an individual right.  Of course, let's not let constitutional law get in our way of defining what the 2A means for political expediency.
Link Posted: 4/21/2016 12:59:11 PM EDT
IMO it would have been better if it said, "The right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

The rest of them didn't need a justification. The reasons were obvious. If only the right to keep and bear arms was treated the same way...
Link Posted: 4/21/2016 1:00:14 PM EDT
Also, the word "regulated" infers "to make regular" or be equipped with efficient arms.
Link Posted: 4/21/2016 1:00:57 PM EDT
No.  It was intended as an expansion of rights.  The English had been restricting military arms on the pretext that they could be used for poaching.  The first clause emphasizes that military weapons are covered by the RKBA.
Link Posted: 4/21/2016 1:04:45 PM EDT
It would have made things easier now, but would have sounded confusing to the (much smarter) people back then.

The problem is not that "militia" is included in the 2A, it's that we don't' know what a militia is now. Hint: the National Guard is NOT a militia.
Link Posted: 4/21/2016 1:05:42 PM EDT
Pennsylvania:  The right of the citizens to bear arms in defence of themselves and the State shall not be questioned.  Art. 1, § 21 (enacted 1790, art. IX, § 21).
     1776:  That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the state; and as standing armies in the time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; And that the military should be kept under strict subordination, to, and governed by, the civil power.  Declaration of Rights, cl. XIII.

[Self-defense right protected, Sayres v. Commonwealth, 88 Pa. 291 (1879).]


The words don't matter if the intention is to not abide by it.

Link Posted: 4/21/2016 1:08:32 PM EDT

Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By sigp226:


IMO it would have been better if it said, "The right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."



The rest of them didn't need a justification. The reasons were obvious. If only the right to keep and bear arms was treated the same way...
View Quote


Yep.



While a preamble may have looked great to the guys writing it because it looked nice and formal, they had no idea the mental gymnastics that a segment of subsequent generations would go through to twist the preamble around in the ways they have.



PA's Constitution embodies the KISS principle: The right of the citizens to bear arms in
defense of themselves and the State shall not be questioned.

 
Link Posted: 4/21/2016 1:14:50 PM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By chase45:
Logically thinking the 2nd amendment is in the Bill Of Rights which is about specific personal guarantees and government limitations....

I have no idea how the fuck anyone could think it applies to governemnt militaries only.

When people point out the militia part and say thats for the military, I want to punch them in the face as they simply dont get it.

In short I wish the militia part was replaced by the people or something to make it blatently clear
View Quote



I'm not really convinced that they REALLY believe that.  That usually comes up when they run out of other arguments.  Kind of a last straw thing.
Link Posted: 4/21/2016 1:17:27 PM EDT
The First part of the 2nd Amendment is only one reason but not the only reason to "Keep and Bear Arms".
Link Posted: 4/21/2016 1:19:45 PM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By jb31:



I'm not really convinced that they REALLY believe that.  That usually comes up when they run out of other arguments.  Kind of a last straw thing.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By jb31:
Originally Posted By chase45:
Logically thinking the 2nd amendment is in the Bill Of Rights which is about specific personal guarantees and government limitations....

I have no idea how the fuck anyone could think it applies to governemnt militaries only.

When people point out the militia part and say thats for the military, I want to punch them in the face as they simply dont get it.

In short I wish the militia part was replaced by the people or something to make it blatently clear



I'm not really convinced that they REALLY believe that.  That usually comes up when they run out of other arguments.  Kind of a last straw thing.


I dont believe "They" as in the ones lobbying actually believe it no,

But Im talking about your typical gun hating person in your community. They literally do believe the 2nd is only put in place for national guards and thats all it applies to. Atleast I have ran up against ones that believe that.
Link Posted: 4/21/2016 1:24:14 PM EDT
If you read all the text that was written about the possession and use of arms from the days before the 2A was written, you will understand what militia means.  It also helps to look at a dictionary from that period.  Meanings of words evolve over time.
Link Posted: 4/21/2016 1:28:25 PM EDT
The people are implied to be the militia. Retards that can't read separate the two.
Link Posted: 4/21/2016 1:30:11 PM EDT
Neither Congress, nor any other public body, agency, or electorate, shall make law or regulation taxing, limiting, tracking, restricting, regulating, monitoring, or banning the Right of the individual to acquire, keep, bare, transport, or transfer any form of small arms, ammunition, or asociated accessories.

All terms, including "small arms" would be defined in a preamble kind of thing formed at the next constitutional convention.

Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile
Link Posted: 4/21/2016 1:34:35 PM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By BadBobTheAlbino:


nope. The first half of the 2nd Amendment justifies the need for the rights it gives.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By BadBobTheAlbino:
Originally Posted By gym007:
I can't even keep track of how many liberals think the 2nd amendment only applies to a "regulated militia" as they say

Would it have been better if instead of:

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 was

Being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.


nope. The first half of the 2nd Amendment justifies the need for the rights it gives.



Gunna have to dissagree with you there.  The first clause speaks to the government's interest in the 2nd amendment but is not a limitation on the amendment's scope.  A really smart guy wrote an opinion that held:

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.  District of Columbia vs. Heller Pp. 2–22.
Link Posted: 4/21/2016 1:39:26 PM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By chase45:
Logically thinking the 2nd amendment is in the Bill Of Rights which is about specific personal guarantees and government limitations....

I have no idea how the fuck anyone could think it applies to governemnt militaries only.

When people point out the militia part and say thats for the military, I want to punch them in the face as they simply dont get it.

In short I wish the militia part was replaced by the people or something to make it blatently clear
View Quote



exactly.. since when does the GOVERNMENT need permission to own arms ?
Link Posted: 4/21/2016 1:42:23 PM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By chase45:
Logically thinking the 2nd amendment is in the Bill Of Rights which is about specific personal guarantees and government limitations....

I have no idea how the fuck anyone could think it applies to governemnt militaries only.

When people point out the militia part and say thats for the military, I want to punch them in the face as they simply dont get it.

In short I wish the militia part was replaced by the people or something to make it blatently clear
View Quote


That's something that always stood out to me. The leftists always use 'the people' to their advantage until the 2nd is invoked. As Scalia stated, if 'the people' applies with every other amendment, logic dictates it should also apply in the 2nd.
Link Posted: 4/21/2016 1:43:31 PM EDT

Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By buck19delta:
exactly.. since when does the GOVERNMENT need permission to own arms ?
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By buck19delta:



Originally Posted By chase45:

Logically thinking the 2nd amendment is in the Bill Of Rights which is about specific personal guarantees and government limitations....



I have no idea how the fuck anyone could think it applies to governemnt militaries only.



When people point out the militia part and say thats for the military, I want to punch them in the face as they simply dont get it.



In short I wish the militia part was replaced by the people or something to make it blatently clear






exactly.. since when does the GOVERNMENT need permission to own arms ?


Well if the system was working as intended, they would. The Founders weren't big fans of large standing armies.



But it's still true from a logic perspective, every other bit of the Bill of Rights puts limits on the government, not the people.



 
Link Posted: 4/21/2016 1:44:28 PM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By 1811guy:
Good thing the SCOTUS already ruled on this and determined it is an individual right.  Of course, let's not let constitutional law get in our way of defining what the 2A means for political expediency.
View Quote

Yeah, for now.....
Link Posted: 4/21/2016 1:45:15 PM EDT
It's not that they think that... it's what they want it to mean. Fuck them.
Link Posted: 4/21/2016 1:46:16 PM EDT
Doesnt matter what language they would have used or how plainly they worded the amendment, it will still be under attack every single day by the enemies of this country.  

It could be a fucking pop-up book and it still would be argued.
Link Posted: 4/21/2016 1:47:09 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 4/21/2016 1:47:32 PM EDT by urbanredneck]
Originally Posted By gym007:
I can't even keep track of how many liberals think the 2nd amendment only applies to a "regulated militia" as they interpret it

Would it have been better if instead of:

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.
View Quote

it was...

Being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms along with copious amounts of tar and feathers, shall not be infringed.
View Quote
View Quote



You forgot something, FIFY
Link Posted: 4/21/2016 1:55:18 PM EDT
It really needs a 2016 revision.

"Ay maynge, anybody can have any kind of weapon they wanna strap."
Link Posted: 4/21/2016 1:56:37 PM EDT
I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people except for a few public officials.  - George Mason


Link Posted: 4/21/2016 1:57:49 PM EDT
Certainly would have made things clearer and given no wiggle room for the gungrabbing, libtard shitbirds.
Link Posted: 4/21/2016 2:29:49 PM EDT
First part is the reason, second part is the right. If the founders wanted the right to be limited to the State or the Militia it would have said that, instead it relegates the right to the people. It is a reason not a requirement. Federalist Papers number 27 explains why the right is to be relegated people and that it would be too large a grievance and burden to require the people trained in a manner as to render them to be considered "well regulated". Having arms is the most important part of forming any informal fighting force. They wanted the arms in the hands of the populous.
Link Posted: 4/21/2016 2:37:39 PM EDT
NO. Militia = armed citizens. Just because a bunch of assholes tainted the name or try to equate it with the National Guard, doesn't mean they were wrong. Progressives always change the meaning of words to fuck with retards and get their way. I AM THE MILITIA. I intend to defend my country to my last breath when necessary.
Link Posted: 4/21/2016 2:37:59 PM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By pcsutton:
I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people except for a few public officials.  - George Mason
View Quote

Link Posted: 4/21/2016 2:42:51 PM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By tsg68:
First part is the reason a singular supporting clause of many possible justifications, not to be confused with being the only reason, second part is the right. If the founders wanted the right to be limited to the State or the Militia it would have said that, instead it relegates the right to the people. It is a reason not a requirement. Federalist Papers number 27 explains why the right is to be relegated people and that it would be too large a grievance and burden to require the people trained in a manner as to render them to be considered "well regulated". Having arms is the most important part of forming any informal fighting force. They wanted the arms in the hands of the populous.
View Quote


Fixed.
Link Posted: 4/21/2016 2:55:28 PM EDT
The language of much of the Constitution is a bit obtuse.  Probably unavoidable as it's essentially a document written by committee.  The document was by no means a slam dunk among the founding fathers.  There was  a lot of argument and angst.
Link Posted: 4/21/2016 3:08:13 PM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By 112358:


Fixed.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By 112358:
Originally Posted By tsg68:
First part is the reason a singular supporting clause of many possible justifications, not to be confused with being the only reason, second part is the right. If the founders wanted the right to be limited to the State or the Militia it would have said that, instead it relegates the right to the people. It is a reason not a requirement. Federalist Papers number 27 explains why the right is to be relegated people and that it would be too large a grievance and burden to require the people trained in a manner as to render them to be considered "well regulated". Having arms is the most important part of forming any informal fighting force. They wanted the arms in the hands of the populous.


Fixed.

Thanks.
Link Posted: 4/21/2016 3:12:41 PM EDT
Written over 200 years ago and still being attacked, day in day out
Link Posted: 4/21/2016 3:17:00 PM EDT
The militia argument only comes up because the liberal idiots don't know what it means / meant.



However, I do believe the following wording would be better:




"knowing that someday, power hungry, corrupt, and oppressive men will gain office of the government, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed....so they can shoot those motherfuckers square in the face."



Link Posted: 4/21/2016 3:18:50 PM EDT
"Being necessary for personal protection and to overthrow tyrannical government..."
Link Posted: 4/21/2016 3:19:56 PM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By BadBobTheAlbino:


nope. The first half of the 2nd Amendment justifies the need for the rights it gives.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By BadBobTheAlbino:
Originally Posted By gym007:
I can't even keep track of how many liberals think the 2nd amendment only applies to a "regulated militia" as they say

Would it have been better if instead of:

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 was

Being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.


nope. The first half of the 2nd Amendment justifies the need for the rights it gives.



Rights don't need justification or needs.
Link Posted: 4/21/2016 3:22:29 PM EDT
In 18th Century King's English... "regulated" would mean "equipped" today.

Tell a liberal to put that in their pipe and smoke it
Link Posted: 4/21/2016 3:27:43 PM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By BadBobTheAlbino:


nope. The first half of the 2nd Amendment justifies the need for the rights it gives.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By BadBobTheAlbino:
Originally Posted By gym007:
I can't even keep track of how many liberals think the 2nd amendment only applies to a "regulated militia" as they say

Would it have been better if instead of:

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 was

Being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.


nope. The first half of the 2nd Amendment justifies the need for the rights it gives.


The 2A doesn't give a right. It affirms an already existing right.


Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile
Link Posted: 4/21/2016 3:32:30 PM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Fulminata:

Yep.

While a preamble may have looked great to the guys writing it because it looked nice and formal, they had no idea the mental gymnastics that a segment of subsequent generations would go through to twist the preamble around in the ways they have.

PA's Constitution embodies the KISS principle: The right of the citizens to bear arms indefense of themselves and the State shall not be questioned.


 
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Fulminata:
Originally Posted By sigp226:
IMO it would have been better if it said, "The right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

The rest of them didn't need a justification. The reasons were obvious. If only the right to keep and bear arms was treated the same way...

Yep.

While a preamble may have looked great to the guys writing it because it looked nice and formal, they had no idea the mental gymnastics that a segment of subsequent generations would go through to twist the preamble around in the ways they have.

PA's Constitution embodies the KISS principle: The right of the citizens to bear arms indefense of themselves and the State shall not be questioned.


 

Yep.
Link Posted: 4/21/2016 3:35:19 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 4/21/2016 3:36:11 PM EDT by krpind]
Link Posted: 4/21/2016 3:37:59 PM EDT

I really don’t think it would have mattered… every word of
the Constitution is disobeyed with reckless abandon…




Hell, I’d say it’s
disobeyed more than it is obeyed by a margin of 100:1…




Link Posted: 4/21/2016 3:38:25 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 4/21/2016 3:40:41 PM EDT by krpind]
Link Posted: 4/21/2016 3:38:41 PM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By AKPatriot42:
The militia argument only comes up because the liberal idiots don't know what it means / meant.

However, I do believe the following wording would be better:


"knowing that someday, power hungry, corrupt, and oppressive men will gain office of the government, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed....so they can shoot those motherfuckers square in the face."


View Quote


This makes it perfectly clear, I like it!!
Link Posted: 4/21/2016 3:40:24 PM EDT

Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By krpind:


You have to put it in context.



The Constitution forbid a standing army, but since a well regulated militia was necessary for security of the state, (and could be corrupted just like an army to be used against the people) the right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed.
View Quote

It doesn’t forbid a standing army… it just makes it so the congress can't fund one for more than 2 years at a time…




Link Posted: 4/21/2016 3:41:12 PM EDT
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Top Top