Exactly what and why was the 2nd amendment written like it is

[Daryl Hunt]

Applying 21st Century mores to 18th Century thinking is an exercise in vanity.

The militia is bound to the right. The right is not bound to the militia.

If you want to follow the meaning of the 2nd amendment, the Militia is bound to the Government which should be neither right nor left, it just is.

Wow, you really don'tunderstand the English language do you. The Militia was a COUNTER to the government. It wasn't bound to the government, it was a defense FROM the government.

"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

"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

"To disarm the people...s the most effectual way to enslave them."
- George Mason, referencing advice given to the British Parliament by Pennsylvania governor Sir William Keith, The Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adooption of the Federal Constitution, June 14, 1788

"Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed, as they are in almost every country in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops."
- Noah Webster, An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution, October 10, 1787

"Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of."
- James Madison, Federalist No. 46, January 29, 1788




And on and on and on. The 2nd Amendment is the ultimate defender of ALL other Rights. Or, as a much smarter person than I ever said, "the Bill of Rights is nine limitations on what government can do....and one, final option."

I didn't say which government. You assumed I meant the Federal Government while you are looking for a fight or just trying to be right. You are kind of right. But the 2nd amendment is what gives the States the right to have State Militias seperate from the Federal Forces and even the National Guard. The State can raise an army if it feels the need. And THAT is the Organized Militia, not the National Guard which can be Nationalized. But the first half of the 2nd amendment is probably not necessary so much anymore and is primarily used by nutjobs that just want to run around the woods calling themselves Militias. I call them potential Lynch Mobs. But a few states still have State Guards and do use them in case of Emergency when one arises. It really burns Femas drawers when the State Guard takes charge and Fema has to work for them.

Nice try, but there is no Bill of Rights for any other government so you had to be talking about our Federal government. and, you are wrong. The 2nd Amendment enumerates a Right of the individual to keep arms for their own PRIVATE defense. It conveys no Rights to the State at all. The State after all IS power. The ridiculous claim that the 2nd gives the government the right to arm itself is simply stupid. States have no Rights. PEOPLE DO.

Let's take a look at the 2nd amendment and break it into two parts.

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

This was put into place to prevent the Federal Government from becoming all powerful. Our Founding Fathers were downright paranoid about this after just finishing a war with England. In fact, they were so paranoid that they limited the Federals to no more than a 75,000 man standing army which would not be enough to even stand against one state's organized militia much less all of them. But going into WWI, Congress inacted the National Guard Act of 1917 that allowed the Federal Government to fund the Guard Units in the States right around 120 days a year and the Feds could call up the Guard Units. But they did add a provision that stated that the State could create a States Guard seperate from the National Guard where those in it that were not eligible to be called up could stay with the state guard. States could have members that were in both Guard Organizations but in the even of federalization, those people would become Federal Troops. Also, those that still had a commitment to their Military time (i.e. 4 years for some and 10 for others after they leave the active duty service) could serve with the state guard but would be federalized. This means that states like Texas has a State Guard that is still very strong today which is mostly comprised of Local Police, Sheriffs, Texas Rangers, Fire Fighters and such that cannot be called up and can be used by the Texas Governor as the Old Guard used to be used for including in case of a Rogue Federal Government Uprising. But the first half of the 2nd amendment really has been watered down and probably needs to be amended to keep it current as there is very little chance that the Federal Military would follow orders to suppress any given state. You see, it's written into the UCMJ (the Military Constitution) to prevent that from happening.


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

We also need to include the 14th amendment as well. This right is within your own home and pertains to adequate protection weapons. You may believe a pungee pit should be used to protect your property or a high amperage high voltage electric shock on your welcome matt but I don't know of any lawyer that could keep you from prison if you actually had to use such a thing. It's excess. The state, under the 14th amendment can rule what is in excess for firearms. It's usually under the reasoning of Public Safety. They can determine that you need to be registered to carry a weapon (not open carry) on the street and then make it almost impossible for you to actually get the permit (case in point NYC) in a timely manner ( years or more) but they have to offer it. They can't say you can't have a bazooka but they can make it almost impossible for you to get the permit to have one for various reasons. They can't say that you can't own a fully Automatic Weapon of any kind but they can fix it so they are just plain unavailable by either making them too expensive (a real M-16-A-1 in junk condition starts at 15,000 dollars) or makes it almost impossible to comply with the storage requirements or makes it almost impossible to gain the proper permit to have it. (Again, NYC). None of these methods are against the Second amendment and are well within the 14th amendment according to the many rulings by the Supreme Courts over the past decades. They can rule that one type of weapon is in excess for home defense while others are not. They can make a rule for an age limit on purchasing firearms and ammo. They can limit the Mag Sizes. They can outlaw the sale of the ability to use certain addons. The list goes on and on. And all have been upheld by the Supreme Court. That pretty well means that they are Constitutional. Maybe not moral but constitutional.

What I hold is that we need to amend the 2nd amendment to remove the ambiguity that it has in today's world. 200 years ago, it was so much simpler. But since 1850 (circa) we have long since outgrown it's simple wording. One side says vehemently that we need to get rid of the 2nd amendment while another faction says we need to follow the second half word for word without any other thoughts. Both sides will continue this war but people are getting killed or maybe needlessly in fear of their lives over this "Debate". I won't really call it a debate. Both sides are just yelling over the fence at each other and neither is listening. What we need is a starting dialogue to get it settled and updated to todays standards. It's not 1775 anymore and our weapons have outgrown the Muskets by far. And our Population is more dense than it ever has been before. There has to be a balance between the right to bear arms and Public Safety. This means we have to stop the yelling while hold our hands over our ears and come to a decent set of decisions before another group (Politicians) that are less qualified does it for us.

 

[frigidweirdo]

If the 2nd amendment was meant as the left says it was........

WHY THE HELL WOULD IT APPEAR IN THE BILL IF RIGHTS IN THE FIRST PLACE.

Clue, it wouldn’t

We aren't governed by any part of the Bill of Rights. We are governed by the Constitutions of the United States and the many States. As nice and lofty as the Bill of Rights is, it's just another piece of parchment, nothing more.

But the Bill of Rights is part of the US Constitution.

Yes, but the Bill of Rights is not the Constitution. It's a seperate document that has no legal standings. The Constitution did take it's first 10 amendments from it but the constitution is more than that and is the law of the land. The Bill of Rights is just a supporting document. Anyone states that we must follow the bill or rights over the Constitution doesn't get my support.

Are you fucking kidding me?

You shouldn't even be talking about the Constitution if you have no clue what it's about.

The Bill of Rights has as much legal standing as any other part of the Constitution.

Learn something today.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Applying 21st Century mores to 18th Century thinking is an exercise in vanity.

The militia is bound to the right. The right is not bound to the militia.

If you want to follow the meaning of the 2nd amendment, the Militia is bound to the Government which should be neither right nor left, it just is.

Wow, you really don'tunderstand the English language do you. The Militia was a COUNTER to the government. It wasn't bound to the government, it was a defense FROM the government.

"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

"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

"To disarm the people...s the most effectual way to enslave them."
- George Mason, referencing advice given to the British Parliament by Pennsylvania governor Sir William Keith, The Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adooption of the Federal Constitution, June 14, 1788

"Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed, as they are in almost every country in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops."
- Noah Webster, An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution, October 10, 1787

"Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of."
- James Madison, Federalist No. 46, January 29, 1788




And on and on and on. The 2nd Amendment is the ultimate defender of ALL other Rights. Or, as a much smarter person than I ever said, "the Bill of Rights is nine limitations on what government can do....and one, final option."

I didn't say which government. You assumed I meant the Federal Government while you are looking for a fight or just trying to be right. You are kind of right. But the 2nd amendment is what gives the States the right to have State Militias seperate from the Federal Forces and even the National Guard. The State can raise an army if it feels the need. And THAT is the Organized Militia, not the National Guard which can be Nationalized. But the first half of the 2nd amendment is probably not necessary so much anymore and is primarily used by nutjobs that just want to run around the woods calling themselves Militias. I call them potential Lynch Mobs. But a few states still have State Guards and do use them in case of Emergency when one arises. It really burns Femas drawers when the State Guard takes charge and Fema has to work for them.

Nice try, but there is no Bill of Rights for any other government so you had to be talking about our Federal government. and, you are wrong. The 2nd Amendment enumerates a Right of the individual to keep arms for their own PRIVATE defense. It conveys no Rights to the State at all. The State after all IS power. The ridiculous claim that the 2nd gives the government the right to arm itself is simply stupid. States have no Rights. PEOPLE DO.

Let's take a look at the 2nd amendment and break it into two parts.

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

This was put into place to prevent the Federal Government from becoming all powerful. Our Founding Fathers were downright paranoid about this after just finishing a war with England. In fact, they were so paranoid that they limited the Federals to no more than a 75,000 man standing army which would not be enough to even stand against one state's organized militia much less all of them. But going into WWI, Congress inacted the National Guard Act of 1917 that allowed the Federal Government to fund the Guard Units in the States right around 120 days a year and the Feds could call up the Guard Units. But they did add a provision that stated that the State could create a States Guard seperate from the National Guard where those in it that were not eligible to be called up could stay with the state guard. States could have members that were in both Guard Organizations but in the even of federalization, those people would become Federal Troops. Also, those that still had a commitment to their Military time (i.e. 4 years for some and 10 for others after they leave the active duty service) could serve with the state guard but would be federalized. This means that states like Texas has a State Guard that is still very strong today which is mostly comprised of Local Police, Sheriffs, Texas Rangers, Fire Fighters and such that cannot be called up and can be used by the Texas Governor as the Old Guard used to be used for including in case of a Rogue Federal Government Uprising. But the first half of the 2nd amendment really has been watered down and probably needs to be amended to keep it current as there is very little chance that the Federal Military would follow orders to suppress any given state. You see, it's written into the UCMJ (the Military Constitution) to prevent that from happening.


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

We also need to include the 14th amendment as well. This right is within your own home and pertains to adequate protection weapons. You may believe a pungee pit should be used to protect your property or a high amperage high voltage electric shock on your welcome matt but I don't know of any lawyer that could keep you from prison if you actually had to use such a thing. It's excess. The state, under the 14th amendment can rule what is in excess for firearms. It's usually under the reasoning of Public Safety. They can determine that you need to be registered to carry a weapon (not open carry) on the street and then make it almost impossible for you to actually get the permit (case in point NYC) in a timely manner ( years or more) but they have to offer it. They can't say you can't have a bazooka but they can make it almost impossible for you to get the permit to have one for various reasons. They can't say that you can't own a fully Automatic Weapon of any kind but they can fix it so they are just plain unavailable by either making them too expensive (a real M-16-A-1 in junk condition starts at 15,000 dollars) or makes it almost impossible to comply with the storage requirements or makes it almost impossible to gain the proper permit to have it. (Again, NYC). None of these methods are against the Second amendment and are well within the 14th amendment according to the many rulings by the Supreme Courts over the past decades. They can rule that one type of weapon is in excess for home defense while others are not. They can make a rule for an age limit on purchasing firearms and ammo. They can limit the Mag Sizes. They can outlaw the sale of the ability to use certain addons. The list goes on and on. And all have been upheld by the Supreme Court. That pretty well means that they are Constitutional. Maybe not moral but constitutional.

What I hold is that we need to amend the 2nd amendment to remove the ambiguity that it has in today's world. 200 years ago, it was so much simpler. But since 1850 (circa) we have long since outgrown it's simple wording. One side says vehemently that we need to get rid of the 2nd amendment while another faction says we need to follow the second half word for word without any other thoughts. Both sides will continue this war but people are getting killed or maybe needlessly in fear of their lives over this "Debate". I won't really call it a debate. Both sides are just yelling over the fence at each other and neither is listening. What we need is a starting dialogue to get it settled and updated to todays standards. It's not 1775 anymore and our weapons have outgrown the Muskets by far. And our Population is more dense than it ever has been before. There has to be a balance between the right to bear arms and Public Safety. This means we have to stop the yelling while hold our hands over our ears and come to a decent set of decisions before another group (Politicians) that are less qualified does it for us.

You write a hell of a lot about something which you claim has no powers, but which you're talking about having powers.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

If the 2nd amendment was meant as the left says it was........

WHY THE HELL WOULD IT APPEAR IN THE BILL IF RIGHTS IN THE FIRST PLACE.

Clue, it wouldn’t

We aren't governed by any part of the Bill of Rights. We are governed by the Constitutions of the United States and the many States. As nice and lofty as the Bill of Rights is, it's just another piece of parchment, nothing more.

But the Bill of Rights is part of the US Constitution.

Yes, but the Bill of Rights is not the Constitution. It's a seperate document that has no legal standings. The Constitution did take it's first 10 amendments from it but the constitution is more than that and is the law of the land. The Bill of Rights is just a supporting document. Anyone states that we must follow the bill or rights over the Constitution doesn't get my support.

Are you fucking kidding me?

You shouldn't even be talking about the Constitution if you have no clue what it's about.

The Bill of Rights has as much legal standing as any other part of the Constitution.

Learn something today.

And when has a ruling been made on anyone using the Bill of Rights? How about NEVER. Now, the Constitution is another matter. The Bill of Rights is only worth the paper it's printed on.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

If you want to follow the meaning of the 2nd amendment, the Militia is bound to the Government which should be neither right nor left, it just is.

Wow, you really don'tunderstand the English language do you. The Militia was a COUNTER to the government. It wasn't bound to the government, it was a defense FROM the government.

"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

"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

"To disarm the people...s the most effectual way to enslave them."
- George Mason, referencing advice given to the British Parliament by Pennsylvania governor Sir William Keith, The Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adooption of the Federal Constitution, June 14, 1788

"Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed, as they are in almost every country in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops."
- Noah Webster, An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution, October 10, 1787

"Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of."
- James Madison, Federalist No. 46, January 29, 1788




And on and on and on. The 2nd Amendment is the ultimate defender of ALL other Rights. Or, as a much smarter person than I ever said, "the Bill of Rights is nine limitations on what government can do....and one, final option."

I didn't say which government. You assumed I meant the Federal Government while you are looking for a fight or just trying to be right. You are kind of right. But the 2nd amendment is what gives the States the right to have State Militias seperate from the Federal Forces and even the National Guard. The State can raise an army if it feels the need. And THAT is the Organized Militia, not the National Guard which can be Nationalized. But the first half of the 2nd amendment is probably not necessary so much anymore and is primarily used by nutjobs that just want to run around the woods calling themselves Militias. I call them potential Lynch Mobs. But a few states still have State Guards and do use them in case of Emergency when one arises. It really burns Femas drawers when the State Guard takes charge and Fema has to work for them.

Nice try, but there is no Bill of Rights for any other government so you had to be talking about our Federal government. and, you are wrong. The 2nd Amendment enumerates a Right of the individual to keep arms for their own PRIVATE defense. It conveys no Rights to the State at all. The State after all IS power. The ridiculous claim that the 2nd gives the government the right to arm itself is simply stupid. States have no Rights. PEOPLE DO.

Let's take a look at the 2nd amendment and break it into two parts.

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

This was put into place to prevent the Federal Government from becoming all powerful. Our Founding Fathers were downright paranoid about this after just finishing a war with England. In fact, they were so paranoid that they limited the Federals to no more than a 75,000 man standing army which would not be enough to even stand against one state's organized militia much less all of them. But going into WWI, Congress inacted the National Guard Act of 1917 that allowed the Federal Government to fund the Guard Units in the States right around 120 days a year and the Feds could call up the Guard Units. But they did add a provision that stated that the State could create a States Guard seperate from the National Guard where those in it that were not eligible to be called up could stay with the state guard. States could have members that were in both Guard Organizations but in the even of federalization, those people would become Federal Troops. Also, those that still had a commitment to their Military time (i.e. 4 years for some and 10 for others after they leave the active duty service) could serve with the state guard but would be federalized. This means that states like Texas has a State Guard that is still very strong today which is mostly comprised of Local Police, Sheriffs, Texas Rangers, Fire Fighters and such that cannot be called up and can be used by the Texas Governor as the Old Guard used to be used for including in case of a Rogue Federal Government Uprising. But the first half of the 2nd amendment really has been watered down and probably needs to be amended to keep it current as there is very little chance that the Federal Military would follow orders to suppress any given state. You see, it's written into the UCMJ (the Military Constitution) to prevent that from happening.


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

We also need to include the 14th amendment as well. This right is within your own home and pertains to adequate protection weapons. You may believe a pungee pit should be used to protect your property or a high amperage high voltage electric shock on your welcome matt but I don't know of any lawyer that could keep you from prison if you actually had to use such a thing. It's excess. The state, under the 14th amendment can rule what is in excess for firearms. It's usually under the reasoning of Public Safety. They can determine that you need to be registered to carry a weapon (not open carry) on the street and then make it almost impossible for you to actually get the permit (case in point NYC) in a timely manner ( years or more) but they have to offer it. They can't say you can't have a bazooka but they can make it almost impossible for you to get the permit to have one for various reasons. They can't say that you can't own a fully Automatic Weapon of any kind but they can fix it so they are just plain unavailable by either making them too expensive (a real M-16-A-1 in junk condition starts at 15,000 dollars) or makes it almost impossible to comply with the storage requirements or makes it almost impossible to gain the proper permit to have it. (Again, NYC). None of these methods are against the Second amendment and are well within the 14th amendment according to the many rulings by the Supreme Courts over the past decades. They can rule that one type of weapon is in excess for home defense while others are not. They can make a rule for an age limit on purchasing firearms and ammo. They can limit the Mag Sizes. They can outlaw the sale of the ability to use certain addons. The list goes on and on. And all have been upheld by the Supreme Court. That pretty well means that they are Constitutional. Maybe not moral but constitutional.

What I hold is that we need to amend the 2nd amendment to remove the ambiguity that it has in today's world. 200 years ago, it was so much simpler. But since 1850 (circa) we have long since outgrown it's simple wording. One side says vehemently that we need to get rid of the 2nd amendment while another faction says we need to follow the second half word for word without any other thoughts. Both sides will continue this war but people are getting killed or maybe needlessly in fear of their lives over this "Debate". I won't really call it a debate. Both sides are just yelling over the fence at each other and neither is listening. What we need is a starting dialogue to get it settled and updated to todays standards. It's not 1775 anymore and our weapons have outgrown the Muskets by far. And our Population is more dense than it ever has been before. There has to be a balance between the right to bear arms and Public Safety. This means we have to stop the yelling while hold our hands over our ears and come to a decent set of decisions before another group (Politicians) that are less qualified does it for us.

You write a hell of a lot about something which you claim has no powers, but which you're talking about having powers.

Well, make up your mind. Does the Constitution have the power or not? Is it the law of the land or not? Should we follow it or not in it's entirety or not? Or should we just pick and choose the parts we want to follow and disregard the rest. Or do we just do whatever the hell we please. But make up your mind.

Do we continue to allow complete morons in office to keep writing the laws so badly that there is such a turmoil? Guess you like it when they do it for you and it is such a mess. Well, cupcake, I don't. I want good laws instead of really stupid laws that make a mess out of everything it touches. Since you seem to like the confusion and chaos then I guess we know where you stand.

 

[Pop23]

If the 2nd amendment was meant as the left says it was........

WHY THE HELL WOULD IT APPEAR IN THE BILL IF RIGHTS IN THE FIRST PLACE.

Clue, it wouldn’t

We aren't governed by any part of the Bill of Rights. We are governed by the Constitutions of the United States and the many States. As nice and lofty as the Bill of Rights is, it's just another piece of parchment, nothing more.

But the Bill of Rights is part of the US Constitution.

Yes, but the Bill of Rights is not the Constitution. It's a seperate document that has no legal standings. The Constitution did take it's first 10 amendments from it but the constitution is more than that and is the law of the land. The Bill of Rights is just a supporting document. Anyone states that we must follow the bill or rights over the Constitution doesn't get my support.

Are you fucking kidding me?

You shouldn't even be talking about the Constitution if you have no clue what it's about.

The Bill of Rights has as much legal standing as any other part of the Constitution.

Learn something today.

And when has a ruling been made on anyone using the Bill of Rights? How about NEVER. Now, the Constitution is another matter. The Bill of Rights is only worth the paper it's printed on.

We get it Daryl. Your need to remove rights is obvious. Next, freedom of speech?

 

[Pop23]

Wow, you really don'tunderstand the English language do you. The Militia was a COUNTER to the government. It wasn't bound to the government, it was a defense FROM the government.

"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

"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

"To disarm the people...s the most effectual way to enslave them."
- George Mason, referencing advice given to the British Parliament by Pennsylvania governor Sir William Keith, The Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adooption of the Federal Constitution, June 14, 1788

"Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed, as they are in almost every country in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops."
- Noah Webster, An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution, October 10, 1787

"Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of."
- James Madison, Federalist No. 46, January 29, 1788




And on and on and on. The 2nd Amendment is the ultimate defender of ALL other Rights. Or, as a much smarter person than I ever said, "the Bill of Rights is nine limitations on what government can do....and one, final option."

I didn't say which government. You assumed I meant the Federal Government while you are looking for a fight or just trying to be right. You are kind of right. But the 2nd amendment is what gives the States the right to have State Militias seperate from the Federal Forces and even the National Guard. The State can raise an army if it feels the need. And THAT is the Organized Militia, not the National Guard which can be Nationalized. But the first half of the 2nd amendment is probably not necessary so much anymore and is primarily used by nutjobs that just want to run around the woods calling themselves Militias. I call them potential Lynch Mobs. But a few states still have State Guards and do use them in case of Emergency when one arises. It really burns Femas drawers when the State Guard takes charge and Fema has to work for them.

Nice try, but there is no Bill of Rights for any other government so you had to be talking about our Federal government. and, you are wrong. The 2nd Amendment enumerates a Right of the individual to keep arms for their own PRIVATE defense. It conveys no Rights to the State at all. The State after all IS power. The ridiculous claim that the 2nd gives the government the right to arm itself is simply stupid. States have no Rights. PEOPLE DO.

Let's take a look at the 2nd amendment and break it into two parts.

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

This was put into place to prevent the Federal Government from becoming all powerful. Our Founding Fathers were downright paranoid about this after just finishing a war with England. In fact, they were so paranoid that they limited the Federals to no more than a 75,000 man standing army which would not be enough to even stand against one state's organized militia much less all of them. But going into WWI, Congress inacted the National Guard Act of 1917 that allowed the Federal Government to fund the Guard Units in the States right around 120 days a year and the Feds could call up the Guard Units. But they did add a provision that stated that the State could create a States Guard seperate from the National Guard where those in it that were not eligible to be called up could stay with the state guard. States could have members that were in both Guard Organizations but in the even of federalization, those people would become Federal Troops. Also, those that still had a commitment to their Military time (i.e. 4 years for some and 10 for others after they leave the active duty service) could serve with the state guard but would be federalized. This means that states like Texas has a State Guard that is still very strong today which is mostly comprised of Local Police, Sheriffs, Texas Rangers, Fire Fighters and such that cannot be called up and can be used by the Texas Governor as the Old Guard used to be used for including in case of a Rogue Federal Government Uprising. But the first half of the 2nd amendment really has been watered down and probably needs to be amended to keep it current as there is very little chance that the Federal Military would follow orders to suppress any given state. You see, it's written into the UCMJ (the Military Constitution) to prevent that from happening.


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

We also need to include the 14th amendment as well. This right is within your own home and pertains to adequate protection weapons. You may believe a pungee pit should be used to protect your property or a high amperage high voltage electric shock on your welcome matt but I don't know of any lawyer that could keep you from prison if you actually had to use such a thing. It's excess. The state, under the 14th amendment can rule what is in excess for firearms. It's usually under the reasoning of Public Safety. They can determine that you need to be registered to carry a weapon (not open carry) on the street and then make it almost impossible for you to actually get the permit (case in point NYC) in a timely manner ( years or more) but they have to offer it. They can't say you can't have a bazooka but they can make it almost impossible for you to get the permit to have one for various reasons. They can't say that you can't own a fully Automatic Weapon of any kind but they can fix it so they are just plain unavailable by either making them too expensive (a real M-16-A-1 in junk condition starts at 15,000 dollars) or makes it almost impossible to comply with the storage requirements or makes it almost impossible to gain the proper permit to have it. (Again, NYC). None of these methods are against the Second amendment and are well within the 14th amendment according to the many rulings by the Supreme Courts over the past decades. They can rule that one type of weapon is in excess for home defense while others are not. They can make a rule for an age limit on purchasing firearms and ammo. They can limit the Mag Sizes. They can outlaw the sale of the ability to use certain addons. The list goes on and on. And all have been upheld by the Supreme Court. That pretty well means that they are Constitutional. Maybe not moral but constitutional.

What I hold is that we need to amend the 2nd amendment to remove the ambiguity that it has in today's world. 200 years ago, it was so much simpler. But since 1850 (circa) we have long since outgrown it's simple wording. One side says vehemently that we need to get rid of the 2nd amendment while another faction says we need to follow the second half word for word without any other thoughts. Both sides will continue this war but people are getting killed or maybe needlessly in fear of their lives over this "Debate". I won't really call it a debate. Both sides are just yelling over the fence at each other and neither is listening. What we need is a starting dialogue to get it settled and updated to todays standards. It's not 1775 anymore and our weapons have outgrown the Muskets by far. And our Population is more dense than it ever has been before. There has to be a balance between the right to bear arms and Public Safety. This means we have to stop the yelling while hold our hands over our ears and come to a decent set of decisions before another group (Politicians) that are less qualified does it for us.

You write a hell of a lot about something which you claim has no powers, but which you're talking about having powers.

Well, make up your mind. Does the Constitution have the power or not? Is it the law of the land or not? Should we follow it or not in it's entirety or not? Or should we just pick and choose the parts we want to follow and disregard the rest. Or do we just do whatever the hell we please. But make up your mind.

You talk a lot, but rarely listen.

 

[frigidweirdo]

If the 2nd amendment was meant as the left says it was........

WHY THE HELL WOULD IT APPEAR IN THE BILL IF RIGHTS IN THE FIRST PLACE.

Clue, it wouldn’t

We aren't governed by any part of the Bill of Rights. We are governed by the Constitutions of the United States and the many States. As nice and lofty as the Bill of Rights is, it's just another piece of parchment, nothing more.

But the Bill of Rights is part of the US Constitution.

Yes, but the Bill of Rights is not the Constitution. It's a seperate document that has no legal standings. The Constitution did take it's first 10 amendments from it but the constitution is more than that and is the law of the land. The Bill of Rights is just a supporting document. Anyone states that we must follow the bill or rights over the Constitution doesn't get my support.

Are you fucking kidding me?

You shouldn't even be talking about the Constitution if you have no clue what it's about.

The Bill of Rights has as much legal standing as any other part of the Constitution.

Learn something today.

And when has a ruling been made on anyone using the Bill of Rights? How about NEVER. Now, the Constitution is another matter. The Bill of Rights is only worth the paper it's printed on.

Your argument isn't worth anything.

When has a ruling been made on anyone using the Bill of Rights? Do you even know what the Bill of Rights does?

No, probably not, and I really can't be bothered to teach you elementary stuff you should already know. You can go look it up.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

I didn't say which government. You assumed I meant the Federal Government while you are looking for a fight or just trying to be right. You are kind of right. But the 2nd amendment is what gives the States the right to have State Militias seperate from the Federal Forces and even the National Guard. The State can raise an army if it feels the need. And THAT is the Organized Militia, not the National Guard which can be Nationalized. But the first half of the 2nd amendment is probably not necessary so much anymore and is primarily used by nutjobs that just want to run around the woods calling themselves Militias. I call them potential Lynch Mobs. But a few states still have State Guards and do use them in case of Emergency when one arises. It really burns Femas drawers when the State Guard takes charge and Fema has to work for them.

Nice try, but there is no Bill of Rights for any other government so you had to be talking about our Federal government. and, you are wrong. The 2nd Amendment enumerates a Right of the individual to keep arms for their own PRIVATE defense. It conveys no Rights to the State at all. The State after all IS power. The ridiculous claim that the 2nd gives the government the right to arm itself is simply stupid. States have no Rights. PEOPLE DO.

Let's take a look at the 2nd amendment and break it into two parts.

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

This was put into place to prevent the Federal Government from becoming all powerful. Our Founding Fathers were downright paranoid about this after just finishing a war with England. In fact, they were so paranoid that they limited the Federals to no more than a 75,000 man standing army which would not be enough to even stand against one state's organized militia much less all of them. But going into WWI, Congress inacted the National Guard Act of 1917 that allowed the Federal Government to fund the Guard Units in the States right around 120 days a year and the Feds could call up the Guard Units. But they did add a provision that stated that the State could create a States Guard seperate from the National Guard where those in it that were not eligible to be called up could stay with the state guard. States could have members that were in both Guard Organizations but in the even of federalization, those people would become Federal Troops. Also, those that still had a commitment to their Military time (i.e. 4 years for some and 10 for others after they leave the active duty service) could serve with the state guard but would be federalized. This means that states like Texas has a State Guard that is still very strong today which is mostly comprised of Local Police, Sheriffs, Texas Rangers, Fire Fighters and such that cannot be called up and can be used by the Texas Governor as the Old Guard used to be used for including in case of a Rogue Federal Government Uprising. But the first half of the 2nd amendment really has been watered down and probably needs to be amended to keep it current as there is very little chance that the Federal Military would follow orders to suppress any given state. You see, it's written into the UCMJ (the Military Constitution) to prevent that from happening.


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

We also need to include the 14th amendment as well. This right is within your own home and pertains to adequate protection weapons. You may believe a pungee pit should be used to protect your property or a high amperage high voltage electric shock on your welcome matt but I don't know of any lawyer that could keep you from prison if you actually had to use such a thing. It's excess. The state, under the 14th amendment can rule what is in excess for firearms. It's usually under the reasoning of Public Safety. They can determine that you need to be registered to carry a weapon (not open carry) on the street and then make it almost impossible for you to actually get the permit (case in point NYC) in a timely manner ( years or more) but they have to offer it. They can't say you can't have a bazooka but they can make it almost impossible for you to get the permit to have one for various reasons. They can't say that you can't own a fully Automatic Weapon of any kind but they can fix it so they are just plain unavailable by either making them too expensive (a real M-16-A-1 in junk condition starts at 15,000 dollars) or makes it almost impossible to comply with the storage requirements or makes it almost impossible to gain the proper permit to have it. (Again, NYC). None of these methods are against the Second amendment and are well within the 14th amendment according to the many rulings by the Supreme Courts over the past decades. They can rule that one type of weapon is in excess for home defense while others are not. They can make a rule for an age limit on purchasing firearms and ammo. They can limit the Mag Sizes. They can outlaw the sale of the ability to use certain addons. The list goes on and on. And all have been upheld by the Supreme Court. That pretty well means that they are Constitutional. Maybe not moral but constitutional.

What I hold is that we need to amend the 2nd amendment to remove the ambiguity that it has in today's world. 200 years ago, it was so much simpler. But since 1850 (circa) we have long since outgrown it's simple wording. One side says vehemently that we need to get rid of the 2nd amendment while another faction says we need to follow the second half word for word without any other thoughts. Both sides will continue this war but people are getting killed or maybe needlessly in fear of their lives over this "Debate". I won't really call it a debate. Both sides are just yelling over the fence at each other and neither is listening. What we need is a starting dialogue to get it settled and updated to todays standards. It's not 1775 anymore and our weapons have outgrown the Muskets by far. And our Population is more dense than it ever has been before. There has to be a balance between the right to bear arms and Public Safety. This means we have to stop the yelling while hold our hands over our ears and come to a decent set of decisions before another group (Politicians) that are less qualified does it for us.

You write a hell of a lot about something which you claim has no powers, but which you're talking about having powers.

Well, make up your mind. Does the Constitution have the power or not? Is it the law of the land or not? Should we follow it or not in it's entirety or not? Or should we just pick and choose the parts we want to follow and disregard the rest. Or do we just do whatever the hell we please. But make up your mind.

You talk a lot, but rarely listen.

Thank you for making my point, cupcake.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Wow, you really don'tunderstand the English language do you. The Militia was a COUNTER to the government. It wasn't bound to the government, it was a defense FROM the government.

"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

"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

"To disarm the people...s the most effectual way to enslave them."
- George Mason, referencing advice given to the British Parliament by Pennsylvania governor Sir William Keith, The Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adooption of the Federal Constitution, June 14, 1788

"Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed, as they are in almost every country in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops."
- Noah Webster, An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution, October 10, 1787

"Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of."
- James Madison, Federalist No. 46, January 29, 1788




And on and on and on. The 2nd Amendment is the ultimate defender of ALL other Rights. Or, as a much smarter person than I ever said, "the Bill of Rights is nine limitations on what government can do....and one, final option."

I didn't say which government. You assumed I meant the Federal Government while you are looking for a fight or just trying to be right. You are kind of right. But the 2nd amendment is what gives the States the right to have State Militias seperate from the Federal Forces and even the National Guard. The State can raise an army if it feels the need. And THAT is the Organized Militia, not the National Guard which can be Nationalized. But the first half of the 2nd amendment is probably not necessary so much anymore and is primarily used by nutjobs that just want to run around the woods calling themselves Militias. I call them potential Lynch Mobs. But a few states still have State Guards and do use them in case of Emergency when one arises. It really burns Femas drawers when the State Guard takes charge and Fema has to work for them.

Nice try, but there is no Bill of Rights for any other government so you had to be talking about our Federal government. and, you are wrong. The 2nd Amendment enumerates a Right of the individual to keep arms for their own PRIVATE defense. It conveys no Rights to the State at all. The State after all IS power. The ridiculous claim that the 2nd gives the government the right to arm itself is simply stupid. States have no Rights. PEOPLE DO.

Let's take a look at the 2nd amendment and break it into two parts.

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

This was put into place to prevent the Federal Government from becoming all powerful. Our Founding Fathers were downright paranoid about this after just finishing a war with England. In fact, they were so paranoid that they limited the Federals to no more than a 75,000 man standing army which would not be enough to even stand against one state's organized militia much less all of them. But going into WWI, Congress inacted the National Guard Act of 1917 that allowed the Federal Government to fund the Guard Units in the States right around 120 days a year and the Feds could call up the Guard Units. But they did add a provision that stated that the State could create a States Guard seperate from the National Guard where those in it that were not eligible to be called up could stay with the state guard. States could have members that were in both Guard Organizations but in the even of federalization, those people would become Federal Troops. Also, those that still had a commitment to their Military time (i.e. 4 years for some and 10 for others after they leave the active duty service) could serve with the state guard but would be federalized. This means that states like Texas has a State Guard that is still very strong today which is mostly comprised of Local Police, Sheriffs, Texas Rangers, Fire Fighters and such that cannot be called up and can be used by the Texas Governor as the Old Guard used to be used for including in case of a Rogue Federal Government Uprising. But the first half of the 2nd amendment really has been watered down and probably needs to be amended to keep it current as there is very little chance that the Federal Military would follow orders to suppress any given state. You see, it's written into the UCMJ (the Military Constitution) to prevent that from happening.


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

We also need to include the 14th amendment as well. This right is within your own home and pertains to adequate protection weapons. You may believe a pungee pit should be used to protect your property or a high amperage high voltage electric shock on your welcome matt but I don't know of any lawyer that could keep you from prison if you actually had to use such a thing. It's excess. The state, under the 14th amendment can rule what is in excess for firearms. It's usually under the reasoning of Public Safety. They can determine that you need to be registered to carry a weapon (not open carry) on the street and then make it almost impossible for you to actually get the permit (case in point NYC) in a timely manner ( years or more) but they have to offer it. They can't say you can't have a bazooka but they can make it almost impossible for you to get the permit to have one for various reasons. They can't say that you can't own a fully Automatic Weapon of any kind but they can fix it so they are just plain unavailable by either making them too expensive (a real M-16-A-1 in junk condition starts at 15,000 dollars) or makes it almost impossible to comply with the storage requirements or makes it almost impossible to gain the proper permit to have it. (Again, NYC). None of these methods are against the Second amendment and are well within the 14th amendment according to the many rulings by the Supreme Courts over the past decades. They can rule that one type of weapon is in excess for home defense while others are not. They can make a rule for an age limit on purchasing firearms and ammo. They can limit the Mag Sizes. They can outlaw the sale of the ability to use certain addons. The list goes on and on. And all have been upheld by the Supreme Court. That pretty well means that they are Constitutional. Maybe not moral but constitutional.

What I hold is that we need to amend the 2nd amendment to remove the ambiguity that it has in today's world. 200 years ago, it was so much simpler. But since 1850 (circa) we have long since outgrown it's simple wording. One side says vehemently that we need to get rid of the 2nd amendment while another faction says we need to follow the second half word for word without any other thoughts. Both sides will continue this war but people are getting killed or maybe needlessly in fear of their lives over this "Debate". I won't really call it a debate. Both sides are just yelling over the fence at each other and neither is listening. What we need is a starting dialogue to get it settled and updated to todays standards. It's not 1775 anymore and our weapons have outgrown the Muskets by far. And our Population is more dense than it ever has been before. There has to be a balance between the right to bear arms and Public Safety. This means we have to stop the yelling while hold our hands over our ears and come to a decent set of decisions before another group (Politicians) that are less qualified does it for us.

You write a hell of a lot about something which you claim has no powers, but which you're talking about having powers.

Well, make up your mind. Does the Constitution have the power or not? Is it the law of the land or not? Should we follow it or not in it's entirety or not? Or should we just pick and choose the parts we want to follow and disregard the rest. Or do we just do whatever the hell we please. But make up your mind.

Do we continue to allow complete morons in office to keep writing the laws so badly that there is such a turmoil? Guess you like it when they do it for you and it is such a mess. Well, cupcake, I don't. I want good laws instead of really stupid laws that make a mess out of everything it touches. Since you seem to like the confusion and chaos then I guess we know where you stand.

My mind is made up, your mind however seems rather lacking in knowledge. When you've gone through Constitution 101, come back and we can talk without me having to explain simple things to you.

 

[Pop23]

Wow, you really don'tunderstand the English language do you. The Militia was a COUNTER to the government. It wasn't bound to the government, it was a defense FROM the government.

"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

"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

"To disarm the people...s the most effectual way to enslave them."
- George Mason, referencing advice given to the British Parliament by Pennsylvania governor Sir William Keith, The Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adooption of the Federal Constitution, June 14, 1788

"Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed, as they are in almost every country in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops."
- Noah Webster, An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution, October 10, 1787

"Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of."
- James Madison, Federalist No. 46, January 29, 1788




And on and on and on. The 2nd Amendment is the ultimate defender of ALL other Rights. Or, as a much smarter person than I ever said, "the Bill of Rights is nine limitations on what government can do....and one, final option."

I didn't say which government. You assumed I meant the Federal Government while you are looking for a fight or just trying to be right. You are kind of right. But the 2nd amendment is what gives the States the right to have State Militias seperate from the Federal Forces and even the National Guard. The State can raise an army if it feels the need. And THAT is the Organized Militia, not the National Guard which can be Nationalized. But the first half of the 2nd amendment is probably not necessary so much anymore and is primarily used by nutjobs that just want to run around the woods calling themselves Militias. I call them potential Lynch Mobs. But a few states still have State Guards and do use them in case of Emergency when one arises. It really burns Femas drawers when the State Guard takes charge and Fema has to work for them.

Nice try, but there is no Bill of Rights for any other government so you had to be talking about our Federal government. and, you are wrong. The 2nd Amendment enumerates a Right of the individual to keep arms for their own PRIVATE defense. It conveys no Rights to the State at all. The State after all IS power. The ridiculous claim that the 2nd gives the government the right to arm itself is simply stupid. States have no Rights. PEOPLE DO.

Let's take a look at the 2nd amendment and break it into two parts.

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

This was put into place to prevent the Federal Government from becoming all powerful. Our Founding Fathers were downright paranoid about this after just finishing a war with England. In fact, they were so paranoid that they limited the Federals to no more than a 75,000 man standing army which would not be enough to even stand against one state's organized militia much less all of them. But going into WWI, Congress inacted the National Guard Act of 1917 that allowed the Federal Government to fund the Guard Units in the States right around 120 days a year and the Feds could call up the Guard Units. But they did add a provision that stated that the State could create a States Guard seperate from the National Guard where those in it that were not eligible to be called up could stay with the state guard. States could have members that were in both Guard Organizations but in the even of federalization, those people would become Federal Troops. Also, those that still had a commitment to their Military time (i.e. 4 years for some and 10 for others after they leave the active duty service) could serve with the state guard but would be federalized. This means that states like Texas has a State Guard that is still very strong today which is mostly comprised of Local Police, Sheriffs, Texas Rangers, Fire Fighters and such that cannot be called up and can be used by the Texas Governor as the Old Guard used to be used for including in case of a Rogue Federal Government Uprising. But the first half of the 2nd amendment really has been watered down and probably needs to be amended to keep it current as there is very little chance that the Federal Military would follow orders to suppress any given state. You see, it's written into the UCMJ (the Military Constitution) to prevent that from happening.


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

We also need to include the 14th amendment as well. This right is within your own home and pertains to adequate protection weapons. You may believe a pungee pit should be used to protect your property or a high amperage high voltage electric shock on your welcome matt but I don't know of any lawyer that could keep you from prison if you actually had to use such a thing. It's excess. The state, under the 14th amendment can rule what is in excess for firearms. It's usually under the reasoning of Public Safety. They can determine that you need to be registered to carry a weapon (not open carry) on the street and then make it almost impossible for you to actually get the permit (case in point NYC) in a timely manner ( years or more) but they have to offer it. They can't say you can't have a bazooka but they can make it almost impossible for you to get the permit to have one for various reasons. They can't say that you can't own a fully Automatic Weapon of any kind but they can fix it so they are just plain unavailable by either making them too expensive (a real M-16-A-1 in junk condition starts at 15,000 dollars) or makes it almost impossible to comply with the storage requirements or makes it almost impossible to gain the proper permit to have it. (Again, NYC). None of these methods are against the Second amendment and are well within the 14th amendment according to the many rulings by the Supreme Courts over the past decades. They can rule that one type of weapon is in excess for home defense while others are not. They can make a rule for an age limit on purchasing firearms and ammo. They can limit the Mag Sizes. They can outlaw the sale of the ability to use certain addons. The list goes on and on. And all have been upheld by the Supreme Court. That pretty well means that they are Constitutional. Maybe not moral but constitutional.

What I hold is that we need to amend the 2nd amendment to remove the ambiguity that it has in today's world. 200 years ago, it was so much simpler. But since 1850 (circa) we have long since outgrown it's simple wording. One side says vehemently that we need to get rid of the 2nd amendment while another faction says we need to follow the second half word for word without any other thoughts. Both sides will continue this war but people are getting killed or maybe needlessly in fear of their lives over this "Debate". I won't really call it a debate. Both sides are just yelling over the fence at each other and neither is listening. What we need is a starting dialogue to get it settled and updated to todays standards. It's not 1775 anymore and our weapons have outgrown the Muskets by far. And our Population is more dense than it ever has been before. There has to be a balance between the right to bear arms and Public Safety. This means we have to stop the yelling while hold our hands over our ears and come to a decent set of decisions before another group (Politicians) that are less qualified does it for us.

You write a hell of a lot about something which you claim has no powers, but which you're talking about having powers.

Well, make up your mind. Does the Constitution have the power or not? Is it the law of the land or not? Should we follow it or not in it's entirety or not? Or should we just pick and choose the parts we want to follow and disregard the rest. Or do we just do whatever the hell we please. But make up your mind.

Do we continue to allow complete morons in office to keep writing the laws so badly that there is such a turmoil? Guess you like it when they do it for you and it is such a mess. Well, cupcake, I don't. I want good laws instead of really stupid laws that make a mess out of everything it touches. Since you seem to like the confusion and chaos then I guess we know where you stand.

We passed a very good law against Murder. Criminals ignore even the best written laws.

What the hell is your point?

 

[Daryl Hunt]

We aren't governed by any part of the Bill of Rights. We are governed by the Constitutions of the United States and the many States. As nice and lofty as the Bill of Rights is, it's just another piece of parchment, nothing more.

But the Bill of Rights is part of the US Constitution.

Yes, but the Bill of Rights is not the Constitution. It's a seperate document that has no legal standings. The Constitution did take it's first 10 amendments from it but the constitution is more than that and is the law of the land. The Bill of Rights is just a supporting document. Anyone states that we must follow the bill or rights over the Constitution doesn't get my support.

Are you fucking kidding me?

You shouldn't even be talking about the Constitution if you have no clue what it's about.

The Bill of Rights has as much legal standing as any other part of the Constitution.

Learn something today.

And when has a ruling been made on anyone using the Bill of Rights? How about NEVER. Now, the Constitution is another matter. The Bill of Rights is only worth the paper it's printed on.

Your argument isn't worth anything.

When has a ruling been made on anyone using the Bill of Rights? Do you even know what the Bill of Rights does?

No, probably not, and I really can't be bothered to teach you elementary stuff you should already know. You can go look it up.

It sits in the Library of Congress on display and awes people like you. I would much rather view a living document like the Constitution of the United States instead of something that is just a piece of parchment or paper.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

I didn't say which government. You assumed I meant the Federal Government while you are looking for a fight or just trying to be right. You are kind of right. But the 2nd amendment is what gives the States the right to have State Militias seperate from the Federal Forces and even the National Guard. The State can raise an army if it feels the need. And THAT is the Organized Militia, not the National Guard which can be Nationalized. But the first half of the 2nd amendment is probably not necessary so much anymore and is primarily used by nutjobs that just want to run around the woods calling themselves Militias. I call them potential Lynch Mobs. But a few states still have State Guards and do use them in case of Emergency when one arises. It really burns Femas drawers when the State Guard takes charge and Fema has to work for them.

Thank you for making my point, cupcake.





Nice try, but there is no Bill of Rights for any other government so you had to be talking about our Federal government. and, you are wrong. The 2nd Amendment enumerates a Right of the individual to keep arms for their own PRIVATE defense. It conveys no Rights to the State at all. The State after all IS power. The ridiculous claim that the 2nd gives the government the right to arm itself is simply stupid. States have no Rights. PEOPLE DO.

Let's take a look at the 2nd amendment and break it into two parts.

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

This was put into place to prevent the Federal Government from becoming all powerful. Our Founding Fathers were downright paranoid about this after just finishing a war with England. In fact, they were so paranoid that they limited the Federals to no more than a 75,000 man standing army which would not be enough to even stand against one state's organized militia much less all of them. But going into WWI, Congress inacted the National Guard Act of 1917 that allowed the Federal Government to fund the Guard Units in the States right around 120 days a year and the Feds could call up the Guard Units. But they did add a provision that stated that the State could create a States Guard seperate from the National Guard where those in it that were not eligible to be called up could stay with the state guard. States could have members that were in both Guard Organizations but in the even of federalization, those people would become Federal Troops. Also, those that still had a commitment to their Military time (i.e. 4 years for some and 10 for others after they leave the active duty service) could serve with the state guard but would be federalized. This means that states like Texas has a State Guard that is still very strong today which is mostly comprised of Local Police, Sheriffs, Texas Rangers, Fire Fighters and such that cannot be called up and can be used by the Texas Governor as the Old Guard used to be used for including in case of a Rogue Federal Government Uprising. But the first half of the 2nd amendment really has been watered down and probably needs to be amended to keep it current as there is very little chance that the Federal Military would follow orders to suppress any given state. You see, it's written into the UCMJ (the Military Constitution) to prevent that from happening.


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

We also need to include the 14th amendment as well. This right is within your own home and pertains to adequate protection weapons. You may believe a pungee pit should be used to protect your property or a high amperage high voltage electric shock on your welcome matt but I don't know of any lawyer that could keep you from prison if you actually had to use such a thing. It's excess. The state, under the 14th amendment can rule what is in excess for firearms. It's usually under the reasoning of Public Safety. They can determine that you need to be registered to carry a weapon (not open carry) on the street and then make it almost impossible for you to actually get the permit (case in point NYC) in a timely manner ( years or more) but they have to offer it. They can't say you can't have a bazooka but they can make it almost impossible for you to get the permit to have one for various reasons. They can't say that you can't own a fully Automatic Weapon of any kind but they can fix it so they are just plain unavailable by either making them too expensive (a real M-16-A-1 in junk condition starts at 15,000 dollars) or makes it almost impossible to comply with the storage requirements or makes it almost impossible to gain the proper permit to have it. (Again, NYC). None of these methods are against the Second amendment and are well within the 14th amendment according to the many rulings by the Supreme Courts over the past decades. They can rule that one type of weapon is in excess for home defense while others are not. They can make a rule for an age limit on purchasing firearms and ammo. They can limit the Mag Sizes. They can outlaw the sale of the ability to use certain addons. The list goes on and on. And all have been upheld by the Supreme Court. That pretty well means that they are Constitutional. Maybe not moral but constitutional.

What I hold is that we need to amend the 2nd amendment to remove the ambiguity that it has in today's world. 200 years ago, it was so much simpler. But since 1850 (circa) we have long since outgrown it's simple wording. One side says vehemently that we need to get rid of the 2nd amendment while another faction says we need to follow the second half word for word without any other thoughts. Both sides will continue this war but people are getting killed or maybe needlessly in fear of their lives over this "Debate". I won't really call it a debate. Both sides are just yelling over the fence at each other and neither is listening. What we need is a starting dialogue to get it settled and updated to todays standards. It's not 1775 anymore and our weapons have outgrown the Muskets by far. And our Population is more dense than it ever has been before. There has to be a balance between the right to bear arms and Public Safety. This means we have to stop the yelling while hold our hands over our ears and come to a decent set of decisions before another group (Politicians) that are less qualified does it for us.

You write a hell of a lot about something which you claim has no powers, but which you're talking about having powers.

Well, make up your mind. Does the Constitution have the power or not? Is it the law of the land or not? Should we follow it or not in it's entirety or not? Or should we just pick and choose the parts we want to follow and disregard the rest. Or do we just do whatever the hell we please. But make up your mind.

Do we continue to allow complete morons in office to keep writing the laws so badly that there is such a turmoil? Guess you like it when they do it for you and it is such a mess. Well, cupcake, I don't. I want good laws instead of really stupid laws that make a mess out of everything it touches. Since you seem to like the confusion and chaos then I guess we know where you stand.

My mind is made up, your mind however seems rather lacking in knowledge. When you've gone through Constitution 101, come back and we can talk without me having to explain simple things to you.

 

[Pop23]

Nice try, but there is no Bill of Rights for any other government so you had to be talking about our Federal government. and, you are wrong. The 2nd Amendment enumerates a Right of the individual to keep arms for their own PRIVATE defense. It conveys no Rights to the State at all. The State after all IS power. The ridiculous claim that the 2nd gives the government the right to arm itself is simply stupid. States have no Rights. PEOPLE DO.

Let's take a look at the 2nd amendment and break it into two parts.

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

This was put into place to prevent the Federal Government from becoming all powerful. Our Founding Fathers were downright paranoid about this after just finishing a war with England. In fact, they were so paranoid that they limited the Federals to no more than a 75,000 man standing army which would not be enough to even stand against one state's organized militia much less all of them. But going into WWI, Congress inacted the National Guard Act of 1917 that allowed the Federal Government to fund the Guard Units in the States right around 120 days a year and the Feds could call up the Guard Units. But they did add a provision that stated that the State could create a States Guard seperate from the National Guard where those in it that were not eligible to be called up could stay with the state guard. States could have members that were in both Guard Organizations but in the even of federalization, those people would become Federal Troops. Also, those that still had a commitment to their Military time (i.e. 4 years for some and 10 for others after they leave the active duty service) could serve with the state guard but would be federalized. This means that states like Texas has a State Guard that is still very strong today which is mostly comprised of Local Police, Sheriffs, Texas Rangers, Fire Fighters and such that cannot be called up and can be used by the Texas Governor as the Old Guard used to be used for including in case of a Rogue Federal Government Uprising. But the first half of the 2nd amendment really has been watered down and probably needs to be amended to keep it current as there is very little chance that the Federal Military would follow orders to suppress any given state. You see, it's written into the UCMJ (the Military Constitution) to prevent that from happening.


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

We also need to include the 14th amendment as well. This right is within your own home and pertains to adequate protection weapons. You may believe a pungee pit should be used to protect your property or a high amperage high voltage electric shock on your welcome matt but I don't know of any lawyer that could keep you from prison if you actually had to use such a thing. It's excess. The state, under the 14th amendment can rule what is in excess for firearms. It's usually under the reasoning of Public Safety. They can determine that you need to be registered to carry a weapon (not open carry) on the street and then make it almost impossible for you to actually get the permit (case in point NYC) in a timely manner ( years or more) but they have to offer it. They can't say you can't have a bazooka but they can make it almost impossible for you to get the permit to have one for various reasons. They can't say that you can't own a fully Automatic Weapon of any kind but they can fix it so they are just plain unavailable by either making them too expensive (a real M-16-A-1 in junk condition starts at 15,000 dollars) or makes it almost impossible to comply with the storage requirements or makes it almost impossible to gain the proper permit to have it. (Again, NYC). None of these methods are against the Second amendment and are well within the 14th amendment according to the many rulings by the Supreme Courts over the past decades. They can rule that one type of weapon is in excess for home defense while others are not. They can make a rule for an age limit on purchasing firearms and ammo. They can limit the Mag Sizes. They can outlaw the sale of the ability to use certain addons. The list goes on and on. And all have been upheld by the Supreme Court. That pretty well means that they are Constitutional. Maybe not moral but constitutional.

What I hold is that we need to amend the 2nd amendment to remove the ambiguity that it has in today's world. 200 years ago, it was so much simpler. But since 1850 (circa) we have long since outgrown it's simple wording. One side says vehemently that we need to get rid of the 2nd amendment while another faction says we need to follow the second half word for word without any other thoughts. Both sides will continue this war but people are getting killed or maybe needlessly in fear of their lives over this "Debate". I won't really call it a debate. Both sides are just yelling over the fence at each other and neither is listening. What we need is a starting dialogue to get it settled and updated to todays standards. It's not 1775 anymore and our weapons have outgrown the Muskets by far. And our Population is more dense than it ever has been before. There has to be a balance between the right to bear arms and Public Safety. This means we have to stop the yelling while hold our hands over our ears and come to a decent set of decisions before another group (Politicians) that are less qualified does it for us.

You write a hell of a lot about something which you claim has no powers, but which you're talking about having powers.

Well, make up your mind. Does the Constitution have the power or not? Is it the law of the land or not? Should we follow it or not in it's entirety or not? Or should we just pick and choose the parts we want to follow and disregard the rest. Or do we just do whatever the hell we please. But make up your mind.

You talk a lot, but rarely listen.

Thank you for making my point, cupcake.

You think I did? I didn’t, but you do ramble, dontcha petunia

 

[Daryl Hunt]

I didn't say which government. You assumed I meant the Federal Government while you are looking for a fight or just trying to be right. You are kind of right. But the 2nd amendment is what gives the States the right to have State Militias seperate from the Federal Forces and even the National Guard. The State can raise an army if it feels the need. And THAT is the Organized Militia, not the National Guard which can be Nationalized. But the first half of the 2nd amendment is probably not necessary so much anymore and is primarily used by nutjobs that just want to run around the woods calling themselves Militias. I call them potential Lynch Mobs. But a few states still have State Guards and do use them in case of Emergency when one arises. It really burns Femas drawers when the State Guard takes charge and Fema has to work for them.

Nice try, but there is no Bill of Rights for any other government so you had to be talking about our Federal government. and, you are wrong. The 2nd Amendment enumerates a Right of the individual to keep arms for their own PRIVATE defense. It conveys no Rights to the State at all. The State after all IS power. The ridiculous claim that the 2nd gives the government the right to arm itself is simply stupid. States have no Rights. PEOPLE DO.

Let's take a look at the 2nd amendment and break it into two parts.

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

This was put into place to prevent the Federal Government from becoming all powerful. Our Founding Fathers were downright paranoid about this after just finishing a war with England. In fact, they were so paranoid that they limited the Federals to no more than a 75,000 man standing army which would not be enough to even stand against one state's organized militia much less all of them. But going into WWI, Congress inacted the National Guard Act of 1917 that allowed the Federal Government to fund the Guard Units in the States right around 120 days a year and the Feds could call up the Guard Units. But they did add a provision that stated that the State could create a States Guard seperate from the National Guard where those in it that were not eligible to be called up could stay with the state guard. States could have members that were in both Guard Organizations but in the even of federalization, those people would become Federal Troops. Also, those that still had a commitment to their Military time (i.e. 4 years for some and 10 for others after they leave the active duty service) could serve with the state guard but would be federalized. This means that states like Texas has a State Guard that is still very strong today which is mostly comprised of Local Police, Sheriffs, Texas Rangers, Fire Fighters and such that cannot be called up and can be used by the Texas Governor as the Old Guard used to be used for including in case of a Rogue Federal Government Uprising. But the first half of the 2nd amendment really has been watered down and probably needs to be amended to keep it current as there is very little chance that the Federal Military would follow orders to suppress any given state. You see, it's written into the UCMJ (the Military Constitution) to prevent that from happening.


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

We also need to include the 14th amendment as well. This right is within your own home and pertains to adequate protection weapons. You may believe a pungee pit should be used to protect your property or a high amperage high voltage electric shock on your welcome matt but I don't know of any lawyer that could keep you from prison if you actually had to use such a thing. It's excess. The state, under the 14th amendment can rule what is in excess for firearms. It's usually under the reasoning of Public Safety. They can determine that you need to be registered to carry a weapon (not open carry) on the street and then make it almost impossible for you to actually get the permit (case in point NYC) in a timely manner ( years or more) but they have to offer it. They can't say you can't have a bazooka but they can make it almost impossible for you to get the permit to have one for various reasons. They can't say that you can't own a fully Automatic Weapon of any kind but they can fix it so they are just plain unavailable by either making them too expensive (a real M-16-A-1 in junk condition starts at 15,000 dollars) or makes it almost impossible to comply with the storage requirements or makes it almost impossible to gain the proper permit to have it. (Again, NYC). None of these methods are against the Second amendment and are well within the 14th amendment according to the many rulings by the Supreme Courts over the past decades. They can rule that one type of weapon is in excess for home defense while others are not. They can make a rule for an age limit on purchasing firearms and ammo. They can limit the Mag Sizes. They can outlaw the sale of the ability to use certain addons. The list goes on and on. And all have been upheld by the Supreme Court. That pretty well means that they are Constitutional. Maybe not moral but constitutional.

What I hold is that we need to amend the 2nd amendment to remove the ambiguity that it has in today's world. 200 years ago, it was so much simpler. But since 1850 (circa) we have long since outgrown it's simple wording. One side says vehemently that we need to get rid of the 2nd amendment while another faction says we need to follow the second half word for word without any other thoughts. Both sides will continue this war but people are getting killed or maybe needlessly in fear of their lives over this "Debate". I won't really call it a debate. Both sides are just yelling over the fence at each other and neither is listening. What we need is a starting dialogue to get it settled and updated to todays standards. It's not 1775 anymore and our weapons have outgrown the Muskets by far. And our Population is more dense than it ever has been before. There has to be a balance between the right to bear arms and Public Safety. This means we have to stop the yelling while hold our hands over our ears and come to a decent set of decisions before another group (Politicians) that are less qualified does it for us.

You write a hell of a lot about something which you claim has no powers, but which you're talking about having powers.

Well, make up your mind. Does the Constitution have the power or not? Is it the law of the land or not? Should we follow it or not in it's entirety or not? Or should we just pick and choose the parts we want to follow and disregard the rest. Or do we just do whatever the hell we please. But make up your mind.

Do we continue to allow complete morons in office to keep writing the laws so badly that there is such a turmoil? Guess you like it when they do it for you and it is such a mess. Well, cupcake, I don't. I want good laws instead of really stupid laws that make a mess out of everything it touches. Since you seem to like the confusion and chaos then I guess we know where you stand.

We passed a very good law against Murder. Criminals ignore even the best written laws.

What the hell is your point?

And what does that have to do with law abiding citizens and firearms? Not a damned thing. It's just another strawman. Rather than address the problem you want us to not look directly. Watch your left hand while the right hand is doing the real magic, right, there cupcake.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

Let's take a look at the 2nd amendment and break it into two parts.

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

This was put into place to prevent the Federal Government from becoming all powerful. Our Founding Fathers were downright paranoid about this after just finishing a war with England. In fact, they were so paranoid that they limited the Federals to no more than a 75,000 man standing army which would not be enough to even stand against one state's organized militia much less all of them. But going into WWI, Congress inacted the National Guard Act of 1917 that allowed the Federal Government to fund the Guard Units in the States right around 120 days a year and the Feds could call up the Guard Units. But they did add a provision that stated that the State could create a States Guard seperate from the National Guard where those in it that were not eligible to be called up could stay with the state guard. States could have members that were in both Guard Organizations but in the even of federalization, those people would become Federal Troops. Also, those that still had a commitment to their Military time (i.e. 4 years for some and 10 for others after they leave the active duty service) could serve with the state guard but would be federalized. This means that states like Texas has a State Guard that is still very strong today which is mostly comprised of Local Police, Sheriffs, Texas Rangers, Fire Fighters and such that cannot be called up and can be used by the Texas Governor as the Old Guard used to be used for including in case of a Rogue Federal Government Uprising. But the first half of the 2nd amendment really has been watered down and probably needs to be amended to keep it current as there is very little chance that the Federal Military would follow orders to suppress any given state. You see, it's written into the UCMJ (the Military Constitution) to prevent that from happening.


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

We also need to include the 14th amendment as well. This right is within your own home and pertains to adequate protection weapons. You may believe a pungee pit should be used to protect your property or a high amperage high voltage electric shock on your welcome matt but I don't know of any lawyer that could keep you from prison if you actually had to use such a thing. It's excess. The state, under the 14th amendment can rule what is in excess for firearms. It's usually under the reasoning of Public Safety. They can determine that you need to be registered to carry a weapon (not open carry) on the street and then make it almost impossible for you to actually get the permit (case in point NYC) in a timely manner ( years or more) but they have to offer it. They can't say you can't have a bazooka but they can make it almost impossible for you to get the permit to have one for various reasons. They can't say that you can't own a fully Automatic Weapon of any kind but they can fix it so they are just plain unavailable by either making them too expensive (a real M-16-A-1 in junk condition starts at 15,000 dollars) or makes it almost impossible to comply with the storage requirements or makes it almost impossible to gain the proper permit to have it. (Again, NYC). None of these methods are against the Second amendment and are well within the 14th amendment according to the many rulings by the Supreme Courts over the past decades. They can rule that one type of weapon is in excess for home defense while others are not. They can make a rule for an age limit on purchasing firearms and ammo. They can limit the Mag Sizes. They can outlaw the sale of the ability to use certain addons. The list goes on and on. And all have been upheld by the Supreme Court. That pretty well means that they are Constitutional. Maybe not moral but constitutional.

What I hold is that we need to amend the 2nd amendment to remove the ambiguity that it has in today's world. 200 years ago, it was so much simpler. But since 1850 (circa) we have long since outgrown it's simple wording. One side says vehemently that we need to get rid of the 2nd amendment while another faction says we need to follow the second half word for word without any other thoughts. Both sides will continue this war but people are getting killed or maybe needlessly in fear of their lives over this "Debate". I won't really call it a debate. Both sides are just yelling over the fence at each other and neither is listening. What we need is a starting dialogue to get it settled and updated to todays standards. It's not 1775 anymore and our weapons have outgrown the Muskets by far. And our Population is more dense than it ever has been before. There has to be a balance between the right to bear arms and Public Safety. This means we have to stop the yelling while hold our hands over our ears and come to a decent set of decisions before another group (Politicians) that are less qualified does it for us.

You write a hell of a lot about something which you claim has no powers, but which you're talking about having powers.

Well, make up your mind. Does the Constitution have the power or not? Is it the law of the land or not? Should we follow it or not in it's entirety or not? Or should we just pick and choose the parts we want to follow and disregard the rest. Or do we just do whatever the hell we please. But make up your mind.

You talk a lot, but rarely listen.

Thank you for making my point, cupcake.

You think I did? I didn’t, but you do ramble, dontcha petunia

Are you ready to really discuss it or are you going to keep going on like you are. If you really want a good discussion then let's get it done. If not, just keep going like you are and a bunch of moronic politicos will pass some really stupid laws about it that none of us really want. But I guess you are used to that.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Nice try, but there is no Bill of Rights for any other government so you had to be talking about our Federal government. and, you are wrong. The 2nd Amendment enumerates a Right of the individual to keep arms for their own PRIVATE defense. It conveys no Rights to the State at all. The State after all IS power. The ridiculous claim that the 2nd gives the government the right to arm itself is simply stupid. States have no Rights. PEOPLE DO.

Let's take a look at the 2nd amendment and break it into two parts.

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

This was put into place to prevent the Federal Government from becoming all powerful. Our Founding Fathers were downright paranoid about this after just finishing a war with England. In fact, they were so paranoid that they limited the Federals to no more than a 75,000 man standing army which would not be enough to even stand against one state's organized militia much less all of them. But going into WWI, Congress inacted the National Guard Act of 1917 that allowed the Federal Government to fund the Guard Units in the States right around 120 days a year and the Feds could call up the Guard Units. But they did add a provision that stated that the State could create a States Guard seperate from the National Guard where those in it that were not eligible to be called up could stay with the state guard. States could have members that were in both Guard Organizations but in the even of federalization, those people would become Federal Troops. Also, those that still had a commitment to their Military time (i.e. 4 years for some and 10 for others after they leave the active duty service) could serve with the state guard but would be federalized. This means that states like Texas has a State Guard that is still very strong today which is mostly comprised of Local Police, Sheriffs, Texas Rangers, Fire Fighters and such that cannot be called up and can be used by the Texas Governor as the Old Guard used to be used for including in case of a Rogue Federal Government Uprising. But the first half of the 2nd amendment really has been watered down and probably needs to be amended to keep it current as there is very little chance that the Federal Military would follow orders to suppress any given state. You see, it's written into the UCMJ (the Military Constitution) to prevent that from happening.


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

We also need to include the 14th amendment as well. This right is within your own home and pertains to adequate protection weapons. You may believe a pungee pit should be used to protect your property or a high amperage high voltage electric shock on your welcome matt but I don't know of any lawyer that could keep you from prison if you actually had to use such a thing. It's excess. The state, under the 14th amendment can rule what is in excess for firearms. It's usually under the reasoning of Public Safety. They can determine that you need to be registered to carry a weapon (not open carry) on the street and then make it almost impossible for you to actually get the permit (case in point NYC) in a timely manner ( years or more) but they have to offer it. They can't say you can't have a bazooka but they can make it almost impossible for you to get the permit to have one for various reasons. They can't say that you can't own a fully Automatic Weapon of any kind but they can fix it so they are just plain unavailable by either making them too expensive (a real M-16-A-1 in junk condition starts at 15,000 dollars) or makes it almost impossible to comply with the storage requirements or makes it almost impossible to gain the proper permit to have it. (Again, NYC). None of these methods are against the Second amendment and are well within the 14th amendment according to the many rulings by the Supreme Courts over the past decades. They can rule that one type of weapon is in excess for home defense while others are not. They can make a rule for an age limit on purchasing firearms and ammo. They can limit the Mag Sizes. They can outlaw the sale of the ability to use certain addons. The list goes on and on. And all have been upheld by the Supreme Court. That pretty well means that they are Constitutional. Maybe not moral but constitutional.

What I hold is that we need to amend the 2nd amendment to remove the ambiguity that it has in today's world. 200 years ago, it was so much simpler. But since 1850 (circa) we have long since outgrown it's simple wording. One side says vehemently that we need to get rid of the 2nd amendment while another faction says we need to follow the second half word for word without any other thoughts. Both sides will continue this war but people are getting killed or maybe needlessly in fear of their lives over this "Debate". I won't really call it a debate. Both sides are just yelling over the fence at each other and neither is listening. What we need is a starting dialogue to get it settled and updated to todays standards. It's not 1775 anymore and our weapons have outgrown the Muskets by far. And our Population is more dense than it ever has been before. There has to be a balance between the right to bear arms and Public Safety. This means we have to stop the yelling while hold our hands over our ears and come to a decent set of decisions before another group (Politicians) that are less qualified does it for us.

You write a hell of a lot about something which you claim has no powers, but which you're talking about having powers.

Well, make up your mind. Does the Constitution have the power or not? Is it the law of the land or not? Should we follow it or not in it's entirety or not? Or should we just pick and choose the parts we want to follow and disregard the rest. Or do we just do whatever the hell we please. But make up your mind.

You talk a lot, but rarely listen.

Thank you for making my point, cupcake.

Wait until you find out he's on my ignore list.......

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

Applying 21st Century mores to 18th Century thinking is an exercise in vanity.

The militia is bound to the right. The right is not bound to the militia.

If you want to follow the meaning of the 2nd amendment, the Militia is bound to the Government which should be neither right nor left, it just is.

Wow, you really don'tunderstand the English language do you. The Militia was a COUNTER to the government. It wasn't bound to the government, it was a defense FROM the government.

"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

"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

"To disarm the people...s the most effectual way to enslave them."
- George Mason, referencing advice given to the British Parliament by Pennsylvania governor Sir William Keith, The Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adooption of the Federal Constitution, June 14, 1788

"Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed, as they are in almost every country in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops."
- Noah Webster, An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution, October 10, 1787

"Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of."
- James Madison, Federalist No. 46, January 29, 1788




And on and on and on. The 2nd Amendment is the ultimate defender of ALL other Rights. Or, as a much smarter person than I ever said, "the Bill of Rights is nine limitations on what government can do....and one, final option."

I didn't say which government. You assumed I meant the Federal Government while you are looking for a fight or just trying to be right. You are kind of right. But the 2nd amendment is what gives the States the right to have State Militias seperate from the Federal Forces and even the National Guard. The State can raise an army if it feels the need. And THAT is the Organized Militia, not the National Guard which can be Nationalized. But the first half of the 2nd amendment is probably not necessary so much anymore and is primarily used by nutjobs that just want to run around the woods calling themselves Militias. I call them potential Lynch Mobs. But a few states still have State Guards and do use them in case of Emergency when one arises. It really burns Femas drawers when the State Guard takes charge and Fema has to work for them.

Nice try, but there is no Bill of Rights for any other government so you had to be talking about our Federal government. and, you are wrong. The 2nd Amendment enumerates a Right of the individual to keep arms for their own PRIVATE defense. It conveys no Rights to the State at all. The State after all IS power. The ridiculous claim that the 2nd gives the government the right to arm itself is simply stupid. States have no Rights. PEOPLE DO.

Let's take a look at the 2nd amendment and break it into two parts.

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

This was put into place to prevent the Federal Government from becoming all powerful. Our Founding Fathers were downright paranoid about this after just finishing a war with England. In fact, they were so paranoid that they limited the Federals to no more than a 75,000 man standing army which would not be enough to even stand against one state's organized militia much less all of them. But going into WWI, Congress inacted the National Guard Act of 1917 that allowed the Federal Government to fund the Guard Units in the States right around 120 days a year and the Feds could call up the Guard Units. But they did add a provision that stated that the State could create a States Guard seperate from the National Guard where those in it that were not eligible to be called up could stay with the state guard. States could have members that were in both Guard Organizations but in the even of federalization, those people would become Federal Troops. Also, those that still had a commitment to their Military time (i.e. 4 years for some and 10 for others after they leave the active duty service) could serve with the state guard but would be federalized. This means that states like Texas has a State Guard that is still very strong today which is mostly comprised of Local Police, Sheriffs, Texas Rangers, Fire Fighters and such that cannot be called up and can be used by the Texas Governor as the Old Guard used to be used for including in case of a Rogue Federal Government Uprising. But the first half of the 2nd amendment really has been watered down and probably needs to be amended to keep it current as there is very little chance that the Federal Military would follow orders to suppress any given state. You see, it's written into the UCMJ (the Military Constitution) to prevent that from happening.


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

We also need to include the 14th amendment as well. This right is within your own home and pertains to adequate protection weapons. You may believe a pungee pit should be used to protect your property or a high amperage high voltage electric shock on your welcome matt but I don't know of any lawyer that could keep you from prison if you actually had to use such a thing. It's excess. The state, under the 14th amendment can rule what is in excess for firearms. It's usually under the reasoning of Public Safety. They can determine that you need to be registered to carry a weapon (not open carry) on the street and then make it almost impossible for you to actually get the permit (case in point NYC) in a timely manner ( years or more) but they have to offer it. They can't say you can't have a bazooka but they can make it almost impossible for you to get the permit to have one for various reasons. They can't say that you can't own a fully Automatic Weapon of any kind but they can fix it so they are just plain unavailable by either making them too expensive (a real M-16-A-1 in junk condition starts at 15,000 dollars) or makes it almost impossible to comply with the storage requirements or makes it almost impossible to gain the proper permit to have it. (Again, NYC). None of these methods are against the Second amendment and are well within the 14th amendment according to the many rulings by the Supreme Courts over the past decades. They can rule that one type of weapon is in excess for home defense while others are not. They can make a rule for an age limit on purchasing firearms and ammo. They can limit the Mag Sizes. They can outlaw the sale of the ability to use certain addons. The list goes on and on. And all have been upheld by the Supreme Court. That pretty well means that they are Constitutional. Maybe not moral but constitutional.

What I hold is that we need to amend the 2nd amendment to remove the ambiguity that it has in today's world. 200 years ago, it was so much simpler. But since 1850 (circa) we have long since outgrown it's simple wording. One side says vehemently that we need to get rid of the 2nd amendment while another faction says we need to follow the second half word for word without any other thoughts. Both sides will continue this war but people are getting killed or maybe needlessly in fear of their lives over this "Debate". I won't really call it a debate. Both sides are just yelling over the fence at each other and neither is listening. What we need is a starting dialogue to get it settled and updated to todays standards. It's not 1775 anymore and our weapons have outgrown the Muskets by far. And our Population is more dense than it ever has been before. There has to be a balance between the right to bear arms and Public Safety. This means we have to stop the yelling while hold our hands over our ears and come to a decent set of decisions before another group (Politicians) that are less qualified does it for us.

Starting dialogue? Too funny. What rock have you been hiding under these last 25 years?

Aside from a few details, the matter is settled. No further discussion is necessary.

If you'd like to change something constitutional, have at it. I'm sure you know the drill.

 

[Pop23]

Nice try, but there is no Bill of Rights for any other government so you had to be talking about our Federal government. and, you are wrong. The 2nd Amendment enumerates a Right of the individual to keep arms for their own PRIVATE defense. It conveys no Rights to the State at all. The State after all IS power. The ridiculous claim that the 2nd gives the government the right to arm itself is simply stupid. States have no Rights. PEOPLE DO.

Let's take a look at the 2nd amendment and break it into two parts.

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

This was put into place to prevent the Federal Government from becoming all powerful. Our Founding Fathers were downright paranoid about this after just finishing a war with England. In fact, they were so paranoid that they limited the Federals to no more than a 75,000 man standing army which would not be enough to even stand against one state's organized militia much less all of them. But going into WWI, Congress inacted the National Guard Act of 1917 that allowed the Federal Government to fund the Guard Units in the States right around 120 days a year and the Feds could call up the Guard Units. But they did add a provision that stated that the State could create a States Guard seperate from the National Guard where those in it that were not eligible to be called up could stay with the state guard. States could have members that were in both Guard Organizations but in the even of federalization, those people would become Federal Troops. Also, those that still had a commitment to their Military time (i.e. 4 years for some and 10 for others after they leave the active duty service) could serve with the state guard but would be federalized. This means that states like Texas has a State Guard that is still very strong today which is mostly comprised of Local Police, Sheriffs, Texas Rangers, Fire Fighters and such that cannot be called up and can be used by the Texas Governor as the Old Guard used to be used for including in case of a Rogue Federal Government Uprising. But the first half of the 2nd amendment really has been watered down and probably needs to be amended to keep it current as there is very little chance that the Federal Military would follow orders to suppress any given state. You see, it's written into the UCMJ (the Military Constitution) to prevent that from happening.


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

We also need to include the 14th amendment as well. This right is within your own home and pertains to adequate protection weapons. You may believe a pungee pit should be used to protect your property or a high amperage high voltage electric shock on your welcome matt but I don't know of any lawyer that could keep you from prison if you actually had to use such a thing. It's excess. The state, under the 14th amendment can rule what is in excess for firearms. It's usually under the reasoning of Public Safety. They can determine that you need to be registered to carry a weapon (not open carry) on the street and then make it almost impossible for you to actually get the permit (case in point NYC) in a timely manner ( years or more) but they have to offer it. They can't say you can't have a bazooka but they can make it almost impossible for you to get the permit to have one for various reasons. They can't say that you can't own a fully Automatic Weapon of any kind but they can fix it so they are just plain unavailable by either making them too expensive (a real M-16-A-1 in junk condition starts at 15,000 dollars) or makes it almost impossible to comply with the storage requirements or makes it almost impossible to gain the proper permit to have it. (Again, NYC). None of these methods are against the Second amendment and are well within the 14th amendment according to the many rulings by the Supreme Courts over the past decades. They can rule that one type of weapon is in excess for home defense while others are not. They can make a rule for an age limit on purchasing firearms and ammo. They can limit the Mag Sizes. They can outlaw the sale of the ability to use certain addons. The list goes on and on. And all have been upheld by the Supreme Court. That pretty well means that they are Constitutional. Maybe not moral but constitutional.

What I hold is that we need to amend the 2nd amendment to remove the ambiguity that it has in today's world. 200 years ago, it was so much simpler. But since 1850 (circa) we have long since outgrown it's simple wording. One side says vehemently that we need to get rid of the 2nd amendment while another faction says we need to follow the second half word for word without any other thoughts. Both sides will continue this war but people are getting killed or maybe needlessly in fear of their lives over this "Debate". I won't really call it a debate. Both sides are just yelling over the fence at each other and neither is listening. What we need is a starting dialogue to get it settled and updated to todays standards. It's not 1775 anymore and our weapons have outgrown the Muskets by far. And our Population is more dense than it ever has been before. There has to be a balance between the right to bear arms and Public Safety. This means we have to stop the yelling while hold our hands over our ears and come to a decent set of decisions before another group (Politicians) that are less qualified does it for us.

You write a hell of a lot about something which you claim has no powers, but which you're talking about having powers.

Well, make up your mind. Does the Constitution have the power or not? Is it the law of the land or not? Should we follow it or not in it's entirety or not? Or should we just pick and choose the parts we want to follow and disregard the rest. Or do we just do whatever the hell we please. But make up your mind.

Do we continue to allow complete morons in office to keep writing the laws so badly that there is such a turmoil? Guess you like it when they do it for you and it is such a mess. Well, cupcake, I don't. I want good laws instead of really stupid laws that make a mess out of everything it touches. Since you seem to like the confusion and chaos then I guess we know where you stand.

We passed a very good law against Murder. Criminals ignore even the best written laws.

What the hell is your point?

And what does that have to do with law abiding citizens and firearms? Not a damned thing. It's just another strawman. Rather than address the problem you want us to not look directly. Watch your left hand while the right hand is doing the real magic, right, there cupcake.

You see law abiding citizens as the problem?

Well sunshine, your issues run pretty damn deep. Seek help soon.

 

[Pop23]

You write a hell of a lot about something which you claim has no powers, but which you're talking about having powers.

Well, make up your mind. Does the Constitution have the power or not? Is it the law of the land or not? Should we follow it or not in it's entirety or not? Or should we just pick and choose the parts we want to follow and disregard the rest. Or do we just do whatever the hell we please. But make up your mind.

You talk a lot, but rarely listen.

Thank you for making my point, cupcake.

You think I did? I didn’t, but you do ramble, dontcha petunia

Are you ready to really discuss it or are you going to keep going on like you are. If you really want a good discussion then let's get it done. If not, just keep going like you are and a bunch of moronic politicos will pass some really stupid laws about it that none of us really want. But I guess you are used to that.

Not sure I can discuss it with someone who doesn’t thing my freedom of speech is constitutionally protected.

Now back to your knitting with ya