Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
No, it doesn't. The actual words, mean something, not the punctuation. Our Second Amendment is completely legible and means the same thing, with out, "punctuation on the right wing".the punctuation changes nothing. you can remove all of it, and it means the same.yes, and only the right wing appeals to ignorance of the law, and plain reason, not to mention, legal axioms.Well regulated militia are expressly declared Necessary to the security of a free State, not the federal government or the People.
The stupidity here is unbelievable.
What is the militia?
Only well regulated militia of the whole People, a few public officials excepted, are declared Necessary, the unorganized militia is not declared Necessary and may be Infringed by well regulated militia, when Necessary for the security of a free State.
- "I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
— George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788
Our supreme law of the land is about the resolution of any conflict of laws, not the whole and entire concept of natural or individual rights.
Then the 2nd would have ended at the second comma, since it didn’t, it is expressing a right granted beyond the militia.
The punctuation means everything. It’s why the 2nd is in The Bill of Rights. Using your logic, the article would not be within the 1st 10 articles at all.
The 1st 10 outline individual rights, and the 2nd would be so out of place as to be laughable.
It would be like adding The History of the Ford Mustang within the Old Testament.
A really bad placement.
The founding fathers were not dumb.
No, it doesn't. The actual words, mean something, not the punctuation. Our Second Amendment is completely legible and means the same thing, with out, "punctuation on the right wing".the punctuation changes nothing. you can remove all of it, and it means the same.yes, and only the right wing appeals to ignorance of the law, and plain reason, not to mention, legal axioms.The stupidity here is unbelievable.
What is the militia?
Only well regulated militia of the whole People, a few public officials excepted, are declared Necessary, the unorganized militia is not declared Necessary and may be Infringed by well regulated militia, when Necessary for the security of a free State.
- "I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
— George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788
Our supreme law of the land is about the resolution of any conflict of laws, not the whole and entire concept of natural or individual rights.
Then the 2nd would have ended at the second comma, since it didn’t, it is expressing a right granted beyond the militia.
The punctuation means everything. It’s why the 2nd is in The Bill of Rights. Using your logic, the article would not be within the 1st 10 articles at all.
The 1st 10 outline individual rights, and the 2nd would be so out of place as to be laughable.
It would be like adding The History of the Ford Mustang within the Old Testament.
A really bad placement.
The founding fathers were not dumb.
A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed
That is Your story bro. Our Founding Fathers were more liberal than that; and included civil rights to limit Government propaganda and rhetoric, being executed into legal dogma.No, it doesn't. The actual words, mean something, not the punctuation. Our Second Amendment is completely legible and means the same thing, with out, "punctuation on the right wing".the punctuation changes nothing. you can remove all of it, and it means the same.yes, and only the right wing appeals to ignorance of the law, and plain reason, not to mention, legal axioms.
Only well regulated militia of the whole People, a few public officials excepted, are declared Necessary, the unorganized militia is not declared Necessary and may be Infringed by well regulated militia, when Necessary for the security of a free State.
- "I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
— George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788
Our supreme law of the land is about the resolution of any conflict of laws, not the whole and entire concept of natural or individual rights.
Then the 2nd would have ended at the second comma, since it didn’t, it is expressing a right granted beyond the militia.
The punctuation means everything. It’s why the 2nd is in The Bill of Rights. Using your logic, the article would not be within the 1st 10 articles at all.
The 1st 10 outline individual rights, and the 2nd would be so out of place as to be laughable.
It would be like adding The History of the Ford Mustang within the Old Testament.
A really bad placement.
The founding fathers were not dumb.
A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed
Using your logic, the article should read:
A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State.
Anything beyond the period would not be necessary.
OR:
A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State the right of the MILITIA to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed
Yet, neither is true, and it’s placement in the articles that give INDIVIDUAL rights make the actual wording of:
A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State the right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed
Completely understandable, that, it is the individuals the right.
PERIOD.
Nice, except for its inclusion within the BILL OF RIGHTS, which of course would make zero sense using your logic. But it’s there, so.That is Your story bro. Our Founding Fathers were more liberal than that; and included civil rights to limit Government propaganda and rhetoric, being executed into legal dogma.No, it doesn't. The actual words, mean something, not the punctuation. Our Second Amendment is completely legible and means the same thing, with out, "punctuation on the right wing".the punctuation changes nothing. you can remove all of it, and it means the same.Then the 2nd would have ended at the second comma, since it didn’t, it is expressing a right granted beyond the militia.
The punctuation means everything. It’s why the 2nd is in The Bill of Rights. Using your logic, the article would not be within the 1st 10 articles at all.
The 1st 10 outline individual rights, and the 2nd would be so out of place as to be laughable.
It would be like adding The History of the Ford Mustang within the Old Testament.
A really bad placement.
The founding fathers were not dumb.
A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed
Using your logic, the article should read:
A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State.
Anything beyond the period would not be necessary.
OR:
A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State the right of the MILITIA to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed
Yet, neither is true, and it’s placement in the articles that give INDIVIDUAL rights make the actual wording of:
A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State the right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed
Completely understandable, that, it is the individuals the right.
PERIOD.
Congress has no authority to deny or disparage the People from military service and keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.
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.
The security of a free State to its well regulated militia, is a States' sovereign right. It says so in our Second Amendment.Nice, except for its inclusion within the BILL OF RIGHTS, which of course would make zero sense using your logic. But it’s there, so.That is Your story bro. Our Founding Fathers were more liberal than that; and included civil rights to limit Government propaganda and rhetoric, being executed into legal dogma.No, it doesn't. The actual words, mean something, not the punctuation. Our Second Amendment is completely legible and means the same thing, with out, "punctuation on the right wing".the punctuation changes nothing. you can remove all of it, and it means the same.
The punctuation means everything. It’s why the 2nd is in The Bill of Rights. Using your logic, the article would not be within the 1st 10 articles at all.
The 1st 10 outline individual rights, and the 2nd would be so out of place as to be laughable.
It would be like adding The History of the Ford Mustang within the Old Testament.
A really bad placement.
The founding fathers were not dumb.
A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed
Using your logic, the article should read:
A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State.
Anything beyond the period would not be necessary.
OR:
A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State the right of the MILITIA to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed
Yet, neither is true, and it’s placement in the articles that give INDIVIDUAL rights make the actual wording of:
A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State the right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed
Completely understandable, that, it is the individuals the right.
PERIOD.
Congress has no authority to deny or disparage the People from military service and keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.
Yours is the nice story Bro.
There is Only one federal Constitution for our Body Politic.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.
There have been State Militias (hell, there were State Navies!) since before the country was founded. You are presenting history that has no bearing at all on the 2nd Amendment, nor on why it was written in the first place. The 2nd Amendment is not ambiguous in the slightest. It's wording was exceptionally well thought out. That part about "well regulated" when you look at that particular phrase from that era (actually first used in the 1650's) simply meant "in good working order". That's why you see clocks with that marking on their backplates. Kind of silly to have a well regulated clock in the legal sense, but makes complete sense when the actual meaning is known.
That sounds like a profesional soldiers battle pack at the time. Translate to today we should all be armed with M!6s As well as tent,knap sack,canteen and shovel. Along with a shit load of ammo!I won't look at today. I will look at the time around 1790.
Militia Act of 1792
Every citizen, so enrolled and notified, shall, within six months thereafter, provide himself with a good musket or firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints, and a knapsack, a pouch, with a box therein, to contain not less than twenty four cartridges, suited to the bore of his musket or firelock, each cartridge to contain a proper quantity of powder and ball; or with a good rifle, knapsack, shot-pouch, and powder-horn, twenty balls suited to the bore of his rifle, and a quarter of a pound of powder; and shall appear so armed, accoutred and provided, when called out to exercise or into service, except, that when called out on company days to exercise only, he may appear without a knapsack.
First we need to look at who was a Citizen in 1790s. In the 1790s, ALL Blacks even free Blacks were prohibited from owning and carrying firearms. All People even whites that would not swear allegiance to the newly formed United States were prohibited from owning or carrying fire arms. Women were prohibited from owning or carrying firearms. Bonded Slaves, even whites were prohibited from owning or carrying firearms of any kind. It all pretty much boiled down that a Citizen was a Free White Male Land Owner deemed to be in good standing with the Existing Government both Stated and Federal Governments. It's been estimated that only about 8% of the population from that time met the full requirement to own, possess and carry firearms legally. Remember, more than half of the population of that time either supported the Crown or leaned heavily in that direction. The Newly Formed Colonist Government did exactly what the British Government tried to do themselves.
There were two rebellions that made the Militia Act of 1792 to be written and adopted. The Shays Rebellion of 1786-1787 and the Whiskey Rebellion 1791-1794. While neither amounted to much, the founding fathers were scared to death that something else might come up that might endanger the newly formed Government so they adopted the 2nd Amendment as it was written since there was no Standing Army to prevent any decent resurrection from becoming successful. It was left up to each state individually to provide the militias to prevent it from happening. As long as the states agreed and didn't go to war with each other.
Using the original definition, if you don't own your House, Farm or Business and you don't completely and blindly support our current Government then are not a Citizen in Good Standings and will not be afforded the right to own, posses or carry any form of Firearms. Oh, and you must be a Free White Male as well.
The security of a free State to its well regulated militia, is a States' sovereign right. It says so in our Second Amendment.Nice, except for its inclusion within the BILL OF RIGHTS, which of course would make zero sense using your logic. But it’s there, so.That is Your story bro. Our Founding Fathers were more liberal than that; and included civil rights to limit Government propaganda and rhetoric, being executed into legal dogma.No, it doesn't. The actual words, mean something, not the punctuation. Our Second Amendment is completely legible and means the same thing, with out, "punctuation on the right wing".The punctuation means everything. It’s why the 2nd is in The Bill of Rights. Using your logic, the article would not be within the 1st 10 articles at all.
The 1st 10 outline individual rights, and the 2nd would be so out of place as to be laughable.
It would be like adding The History of the Ford Mustang within the Old Testament.
A really bad placement.
The founding fathers were not dumb.
A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed
Using your logic, the article should read:
A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State.
Anything beyond the period would not be necessary.
OR:
A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State the right of the MILITIA to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed
Yet, neither is true, and it’s placement in the articles that give INDIVIDUAL rights make the actual wording of:
A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State the right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed
Completely understandable, that, it is the individuals the right.
PERIOD.
Congress has no authority to deny or disparage the People from military service and keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.
Yours is the nice story Bro.
There is Only one federal Constitution for our Body Politic.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.
There have been State Militias (hell, there were State Navies!) since before the country was founded. You are presenting history that has no bearing at all on the 2nd Amendment, nor on why it was written in the first place. The 2nd Amendment is not ambiguous in the slightest. It's wording was exceptionally well thought out. That part about "well regulated" when you look at that particular phrase from that era (actually first used in the 1650's) simply meant "in good working order". That's why you see clocks with that marking on their backplates. Kind of silly to have a well regulated clock in the legal sense, but makes complete sense when the actual meaning is known.
out the window, when their boss comes in with his crew, and informs me they are, "collecting interest" on the loan that is a little late.Can I answer with a question ? Thanks, I knew you'd bleat YETH !
scenario. You drive home from a dart game at ____ place and roll in the garage and shut the door behind you. OK ?
You meander up the stairs and open the door, entering the sala ? SI ?
There is your beautiful wife with a Mezkin, 2 large Negroids and a one legged Chinese/Catholic , converted Jew transvestite priest , one in each hole.
You sceeam WHATTAFUKK and from the twins bedroom you hear DADDY HELP !
Your thoughts again on the second amendment( and CC permit) ?
I thought so.
You make zero sense. The actual words in our Second Amendment clearly declare what is Necessary to the security of a free State; it is mostly definitely not, the whole and entire concept of natural and individual rights.The security of a free State to its well regulated militia, is a States' sovereign right. It says so in our Second Amendment.Nice, except for its inclusion within the BILL OF RIGHTS, which of course would make zero sense using your logic. But it’s there, so.That is Your story bro. Our Founding Fathers were more liberal than that; and included civil rights to limit Government propaganda and rhetoric, being executed into legal dogma.No, it doesn't. The actual words, mean something, not the punctuation. Our Second Amendment is completely legible and means the same thing, with out, "punctuation on the right wing".
A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed
Using your logic, the article should read:
A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State.
Anything beyond the period would not be necessary.
OR:
A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State the right of the MILITIA to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed
Yet, neither is true, and it’s placement in the articles that give INDIVIDUAL rights make the actual wording of:
A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State the right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed
Completely understandable, that, it is the individuals the right.
PERIOD.
Congress has no authority to deny or disparage the People from military service and keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.
Yours is the nice story Bro.
WTF?
In the part of the constitution (the bill of rights) that expresses the rights of the INDIVIDUAL, they decided to lump in that A STATE HAS THE RIGHT TO FORM A MILITIA?
That makes absolutely ZERO sense.
Yes, we are; especially when exercising the franchise.There is Only one federal Constitution for our Body Politic.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.
There have been State Militias (hell, there were State Navies!) since before the country was founded. You are presenting history that has no bearing at all on the 2nd Amendment, nor on why it was written in the first place. The 2nd Amendment is not ambiguous in the slightest. It's wording was exceptionally well thought out. That part about "well regulated" when you look at that particular phrase from that era (actually first used in the 1650's) simply meant "in good working order". That's why you see clocks with that marking on their backplates. Kind of silly to have a well regulated clock in the legal sense, but makes complete sense when the actual meaning is known.
Yes, and the PEOPLE are the body politic. NOT the government which is supposed to be the SERVANT of the people.
Yes, we are; especially when exercising the franchise.There is Only one federal Constitution for our Body Politic.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.
There have been State Militias (hell, there were State Navies!) since before the country was founded. You are presenting history that has no bearing at all on the 2nd Amendment, nor on why it was written in the first place. The 2nd Amendment is not ambiguous in the slightest. It's wording was exceptionally well thought out. That part about "well regulated" when you look at that particular phrase from that era (actually first used in the 1650's) simply meant "in good working order". That's why you see clocks with that marking on their backplates. Kind of silly to have a well regulated clock in the legal sense, but makes complete sense when the actual meaning is known.
Yes, and the PEOPLE are the body politic. NOT the government which is supposed to be the SERVANT of the people.
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.
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.
You make zero sense. The actual words in our Second Amendment clearly declare what is Necessary to the security of a free State; it is mostly definitely not, the whole and entire concept of natural and individual rights.The security of a free State to its well regulated militia, is a States' sovereign right. It says so in our Second Amendment.Nice, except for its inclusion within the BILL OF RIGHTS, which of course would make zero sense using your logic. But it’s there, so.That is Your story bro. Our Founding Fathers were more liberal than that; and included civil rights to limit Government propaganda and rhetoric, being executed into legal dogma.Using your logic, the article should read:
A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State.
Anything beyond the period would not be necessary.
OR:
A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State the right of the MILITIA to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed
Yet, neither is true, and it’s placement in the articles that give INDIVIDUAL rights make the actual wording of:
A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State the right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed
Completely understandable, that, it is the individuals the right.
PERIOD.
Congress has no authority to deny or disparage the People from military service and keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.
Yours is the nice story Bro.
WTF?
In the part of the constitution (the bill of rights) that expresses the rights of the INDIVIDUAL, they decided to lump in that A STATE HAS THE RIGHT TO FORM A MILITIA?
That makes absolutely ZERO sense.
vote non-incumbent, for awhile; see if they, get the message.Yes, we are; especially when exercising the franchise.There is Only one federal Constitution for our Body Politic.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.
There have been State Militias (hell, there were State Navies!) since before the country was founded. You are presenting history that has no bearing at all on the 2nd Amendment, nor on why it was written in the first place. The 2nd Amendment is not ambiguous in the slightest. It's wording was exceptionally well thought out. That part about "well regulated" when you look at that particular phrase from that era (actually first used in the 1650's) simply meant "in good working order". That's why you see clocks with that marking on their backplates. Kind of silly to have a well regulated clock in the legal sense, but makes complete sense when the actual meaning is known.
Yes, and the PEOPLE are the body politic. NOT the government which is supposed to be the SERVANT of the people.
That would make sense in a perfect world. Unfortunately, we no longer control our Politicians. They are bought and paid for by the Corporations and Cronies. They no longer even own their own souls. Even Satan had to surrender their souls to the corporations. Bet that pissed him off something fierce.
lol. nobody takes the right wing seriously about our form of Government, either.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.
You are arguing that the state constitutions are what governs us? No. The Bill of Rights IS the US Constitution. No, it is not all of the US Constitution, but it is part of the US Constitution. The Bill of Rights sets the standards. No state constitution can override what the US Constitution states. And the Bill of Rights is part of the US Constitution.
