Original Intent #5 (Second Amendment)

[Wolfstrike]

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
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.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>


Out of all the Amendments that were put together, this Amendment was #2 , isn't that an indication of importance?

Why did states have militias?
Each state was nearly it's own country.
States weren't expected to trust other states.
The founders envisioned a country and it's states where an army wasn't there to push people around.
The militia was a temporary army.
The founders did not want a standing army. To a small extent they recanted and created a navy, but this was to be off-shore.

Nearly every male of the age of 17 and older was expected to participate in his state's defense. In most cases the militia man brought his own guns.
Who was there to enact gun control?
One group of citizens demanding another group be disarmed?
A local sheriff trying to collect guns from a population if 2000?
There were no federal police forces.
Even when local police forces were created they were greatly out numbered and out gunned by the public.

The founders were well aware of the weapon disarmament history of England and Europe, but in America the idea was nearly inconceivable.
You had people living in the wilderness and years to come of expansion.
How many people needed guns just to eat?

The founders were quick and short about the rules, no laws banning militias, no laws banning guns.

* Modern historians try to say the Second Amendment only applies at a federal level.
The "militia" is a state entity , "the people" are the common citizens.

* Modern historians try to claim weapon technology has surpassed the scope of the Amendment.
When the Amendment was created , it was perfectly legal for a private citizen to own cannons, a few were wealthy enough to do-so.

* The fact is, gun ownership is protected in case all else fails and the government itself becomes a threat to the public

The way the law is written, the government, state or federal, really has no authority over any kind of weapon.

Owning a weapon is not a crime, committing a crime is a crime.

I think the population of a state can write laws against themselves in dealing with explosives, but it would take a large majority, competent pro-Second Amendment law writers, and clear restrictions that would most likely be temporary.


...not just rogue politicians working toward a disarmed public.



Our second president John Adams used to bring his gun to elementary school to go hunting afterwards.
Maybe the reason why kids want to shoot people is not because gun ownership is legal, but due to other social neglect.


Gun ownership is a Constitutional right.
No gun grabbing politician or police force is protected by the Constitution

 

[JakeStarkey]

The line of discussion has moved forward steadily for more than two centuries.

As SCOTUS peruses "weapons of war" within the 2A, the vision will continue to develop.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
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.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>


Out of all the Amendments that were put together, this Amendment was #2 , isn't that an indication of importance?

Why did states have militias?
Each state was nearly it's own country.
States weren't expected to trust other states.
The founders envisioned a country and it's states where an army wasn't there to push people around.
The militia was a temporary army.
The founders did not want a standing army. To a small extent they recanted and created a navy, but this was to be off-shore.

Nearly every male of the age of 17 and older was expected to participate in his state's defense. In most cases the militia man brought his own guns.
Who was there to enact gun control?
One group of citizens demanding another group be disarmed?
A local sheriff trying to collect guns from a population if 2000?
There were no federal police forces.
Even when local police forces were created they were greatly out numbered and out gunned by the public.

The founders were well aware of the weapon disarmament history of England and Europe, but in America the idea was nearly inconceivable.
You had people living in the wilderness and years to come of expansion.
How many people needed guns just to eat?

The founders were quick and short about the rules, no laws banning militias, no laws banning guns.

* Modern historians try to say the Second Amendment only applies at a federal level.
The "militia" is a state entity , "the people" are the common citizens.

* Modern historians try to claim weapon technology has surpassed the scope of the Amendment.
When the Amendment was created , it was perfectly legal for a private citizen to own cannons, a few were wealthy enough to do-so.

* The fact is, gun ownership is protected in case all else fails and the government itself becomes a threat to the public

The way the law is written, the government, state or federal, really has no authority over any kind of weapon.

Owning a weapon is not a crime, committing a crime is a crime.

I think the population of a state can write laws against themselves in dealing with explosives, but it would take a large majority, competent pro-Second Amendment law writers, and clear restrictions that would most likely be temporary.


...not just rogue politicians working toward a disarmed public.



Our second president John Adams used to bring his gun to elementary school to go hunting afterwards.
Maybe the reason why kids want to shoot people is not because gun ownership is legal, but due to other social neglect.


Gun ownership is a Constitutional right.
No gun grabbing politician or police force is protected by the Constitution

This is as ignorant as it is ridiculous and wrong.

The Second Amendment acknowledges an individual right to possess a firearm pursuant to lawful self-defense.

But no right is ‘absolute,’ including the rights enshrined in the Second Amendment:

“Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.” (DC v. Heller (2008)).

Measures placing restrictions on certain types of weapons are perfectly Constitutional, as are regulations such as those limiting magazine capacity, establishing waiting periods, and mandating background checks.

The courts have consistently upheld as Constitutional permit requirements, fees for licenses and permits, and requiring licenses to carry concealed firearms.

The courts alone – and ultimately the Supreme Court – determine what the Constitution means and the original intent of the Framers, including the Second Amendment.

 

[Dan Stubbs]

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
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.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>people living in the wilderness are still living in the wilderness the South side of Chicago would fit the description many animal rove the street looking for pray and killing is "normal"...Better have everyone armed then have every one enslaved.


Out of all the Amendments that were put together, this Amendment was #2 , isn't that an indication of importance?

Why did states have militias?
Each state was nearly it's own country.
States weren't expected to trust other states.
The founders envisioned a country and it's states where an army wasn't there to push people around.
The militia was a temporary army.
The founders did not want a standing army. To a small extent they recanted and created a navy, but this was to be off-shore.

Nearly every male of the age of 17 and older was expected to participate in his state's defense. In most cases the militia man brought his own guns.
Who was there to enact gun control?
One group of citizens demanding another group be disarmed?
A local sheriff trying to collect guns from a population if 2000?
There were no federal police forces.
Even when local police forces were created they were greatly out numbered and out gunned by the public.

The founders were well aware of the weapon disarmament history of England and Europe, but in America the idea was nearly inconceivable.
You had people living in the wilderness and years to come of expansion.
How many people needed guns just to eat?

The founders were quick and short about the rules, no laws banning militias, no laws banning guns.

* Modern historians try to say the Second Amendment only applies at a federal level.
The "militia" is a state entity , "the people" are the common citizens.

* Modern historians try to claim weapon technology has surpassed the scope of the Amendment.
When the Amendment was created , it was perfectly legal for a private citizen to own cannons, a few were wealthy enough to do-so.

* The fact is, gun ownership is protected in case all else fails and the government itself becomes a threat to the public

The way the law is written, the government, state or federal, really has no authority over any kind of weapon.

Owning a weapon is not a crime, committing a crime is a crime.

I think the population of a state can write laws against themselves in dealing with explosives, but it would take a large majority, competent pro-Second Amendment law writers, and clear restrictions that would most likely be temporary.


...not just rogue politicians working toward a disarmed public.



Our second president John Adams used to bring his gun to elementary school to go hunting afterwards.
Maybe the reason why kids want to shoot people is not because gun ownership is legal, but due to other social neglect.


Gun ownership is a Constitutional right.
No gun grabbing politician or police force is protected by the Constitution

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
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.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>


Out of all the Amendments that were put together, this Amendment was #2 , isn't that an indication of importance?

Why did states have militias?
Each state was nearly it's own country.
States weren't expected to trust other states.
The founders envisioned a country and it's states where an army wasn't there to push people around.
The militia was a temporary army.
The founders did not want a standing army. To a small extent they recanted and created a navy, but this was to be off-shore.

Nearly every male of the age of 17 and older was expected to participate in his state's defense. In most cases the militia man brought his own guns.
Who was there to enact gun control?
One group of citizens demanding another group be disarmed?
A local sheriff trying to collect guns from a population if 2000?
There were no federal police forces.
Even when local police forces were created they were greatly out numbered and out gunned by the public.

The founders were well aware of the weapon disarmament history of England and Europe, but in America the idea was nearly inconceivable.
You had people living in the wilderness and years to come of expansion.
How many people needed guns just to eat?

The founders were quick and short about the rules, no laws banning militias, no laws banning guns.

* Modern historians try to say the Second Amendment only applies at a federal level.
The "militia" is a state entity , "the people" are the common citizens.

* Modern historians try to claim weapon technology has surpassed the scope of the Amendment.
When the Amendment was created , it was perfectly legal for a private citizen to own cannons, a few were wealthy enough to do-so.

* The fact is, gun ownership is protected in case all else fails and the government itself becomes a threat to the public

The way the law is written, the government, state or federal, really has no authority over any kind of weapon.

Owning a weapon is not a crime, committing a crime is a crime.

I think the population of a state can write laws against themselves in dealing with explosives, but it would take a large majority, competent pro-Second Amendment law writers, and clear restrictions that would most likely be temporary.


...not just rogue politicians working toward a disarmed public.



Our second president John Adams used to bring his gun to elementary school to go hunting afterwards.
Maybe the reason why kids want to shoot people is not because gun ownership is legal, but due to other social neglect.


Gun ownership is a Constitutional right.
No gun grabbing politician or police force is protected by the Constitution

This is as ignorant as it is ridiculous and wrong.

The Second Amendment acknowledges an individual right to possess a firearm pursuant to lawful self-defense.

But no right is ‘absolute,’ including the rights enshrined in the Second Amendment:

“Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.” (DC v. Heller (2008)).

Measures placing restrictions on certain types of weapons are perfectly Constitutional, as are regulations such as those limiting magazine capacity, establishing waiting periods, and mandating background checks.

The courts have consistently upheld as Constitutional permit requirements, fees for licenses and permits, and requiring licenses to carry concealed firearms.

The courts alone – and ultimately the Supreme Court – determine what the Constitution means and the original intent of the Framers, including the Second Amendment.

Nope. The words and history determine the intent, and the people ultimately decide the outcome.

Simply consider the history of the modern gun control movement from say ... its expansion of the 1960s, and now.

 

[Damaged Eagle]

This is as ignorant as it is ridiculous and wrong.

The Second Amendment acknowledges an individual right to possess a firearm pursuant to lawful self-defense.

But no right is ‘absolute,’ including the rights enshrined in the Second Amendment:

“Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.” (DC v. Heller (2008)).

Measures placing restrictions on certain types of weapons are perfectly Constitutional, as are regulations such as those limiting magazine capacity, establishing waiting periods, and mandating background checks.

The courts have consistently upheld as Constitutional permit requirements, fees for licenses and permits, and requiring licenses to carry concealed firearms.

The courts alone – and ultimately the Supreme Court – determine what the Constitution means and the original intent of the Framers, including the Second Amendment.

If no right is absolute then how do you know that any right is a right at all?

*****SMILE*****

 

[POdLibertarian]

This is as ignorant as it is ridiculous and wrong.

The Second Amendment acknowledges an individual right to possess a firearm pursuant to lawful self-defense.

But no right is ‘absolute,’ including the rights enshrined in the Second Amendment:

“Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.” (DC v. Heller (2008)).

Measures placing restrictions on certain types of weapons are perfectly Constitutional, as are regulations such as those limiting magazine capacity, establishing waiting periods, and mandating background checks.

The courts have consistently upheld as Constitutional permit requirements, fees for licenses and permits, and requiring licenses to carry concealed firearms.

The courts alone – and ultimately the Supreme Court – determine what the Constitution means and the original intent of the Framers, including the Second Amendment.

the purpose of the 2nd Amendment is to keep government our servant, not our master
the 'no right is absolute' is a cowards plea because they are terrified of the freedom of others, thus they want to be able to make laws that curtail behavior they don't like.
'shall not be infringed' means exactly that. the founders, framers, and commentators of the 2nd Amendment ALL KNEW that any weapon that the government would use against them, they would have access to as well. Thus, NO regulation is in line with the constitution.
the courts have consistently given government more power and authority at the expense of our freedom because they were quickly overwhelmed by political pressure.
Scalia was a dumbass who was also a believer in an all powerful federal government.
Jefferson told us that it was lunacy to believe that the courts were the final arbiter of a document that 'we the people' wrote. WE THE PEOPLE are the final arbiter of the constitution and what it means