Restoration of Civil Rights should include the 2nd Amendment

[Richard-H]

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

It seems to me that the phrase "Well Regulated" is meant to apply both to 'Militia' and to 'the right of the people to keep and bear Arms' - as does the phrase 'Shall not be infringed'.

Clearly the founding Fathers did not intend for a totally unregulated right to bear arms.That would be idiotic.

No matter when you quote what the founders meant when they said a "well regulated militia" you will find people trying to put their own spin on the words.

Contrary to your opinion, the Second Amendment has NOTHING to do with the regulation of firearms. The Second Amendment is about the regulation of people called the militia. And how, exactly were they to be regulated?

"The Constitution shall never be construed to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms."
- Samuel Adams, Massachusetts Ratifying Convention, 1788


"f circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little, if at all, inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow-citizens. This appears to me the only substitute that can be devised for a standing army, and the best possible security against it, if it should exist."
- Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 28, January 10, 1788

This is the input from those who had a direct impact on the meaning of the Second Amendment.

If I understand you correctly, you think it is "idiotic" to have an unregulated right (sic) to be able to own a firearm. And yet this country was founded on that very premise. The FIRST time the Georgia Supreme Court considered this issue, this is their ruling:

"The right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed." The right of the whole people, old and young, men, women and boys, and not militia only, to keep and bear arms of every description, not such merely as are used by the militia, shall not be infringed, curtailed, or broken in upon, in the smallest degree; and all this for the important end to be attained: the rearing up and qualifying a well-regulated militia, so vitally necessary to the security of a free State." Nunn v. State, 1 Ga. (1 Kel.) 243 (1846)

What can we say that will make the point any clearer to you?

"the late Antonin Scalia, wrote: “Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited.” It is “not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.”

There is nothing you can say that will convince me or any intelligent person that the right to bear arms is an unlimited right. It's not even an inalienable right...it's a Constitutional right. A right to own a manufactured product.

 

[Pilot1]

Some contemporary waxing nostalgic about what the founders meant... Carries as much weight as my opinion...

You then must be a relatively uneducated man, especially in the realm of History. There are plenty of DOCUMENTS other than the Constitution written BY the Founders like the "Federalist Papers". Have you ever read any of them? John Jay? Ever hear of him? Jefferson? Ring a bell?

 

[Vastator]

Y

Some contemporary waxing nostalgic about what the founders meant... Carries as much weight as my opinion...

You then must be a relatively uneducated man, especially in the realm of History. There are plenty of DOCUMENTS other than the Constitution written BY the Founders like the "Federalist Papers". Have you ever read any of them? John Jay? Ever hear of him? Jefferson? Ring a bell?

Yep. That’s why. I know you millennials know jack shit.

 

[Pilot1]

Yep. That’s why. I know you millennials know jack shit.[/QUOTE]

I'm not a Millennial, and I actually took History classes in addition to reading what the Founders meant on my own. Maybe you should do the same? You must be a Boomer, and former Hippie. LOL!

 

[Vastator]

Yep. That’s why. I know you millennials know jack shit.

I'm not a Millennial, and I actually took History classes in addition to reading what the Founders meant on my own. Maybe you should do the same? You must be a Boomer, and former Hippie. LOL![/QUOTE]
Neither. Stay out of Vegas. You’ll lose everything daddy gave you...

 

[JoeB131]

Some contemporary waxing nostalgic about what the founders meant... Carries as much weight as my opinion...

You are right. I could care less what the Founding Slave Rapists meant.

Does this make sense NOW?

That's the only question we should ask when we are watching small children being wheeled out of schools in body bags.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Some contemporary waxing nostalgic about what the founders meant... Carries as much weight as my opinion...

You then must be a relatively uneducated man, especially in the realm of History. There are plenty of DOCUMENTS other than the Constitution written BY the Founders like the "Federalist Papers". Have you ever read any of them? John Jay? Ever hear of him? Jefferson? Ring a bell?

None of which alone determine the meaning of the Constitution; that's the sole purview of the Supreme Court.

 

[Pilot1]

None of which alone determine the meaning of the Constitution; that's the sole purview of the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court ruled that the 2A is an Individual Right, so even though by U.S. Code all able bodied men over 17 are in the unorganized Militia, you don't need to be to exercise your rights. Therefore the militia portion of the 2A is irrelevant to an individual's right to keep and bear arms.

However, the ancillary documents to the Constitution certainly do show the intent of the Founders.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

Some contemporary waxing nostalgic about what the founders meant... Carries as much weight as my opinion...

You then must be a relatively uneducated man, especially in the realm of History. There are plenty of DOCUMENTS other than the Constitution written BY the Founders like the "Federalist Papers". Have you ever read any of them? John Jay? Ever hear of him? Jefferson? Ring a bell?

None of which alone determine the meaning of the Constitution; that's the sole purview of the Supreme Court.

I see.

And yet one phrase in a minor response to a letter from the Danbury Baptists concerning an issue taken up - in context the opposite of the Court's view - in McCollum v. Board of Education (1948) did just that.

Marbury v. Madison (1803) really fucked things up.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

None of which alone determine the meaning of the Constitution; that's the sole purview of the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court ruled that the 2A is an Individual Right, so even though by U.S. Code all able bodied men over 17 are in the unorganized Militia, you don't need to be to exercise your rights. Therefore the militia portion of the 2A is irrelevant to an individual's right to keep and bear arms.

However, the ancillary documents to the Constitution certainly do show the intent of the Founders.

The Supreme Court determines the intent of the Framers.

The Court might use primary documents to make that determination, but the documents alone don't carry the force of Constitutional law, nor do they have the authority alone to determine the constitutionally of firearm regulatory measures, which is the sole purview of the courts.

 

[Pilot1]

The Supreme Court determines the intent of the Framers.

The Court might use primary documents to make that determination, but the documents alone don't carry the force of Constitutional law, nor do they have the authority alone to determine the constitutionally of firearm regulatory measures, which is the sole purview of the courts.

I understand all that.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

The Supreme Court determines the intent of the Framers.

The Court might use primary documents to make that determination, but the documents alone don't carry the force of Constitutional law, nor do they have the authority alone to determine the constitutionally of firearm regulatory measures, which is the sole purview of the courts.

I understand all that.

That wasn't evident in your posts.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

I just don't want a stupid hateful Liberal deciding who should own firearms and who shouldn't. You can't trust them because their agenda is not public safety.

This isn’t a Liberal vs Conservative issue any more than it is Republicans vs Democrats. It’s about Criminals vs Law-Abiding Citizens.

In my mind Criminsls bacon sub-human the instant they are convicted. No Rights. No Privileges. Nothing. Execute them or stick them in a hole until they die naturally. No parole. No probation. Locked up or dead.

If we are going to let them out, they should not simply be allowed back into Society as if nothing ever happened.

Either stop posting from your phone or learn to proofread. Your posts are making even less sense than usual.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

It seems to me that the phrase "Well Regulated" is meant to apply both to 'Militia' and to 'the right of the people to keep and bear Arms' - as does the phrase 'Shall not be infringed'.

Clearly the founding Fathers did not intend for a totally unregulated right to bear arms.That would be idiotic.

Your definition of "well regulated" is incorrect. That is typical for gun grabbers who never learned to read. This has been explained to you dumbasses more times than I can count!

Are you even familiar as to the reasons behind the battles at Lexington and Concord?