The 2nd Amendment (Why we our Founders wrote it)

[ding]

The only people who are clutching at straws are the ones who do not want peaceable law abiding citizens to own, possess, keep and bear arms.

 

[frigidweirdo]

It does preclude regulation if the indefinite articles of Article I, Section 8 and the Second Amendment are used.

In laymen's terms please.

The short version.
Compare the indefinite articles between the military clauses of Article I and the Second Amendment of “a” and “the.” “A” is used properly when introducing something for the first time. Notice the first use of “a”: To provide and maintain a navy; Then it move on to “the” as it has been introduced. And the “the” in “To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions…” This is not the militia of the Second Amendment.

On to the Second Amendment: “A well regulated Militia” uses the indefinite article ‘a.” This is because this was the first mention of a militia of the people of the states and the term “Well-regulated is a modifier for “militia,” which are the people not the militia of Article I. This was proper grammar and it was consistent with the rest of the Constitution.

Yeah, I see a much easier explanation being the intent of the 2nd Amendment is to serve as a check against a standing army of a tyrannical government, so the militia and its arms must never be under the auspice of that government. The same logic applies to the type of weaponry they should possess. In this case, semi-automatic rifles with high capacity magazines.

Why not tanks, fighter jets, nuclear weapons etc? They're also needed.

If your "logic" and argument is that any weapon the militia uses is therefore available to the general populace then all individuals would therefore have the right to own this weaponry. Would you feel safe flying knowing SAM missiles were readily available in your local gun shop?

The reality is that cannons were not protected for individuals in the 1700s even though they were considered militia equipment. So, the right to keep arms has never extended to the right to own any weapon the Militia might use.

In the US v. Miller Supreme Court case the Court said:

"The Court cannot take judicial notice that a shotgun having a barrel less than 18 inches long has today any reasonable relation to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, and therefore cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees to the citizen the right to keep and bear such a weapon."

So, the Supreme Court has ruled, and upheld, even in the Heller case (written by a right wing justice) that a weapon has to have a reason relationship to the preservation of the efficiency of a well regulated militia.

This does not mean the owner of the weapon has to be in the militia. It does not mean the weapon has to be used by the militia. However the militia would have to basically say this kind of weaponry would be expected to be brought when a person is called up into the militia.

Right now no one ever gets called up to the militia. In fact more people who are in the militia don't do anything, and hardly even know they're in the militia.

You're clutching at straws.

Maybe that is YOUR logic. but that is not my logic. My logic says semi-automatic rifles with high capacity. I don't know anyone who is making the argument for tanks, fighter jets, nuclear weapons etc, except maybe you.

I don't know why anyone would even want a shotgun barrel of less than 18". That isn't effective at all. But a semi-automatic rifle with a high capacity magazine is an effective arm for a light infantry militia.

No one gets called up to the militia because the militia is not intended to be under the auspice of the federal government. The militia is intended to be the whole body of people who are capable and willing to come to arms if the need should arise.

Unfortunately logic is logic, you can't have your own little personalized logic.

No, you don't know anyone making arguments for tanks, except for yourself. Your argument is this: "so the militia and its arms must never be under the auspice of that government. The same logic applies to the type of weaponry they should possess."

That all weaponry the militia has should not be under govt control. I'm going to assume right now that you mean the federal govt, this is an important point, but let me know if I'm wrong under your "logic".

So you're saying the people should be able to have militia weaponry, then I say tanks are militia weaponry then all of a sudden you're not saying people should have militia weaponry.

So, should people be able to have militia weaponry at home, or should they not?

 

[Skull Pilot]

Yeah because ALL people who own guns do that

I don't know why it's so hard for you to understand that simply because a person owns a gun he is not responsible for all crimes other people commit with a gun

I suppose you think because all men have penises that all men are responsible for every rape too

And you fail to understand that every person who ever killed someone with a gun was once an innocent man.

SO what?

You can't punish people for crimes they have not yet committed. And you can't punish an innocent person for the crimes of another

But tell you what you volunteer to be castrated because all rapists were once innocent men, give up your driver's license because all drunk drivers were once sober drivers, spend the rest of your life in prison because all criminals were once not criminals at least that way you'l be consistent with your beliefs that all people need to be treated like criminals for future crimes they may or may not commit

It is not unreasonable to make it illegal for someone to sell a gun without a background check, and it is not unreasonable for a person who knowingly sells a gun to a person who would not pass a background check, to be charged with accessory, if the person that he sold it to commits homicide with it.

Nice change of subject
I never said anything about not having background checks did I?
And it already is illegal to knowingly sell a gun to anyone who is legally ineligible to own one

But for anyone who passes background checks as I have multiple times there is no valid reason to tell me I can't own a specific semiautomatic rifle or a magazine with more than a 10 round capacity

It is not against the law for you to sell your gun to a stranger with no questions asked, unless you are a licensed dealer.

Since I am a sheriff Aucillary Volunteer, and patrol in uniform in a police car, that puts me squarely on the side of the law. You have clearly stated that it is unreasonable to demand that an individual do a background check on a gun buyer, which only benefits convicted felons, and others that are not able to buy from a licensed dealer. That puts you squarely on the side of the criminal. That being the case, I have no use for further discussion with you, just like I have no need for philosophical discussions with criminals.

it depends on the state
in my state it is illegal to knowingly sell any weapon to anyone ineligible

So now Asshole please quote the post where I "clearly stated that it is unreasonable" to perform background checks

Since I know you cannot produce that quote I have no use for lying fuckwads like you

 

[Skull Pilot]

Yeah because ALL people who own guns do that

I don't know why it's so hard for you to understand that simply because a person owns a gun he is not responsible for all crimes other people commit with a gun

I suppose you think because all men have penises that all men are responsible for every rape too

And you fail to understand that every person who ever killed someone with a gun was once an innocent man.

SO what?

You can't punish people for crimes they have not yet committed. And you can't punish an innocent person for the crimes of another

But tell you what you volunteer to be castrated because all rapists were once innocent men, give up your driver's license because all drunk drivers were once sober drivers, spend the rest of your life in prison because all criminals were once not criminals at least that way you'l be consistent with your beliefs that all people need to be treated like criminals for future crimes they may or may not commit

Sure you can....even if you think preventing access to weapons is "punishment"

Should someone convicted of beating his wife be allowed to trot down to the local gun shop after having a fight?

It is illegal for anyone with a domestic violence conviction to buy a gun
You might want to learn the existing laws before you say we need more.

And restricting my behavior even though I have committed no crime is punishment
tell you what why don't you ground your kids and don't let them out of the house until they are 18 because they might break your house rules in the future

But, it is NOT illegal from you to sell him a gun. Be aware that those of us on the side of civilization believe that you are guilty of accessory to felony homicide if we can prove you knowingly sold to someone who killed someone with it, and by requiring you to do a background check, we would be able to prove it.

A background check will not prevent murder. A person can pass a check and still commit murder.

and in many states it is illegal to sell to anyone ineligible by state law to own a firearm

Private Sales in Connecticut | Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence

Last updated October 19, 2016.


Connecticut prohibits any person, firm or corporation from selling, delivering or otherwise transferring a handgun to any person prohibited by state law from possessing a handgun.1 Handgun transfers may not be made until the person, firm or corporation making the transfer obtains an authorization number – following a background check on the prospective purchaser – from the Connecticut Department of Emergency Services and Public Protection (DESPP).2 Moreover, the state prohibits any person, firm, or corporation from transferring a handgun unless the transferee has a permit to carry a handgun, a permit to sell handguns at retail, or a handgun eligibility certificate.3 See the Licensing of Gun Owners & Purchasers in Connecticut section.

Connecticut also prohibits the sale or transfer of a long gun by someone who is not a federally-licensed firearm dealer, manufacturer, or importer to someone who is not a similarly-licensed person, unless the following conditions are met:

1. The prospective transferor and transferee must comply with the documentation and authorization requirements that apply to retail sales of long guns (e.g., (a) the seller must document the transaction with DESPP, maintain copies of the record, and obtain an authorization number from DESPP; (b) the buyer must undergo a national instant criminal background check system (NICS) check; (c) the gun cannot be loaded when transferred; and (d) DESPP must authorize or deny the sale or transfer);4 or
2. Starting on January 1, 2014, a federally licensed firearm dealer, upon the request of the prospective transferor or transferee, must consent to initiate a NICS check in accordance with the procedures set forth below, and the background check must show that the transferee is eligible to receive the gun.5

 

[ding]

Unfortunately logic is logic, you can't have your own little personalized logic. No, you don't know anyone making arguments for tanks, except for yourself. Your argument is this: "so the militia and its arms must never be under the auspice of that government. The same logic applies to the type of weaponry they should possess."

In this case I can as you started off this line of thought by making an assumption that was not true. It is not my argument that the 2nd Amendment grants us the right to own any weapon. This is YOUR weak tea argument, not mine and it shows how desperate you are becoming to deny us the arms we need which are semi-automatic rifles with high capacity magazines.

That all weaponry the militia has should not be under govt control. I'm going to assume right now that you mean the federal govt, this is an important point, but let me know if I'm wrong under your "logic".

Yes. You are wrong. All government control. Period. Let's be realistic here, your end game is banning guns. Let's not pretend you are trying to refine the finer points of the 2nd Amendment, ok?

So you're saying the people should be able to have militia weaponry, then I say tanks are militia weaponry then all of a sudden you're not saying people should have militia weaponry.

I have been very clear about what I have said. You are the one who is saying all manner of ridiculous things in a feeble attempt at constructing a straw-man of your own making. Let's not pretend you are trying to refine the finer points of the 2nd Amendment, ok? Your end game is banning guns.

So, should people be able to have militia weaponry at home, or should they not?

My last statement was very clear. The 2nd Amendment grants peaceable law abiding citizens the right to own, possess, keep and bear arms.

 

[rightwinger]

Well regulated does not mean regulations. When the Constitution specifies regulations it specifically states who and what is being regulated. The phrase "well-regulated" was in common use long before 1789, and remained so for a century thereafter. It referred to the property of something being in proper working order. Something that was well-regulated was calibrated correctly, functioning as expected. The fundamental purpose of the militia was to serve as a check upon a standing army, the words “well regulated” referred to the necessity that the armed citizens making up the militia have the necessary equipment and training necessary to be an effective and formidable check upon the national government’s standing army. Establishing government oversight of the people's arms was not only not the intent in using the phrase in the 2nd amendment, it was precisely to render the government powerless to do so that the founders wrote it.

Doesn't preclude regulations

Who must join the militia, how they are trained, what weapons they have, what the command structure is

Knowing who has guns, the training they have and where they are is essential to a well regulated militia

No.

No.

And no.

Given that the point of the 2nd Amendment is to serve as a check against a standing army of a tyrannical government, giving the government -. the ones we are supposed to be serving as a check against - the details of the militia would make as little sense as arming them with less than the technology of the day.

There is nothing in the Constitution about militias being a check on the government

They look at militias as being necessary for the security of a free state......not a check on a free state

Now you are splitting hairs. Same difference. Which is why we look at the statements that were made by the Founding Fathers. But hey, I'm not trying to convince you. You won't be happy until all guns are banned and confiscated.

There are no words in the Constitution relating to the rights of civilians to overthrow government.
I'm not looking to ban or confiscate all guns. With 300 million out there, that is not going to happen

But I do believe those who stockpile guns and ammo for the day when they will take on the US Government are certifiable crazy

 

[Skull Pilot]

Well regulated does not mean regulations. When the Constitution specifies regulations it specifically states who and what is being regulated. The phrase "well-regulated" was in common use long before 1789, and remained so for a century thereafter. It referred to the property of something being in proper working order. Something that was well-regulated was calibrated correctly, functioning as expected. The fundamental purpose of the militia was to serve as a check upon a standing army, the words “well regulated” referred to the necessity that the armed citizens making up the militia have the necessary equipment and training necessary to be an effective and formidable check upon the national government’s standing army. Establishing government oversight of the people's arms was not only not the intent in using the phrase in the 2nd amendment, it was precisely to render the government powerless to do so that the founders wrote it.

Doesn't preclude regulations

Who must join the militia, how they are trained, what weapons they have, what the command structure is

Knowing who has guns, the training they have and where they are is essential to a well regulated militia

No.

No.

And no.

Given that the point of the 2nd Amendment is to serve as a check against a standing army of a tyrannical government, giving the government -. the ones we are supposed to be serving as a check against - the details of the militia would make as little sense as arming them with less than the technology of the day.

There is nothing in the Constitution about militias being a check on the government

They look at militias as being necessary for the security of a free state......not a check on a free state

Now you are splitting hairs. Same difference. Which is why we look at the statements that were made by the Founding Fathers. But hey, I'm not trying to convince you. You won't be happy until all guns are banned and confiscated.

There are no words in the Constitution relating to the rights of civilians to overthrow government.
I'm not looking to ban or confiscate all guns. With 300 million out there, that is not going to happen

But I do believe those who stockpile guns and ammo for the day when they will take on the US Government are certifiable crazy

And that's a very small percentage of gun owners

 

[rightwinger]

Doesn't preclude regulations

Who must join the militia, how they are trained, what weapons they have, what the command structure is

Knowing who has guns, the training they have and where they are is essential to a well regulated militia

No.

No.

And no.

Given that the point of the 2nd Amendment is to serve as a check against a standing army of a tyrannical government, giving the government -. the ones we are supposed to be serving as a check against - the details of the militia would make as little sense as arming them with less than the technology of the day.

There is nothing in the Constitution about militias being a check on the government

They look at militias as being necessary for the security of a free state......not a check on a free state

Now you are splitting hairs. Same difference. Which is why we look at the statements that were made by the Founding Fathers. But hey, I'm not trying to convince you. You won't be happy until all guns are banned and confiscated.

There are no words in the Constitution relating to the rights of civilians to overthrow government.
I'm not looking to ban or confiscate all guns. With 300 million out there, that is not going to happen

But I do believe those who stockpile guns and ammo for the day when they will take on the US Government are certifiable crazy

And that's a very small percentage of gun owners

I give you ....Ding

 

[frigidweirdo]

Unfortunately logic is logic, you can't have your own little personalized logic. No, you don't know anyone making arguments for tanks, except for yourself. Your argument is this: "so the militia and its arms must never be under the auspice of that government. The same logic applies to the type of weaponry they should possess."

In this case I can as you started off this line of thought by making an assumption that was not true. It is not my argument that the 2nd Amendment grants us the right to own any weapon. This is YOUR weak tea argument, not mine and it shows how desperate you are becoming to deny us the arms we need which are semi-automatic rifles with high capacity magazines.

That all weaponry the militia has should not be under govt control. I'm going to assume right now that you mean the federal govt, this is an important point, but let me know if I'm wrong under your "logic".

Yes. You are wrong. All government control. Period. Let's be realistic here, your end game is banning guns. Let's not pretend you are trying to refine the finer points of the 2nd Amendment, ok?

So you're saying the people should be able to have militia weaponry, then I say tanks are militia weaponry then all of a sudden you're not saying people should have militia weaponry.

I have been very clear about what I have said. You are the one who is saying all manner of ridiculous things in a feeble attempt at constructing a straw-man of your own making. Let's not pretend you are trying to refine the finer points of the 2nd Amendment, ok? Your end game is banning guns.

So, should people be able to have militia weaponry at home, or should they not?

My last statement was very clear. The 2nd Amendment grants peaceable law abiding citizens the right to own, possess, keep and bear arms.

I should have just left it earlier on. You're back to talking complete bollocks again.

 

[Vandalshandle]

And you fail to understand that every person who ever killed someone with a gun was once an innocent man.

SO what?

You can't punish people for crimes they have not yet committed. And you can't punish an innocent person for the crimes of another

But tell you what you volunteer to be castrated because all rapists were once innocent men, give up your driver's license because all drunk drivers were once sober drivers, spend the rest of your life in prison because all criminals were once not criminals at least that way you'l be consistent with your beliefs that all people need to be treated like criminals for future crimes they may or may not commit

Sure you can....even if you think preventing access to weapons is "punishment"

Should someone convicted of beating his wife be allowed to trot down to the local gun shop after having a fight?

It is illegal for anyone with a domestic violence conviction to buy a gun
You might want to learn the existing laws before you say we need more.

And restricting my behavior even though I have committed no crime is punishment
tell you what why don't you ground your kids and don't let them out of the house until they are 18 because they might break your house rules in the future

But, it is NOT illegal from you to sell him a gun. Be aware that those of us on the side of civilization believe that you are guilty of accessory to felony homicide if we can prove you knowingly sold to someone who killed someone with it, and by requiring you to do a background check, we would be able to prove it.

A background check will not prevent murder. A person can pass a check and still commit murder.

and in many states it is illegal to sell to anyone ineligible by state law to own a firearm

Private Sales in Connecticut | Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence

Last updated October 19, 2016.


Connecticut prohibits any person, firm or corporation from selling, delivering or otherwise transferring a handgun to any person prohibited by state law from possessing a handgun.1 Handgun transfers may not be made until the person, firm or corporation making the transfer obtains an authorization number – following a background check on the prospective purchaser – from the Connecticut Department of Emergency Services and Public Protection (DESPP).2 Moreover, the state prohibits any person, firm, or corporation from transferring a handgun unless the transferee has a permit to carry a handgun, a permit to sell handguns at retail, or a handgun eligibility certificate.3 See the Licensing of Gun Owners & Purchasers in Connecticut section.

Connecticut also prohibits the sale or transfer of a long gun by someone who is not a federally-licensed firearm dealer, manufacturer, or importer to someone who is not a similarly-licensed person, unless the following conditions are met:

1. The prospective transferor and transferee must comply with the documentation and authorization requirements that apply to retail sales of long guns (e.g., (a) the seller must document the transaction with DESPP, maintain copies of the record, and obtain an authorization number from DESPP; (b) the buyer must undergo a national instant criminal background check system (NICS) check; (c) the gun cannot be loaded when transferred; and (d) DESPP must authorize or deny the sale or transfer);4 or
2. Starting on January 1, 2014, a federally licensed firearm dealer, upon the request of the prospective transferor or transferee, must consent to initiate a NICS check in accordance with the procedures set forth below, and the background check must show that the transferee is eligible to receive the gun.5

I thought that you had no use for "lying fucks like (me)"

Looks like I will have to put you on ignore to stop your rants. No problem. I do it all the time when I come across befuddled dementia victims while on duty with the sheriff's Auxiliary in my retirement community.

 

[Skull Pilot]

SO what?

You can't punish people for crimes they have not yet committed. And you can't punish an innocent person for the crimes of another

But tell you what you volunteer to be castrated because all rapists were once innocent men, give up your driver's license because all drunk drivers were once sober drivers, spend the rest of your life in prison because all criminals were once not criminals at least that way you'l be consistent with your beliefs that all people need to be treated like criminals for future crimes they may or may not commit

Sure you can....even if you think preventing access to weapons is "punishment"

Should someone convicted of beating his wife be allowed to trot down to the local gun shop after having a fight?

It is illegal for anyone with a domestic violence conviction to buy a gun
You might want to learn the existing laws before you say we need more.

And restricting my behavior even though I have committed no crime is punishment
tell you what why don't you ground your kids and don't let them out of the house until they are 18 because they might break your house rules in the future

But, it is NOT illegal from you to sell him a gun. Be aware that those of us on the side of civilization believe that you are guilty of accessory to felony homicide if we can prove you knowingly sold to someone who killed someone with it, and by requiring you to do a background check, we would be able to prove it.

A background check will not prevent murder. A person can pass a check and still commit murder.

and in many states it is illegal to sell to anyone ineligible by state law to own a firearm

Private Sales in Connecticut | Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence

Last updated October 19, 2016.


Connecticut prohibits any person, firm or corporation from selling, delivering or otherwise transferring a handgun to any person prohibited by state law from possessing a handgun.1 Handgun transfers may not be made until the person, firm or corporation making the transfer obtains an authorization number – following a background check on the prospective purchaser – from the Connecticut Department of Emergency Services and Public Protection (DESPP).2 Moreover, the state prohibits any person, firm, or corporation from transferring a handgun unless the transferee has a permit to carry a handgun, a permit to sell handguns at retail, or a handgun eligibility certificate.3 See the Licensing of Gun Owners & Purchasers in Connecticut section.

Connecticut also prohibits the sale or transfer of a long gun by someone who is not a federally-licensed firearm dealer, manufacturer, or importer to someone who is not a similarly-licensed person, unless the following conditions are met:

1. The prospective transferor and transferee must comply with the documentation and authorization requirements that apply to retail sales of long guns (e.g., (a) the seller must document the transaction with DESPP, maintain copies of the record, and obtain an authorization number from DESPP; (b) the buyer must undergo a national instant criminal background check system (NICS) check; (c) the gun cannot be loaded when transferred; and (d) DESPP must authorize or deny the sale or transfer);4 or
2. Starting on January 1, 2014, a federally licensed firearm dealer, upon the request of the prospective transferor or transferee, must consent to initiate a NICS check in accordance with the procedures set forth below, and the background check must show that the transferee is eligible to receive the gun.5

I thought that you had no use for "lying fucks like (me)"

Looks like I will have to put you on ignore to stop your rants. No problem. I do it all the time when I come across befuddled dementia victims while on duty with the sheriff's Auxiliary in my retirement community.

good riddance asshole

I knew you couldn't quote me on that bullshit you said I said

 

[Boss]

I thought federalism was in support of a strong centralized govt and
the antifederalist was in support of keeping power on the level of states and people,
and not ceding this to federal authority. I thought the big fear of a central Constitution
was it would not be strong enough to check that tendency for the greater collective
power to start oppressing the local citizens and state sovereignty all over again.

You are sort of right and sort of confused at the same time. When we were debating Federalism vs. Anti-federalism, the arguments were BOTH opposed to a central federal power over everyone. Federalists argued that we could have a very limited small federal government which left most of our liberty to be determined by the states and people respectively. Anti-federalists feared exactly what has happened in history, that even a small federal government, limited in power, would eventually become a large centralized power enforcing it's will on society.

Today, we have a different argument. The Federalists are still arguing for a small and limited federal authority where states and people decide most of their own parameters of liberty and we have Statists who believe in a large central authority. Ironically, even though Anti-federalists no longer exist, their arguments proved to be true... we simply couldn't maintain a small limited government over time because the nature of any government is to grow in power over the individual.

So Boss now there are three groups
1. Statists are the ones who WANT the power to grow on the federal level and even fight against enforcing limits on it
2. Federalists who argue we can manage a centralized govt are split between the "new anti-federalists" who still believe in the Constitution but fear the whole thing needs to be shut down and stopped vs. the Constitutonalists saying we can use the given system and restore the limitations (and the Statists saying we can keep the given system and don't need to enforce limitations)
3. anarchists and independents who don't believe in parties or Constitutional laws at all as being able to stop abuses

I think the Statists have taken over the position of anti-federalists
in being opposed to the Constitution as limited govt, but for the opposite reason.
Before, the anti-federalists didn't think it was strong enough to PREVENT big govt from dominating over individuals.
Today, the Statists don't want the Constitutional limits as "obstruction" to get in the way of this.

So the term you use for people who want central govt as the default authority
in charge of public programs and policies is STATIST. Is that correct?

That's correct but they are not taking anything near an anti-federalist position. Their position is exactly what made an anti-federalist an anti-federalist. They were opposed to a central federal government, even in a small limited role. They sought to have us remain a confederation of states without a federal government. The Federalists made the case that a Constitution would limit and restrict the powers of Federal government and rejected the idea that it would grow out of control because they though the people would prevent it.

It's confusing today because many of the anti-federalist complaints have become the concerns of the modern federalists. Again, both Federalists and Anti-Federalists opposed a large centralized Federal government.

 

[emilynghiem]

I thought federalism was in support of a strong centralized govt and
the antifederalist was in support of keeping power on the level of states and people,
and not ceding this to federal authority. I thought the big fear of a central Constitution
was it would not be strong enough to check that tendency for the greater collective
power to start oppressing the local citizens and state sovereignty all over again.

You are sort of right and sort of confused at the same time. When we were debating Federalism vs. Anti-federalism, the arguments were BOTH opposed to a central federal power over everyone. Federalists argued that we could have a very limited small federal government which left most of our liberty to be determined by the states and people respectively. Anti-federalists feared exactly what has happened in history, that even a small federal government, limited in power, would eventually become a large centralized power enforcing it's will on society.

Today, we have a different argument. The Federalists are still arguing for a small and limited federal authority where states and people decide most of their own parameters of liberty and we have Statists who believe in a large central authority. Ironically, even though Anti-federalists no longer exist, their arguments proved to be true... we simply couldn't maintain a small limited government over time because the nature of any government is to grow in power over the individual.

So Boss now there are three groups
1. Statists are the ones who WANT the power to grow on the federal level and even fight against enforcing limits on it
2. Federalists who argue we can manage a centralized govt are split between the "new anti-federalists" who still believe in the Constitution but fear the whole thing needs to be shut down and stopped vs. the Constitutonalists saying we can use the given system and restore the limitations (and the Statists saying we can keep the given system and don't need to enforce limitations)
3. anarchists and independents who don't believe in parties or Constitutional laws at all as being able to stop abuses

I think the Statists have taken over the position of anti-federalists
in being opposed to the Constitution as limited govt, but for the opposite reason.
Before, the anti-federalists didn't think it was strong enough to PREVENT big govt from dominating over individuals.
Today, the Statists don't want the Constitutional limits as "obstruction" to get in the way of this.

So the term you use for people who want central govt as the default authority
in charge of public programs and policies is STATIST. Is that correct?

That's correct but they are not taking anything near an anti-federalist position. Their position is exactly what made an anti-federalist an anti-federalist. They were opposed to a central federal government, even in a small limited role. They sought to have us remain a confederation of states without a federal government. The Federalists made the case that a Constitution would limit and restrict the powers of Federal government and rejected the idea that it would grow out of control because they though the people would prevent it.

It's confusing today because many of the anti-federalist complaints have become the concerns of the modern federalists. Again, both Federalists and Anti-Federalists opposed a large centralized Federal government.

Can todays Feneralists and antifederalists rise up against the Statists? Why not demand the Statists set up their own programs and not impose through govt on others.

Which Party leaders would have to agree to such a resolution or demand to make it heard? Who do recommend, or what form of petition should the people present? Boss

 

[ding]

Well regulated does not mean regulations. When the Constitution specifies regulations it specifically states who and what is being regulated. The phrase "well-regulated" was in common use long before 1789, and remained so for a century thereafter. It referred to the property of something being in proper working order. Something that was well-regulated was calibrated correctly, functioning as expected. The fundamental purpose of the militia was to serve as a check upon a standing army, the words “well regulated” referred to the necessity that the armed citizens making up the militia have the necessary equipment and training necessary to be an effective and formidable check upon the national government’s standing army. Establishing government oversight of the people's arms was not only not the intent in using the phrase in the 2nd amendment, it was precisely to render the government powerless to do so that the founders wrote it.

Doesn't preclude regulations

Who must join the militia, how they are trained, what weapons they have, what the command structure is

Knowing who has guns, the training they have and where they are is essential to a well regulated militia

No.

No.

And no.

Given that the point of the 2nd Amendment is to serve as a check against a standing army of a tyrannical government, giving the government -. the ones we are supposed to be serving as a check against - the details of the militia would make as little sense as arming them with less than the technology of the day.

There is nothing in the Constitution about militias being a check on the government

They look at militias as being necessary for the security of a free state......not a check on a free state

Now you are splitting hairs. Same difference. Which is why we look at the statements that were made by the Founding Fathers. But hey, I'm not trying to convince you. You won't be happy until all guns are banned and confiscated.

There are no words in the Constitution relating to the rights of civilians to overthrow government.
I'm not looking to ban or confiscate all guns. With 300 million out there, that is not going to happen

But I do believe those who stockpile guns and ammo for the day when they will take on the US Government are certifiable crazy

The 2nd Amendment is intended to serve as a deterrent against a tyrannical government. You want the police and military to be the only ones who have semi automatic rifles and high capacity magazines which makes no sense at all.

 

[ding]

No.

No.

And no.

Given that the point of the 2nd Amendment is to serve as a check against a standing army of a tyrannical government, giving the government -. the ones we are supposed to be serving as a check against - the details of the militia would make as little sense as arming them with less than the technology of the day.

There is nothing in the Constitution about militias being a check on the government

They look at militias as being necessary for the security of a free state......not a check on a free state

Now you are splitting hairs. Same difference. Which is why we look at the statements that were made by the Founding Fathers. But hey, I'm not trying to convince you. You won't be happy until all guns are banned and confiscated.

There are no words in the Constitution relating to the rights of civilians to overthrow government.
I'm not looking to ban or confiscate all guns. With 300 million out there, that is not going to happen

But I do believe those who stockpile guns and ammo for the day when they will take on the US Government are certifiable crazy

And that's a very small percentage of gun owners

I give you ....Ding

When people have truth on their side they argue facts. When they have reason on their side they argue logic. When they have neither they attack the character of the person who has been mopping the floor with them using facts and logic.

 

[emilynghiem]

Doesn't preclude regulations

Who must join the militia, how they are trained, what weapons they have, what the command structure is

Knowing who has guns, the training they have and where they are is essential to a well regulated militia

No.

No.

And no.

Given that the point of the 2nd Amendment is to serve as a check against a standing army of a tyrannical government, giving the government -. the ones we are supposed to be serving as a check against - the details of the militia would make as little sense as arming them with less than the technology of the day.

There is nothing in the Constitution about militias being a check on the government

They look at militias as being necessary for the security of a free state......not a check on a free state

Now you are splitting hairs. Same difference. Which is why we look at the statements that were made by the Founding Fathers. But hey, I'm not trying to convince you. You won't be happy until all guns are banned and confiscated.

There are no words in the Constitution relating to the rights of civilians to overthrow government.
I'm not looking to ban or confiscate all guns. With 300 million out there, that is not going to happen

But I do believe those who stockpile guns and ammo for the day when they will take on the US Government are certifiable crazy

The 2nd Amendment serves as a deterrent against a tyrannical government. You want the police and military to be the only ones who have semi automatic rifles and high capacity magazines which makes no sense at all.

Dear ding and rightwinger
If liberals don't trust police with greater concentrated authority and power , because they fear the abuse of force, then who is left to use arms for defense.

Isn't it better to train more citizens in proper defense of laws for security.

Why put all the power in hands of police, then say you don't trust them with that power. Which way is it?

 

[emilynghiem]

There is nothing in the Constitution about militias being a check on the government

They look at militias as being necessary for the security of a free state......not a check on a free state

Now you are splitting hairs. Same difference. Which is why we look at the statements that were made by the Founding Fathers. But hey, I'm not trying to convince you. You won't be happy until all guns are banned and confiscated.

There are no words in the Constitution relating to the rights of civilians to overthrow government.
I'm not looking to ban or confiscate all guns. With 300 million out there, that is not going to happen

But I do believe those who stockpile guns and ammo for the day when they will take on the US Government are certifiable crazy

And that's a very small percentage of gun owners

I give you ....Ding

When people have truth on their side they argue facts. When they have reason on their side they argue logic. When they have neither they attack the character of the person who has been mopping the floor with them using facts and logic.

Well ding ppl are human too.
Even you digressed and made comments about how someone was brought up by their mother in that other religion thread. That's part of Internet culture with males putting others in their place. If we got sidetracked everytime that happened we'd never finish and get to the point.

My question is how do liberals like rightwinger expect to police the police and govt after giving them all the power? If police are accused of abusing guns now, and accused of skewing the grand jury process in favor of police, wouldn't more power make that worse?

Wouldn't the opposite be to empower citizens to check the govt against abuses? Teach all districts to manage their own Grievance or complaint and compliance process? If rightwinger wants more civil means of preventing abuses or crimes, can't both sides agree that arming citizens with knowledge and defense of the laws will do more to enforce consistent standards, deter abuse and reduce the need for violent force?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Now you are splitting hairs. Same difference. Which is why we look at the statements that were made by the Founding Fathers. But hey, I'm not trying to convince you. You won't be happy until all guns are banned and confiscated.

There are no words in the Constitution relating to the rights of civilians to overthrow government.
I'm not looking to ban or confiscate all guns. With 300 million out there, that is not going to happen

But I do believe those who stockpile guns and ammo for the day when they will take on the US Government are certifiable crazy

And that's a very small percentage of gun owners

I give you ....Ding

When people have truth on their side they argue facts. When they have reason on their side they argue logic. When they have neither they attack the character of the person who has been mopping the floor with them using facts and logic.

Well ding ppl are human too.
Even you digressed and made comments about how someone was brought up by their mother in that other religion thread. That's part of Internet culture with males putting others in their place. If we got sidetracked everytime that happened we'd never finish and get to the point.

My question is how do liberals like rightwinger expect to police the police and govt after giving them all the power? If police are accused of abusing guns now, and accused of skewing the grand jury process in favor of police, wouldn't more power make that worse?

Wouldn't the opposite be to empower citizens to check the govt against abuses? Teach all districts to manage their own Grievance or complaint and compliance process? If rightwinger wants more civil means of preventing abuses or crimes, can't both sides agree that arming citizens with knowledge and defense of the laws will do more to enforce consistent standards, deter abuse and reduce the need for violent force?

“My question is how do liberals like rightwinger expect to police the police and govt after giving them all the power?”

This fails as a straw man fallacy.

Indeed, your post is a lie – ‘liberals’ don’t advocate giving anyone ‘all the power.’

 

[rightwinger]

Doesn't preclude regulations

Who must join the militia, how they are trained, what weapons they have, what the command structure is

Knowing who has guns, the training they have and where they are is essential to a well regulated militia

No.

No.

And no.

Given that the point of the 2nd Amendment is to serve as a check against a standing army of a tyrannical government, giving the government -. the ones we are supposed to be serving as a check against - the details of the militia would make as little sense as arming them with less than the technology of the day.

There is nothing in the Constitution about militias being a check on the government

They look at militias as being necessary for the security of a free state......not a check on a free state

Now you are splitting hairs. Same difference. Which is why we look at the statements that were made by the Founding Fathers. But hey, I'm not trying to convince you. You won't be happy until all guns are banned and confiscated.

There are no words in the Constitution relating to the rights of civilians to overthrow government.
I'm not looking to ban or confiscate all guns. With 300 million out there, that is not going to happen

But I do believe those who stockpile guns and ammo for the day when they will take on the US Government are certifiable crazy

The 2nd Amendment is intended to serve as a deterrent against a tyrannical government. You want the police and military to be the only ones who have semi automatic rifles and high capacity magazines which makes no sense at all.

I trust trained police and military with automatic rifles and high capacity magazines more than some stupid fucking kid that nobody ever liked

 

[rightwinger]

No.

No.

And no.

Given that the point of the 2nd Amendment is to serve as a check against a standing army of a tyrannical government, giving the government -. the ones we are supposed to be serving as a check against - the details of the militia would make as little sense as arming them with less than the technology of the day.

There is nothing in the Constitution about militias being a check on the government

They look at militias as being necessary for the security of a free state......not a check on a free state

Now you are splitting hairs. Same difference. Which is why we look at the statements that were made by the Founding Fathers. But hey, I'm not trying to convince you. You won't be happy until all guns are banned and confiscated.

There are no words in the Constitution relating to the rights of civilians to overthrow government.
I'm not looking to ban or confiscate all guns. With 300 million out there, that is not going to happen

But I do believe those who stockpile guns and ammo for the day when they will take on the US Government are certifiable crazy

The 2nd Amendment serves as a deterrent against a tyrannical government. You want the police and military to be the only ones who have semi automatic rifles and high capacity magazines which makes no sense at all.

Dear ding and rightwinger
If liberals don't trust police with greater concentrated authority and power , because they fear the abuse of force, then who is left to use arms for defense.

Isn't it better to train more citizens in proper defense of laws for security.

Why put all the power in hands of police, then say you don't trust them with that power. Which way is it?

As a citizen, I have more control over who gets selected for the police force, the training they receive and the rules and regulations they comply with

I have no control over a pimply faced kid that wants to get even with everyone that ever picked on him