The definitive guide to the 2nd Amendment

[Daryl Hunt]

It orders the meaning of the words. The first clause expresses the context. It is not about individual liberty or natural rights.

It's about the limit of congressional power.

“I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people except for a few public officials.”
— George Mason

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.

Here we go again. It has been awhile. Let's look at the 2nd amendment.

A Well Regulated Militia. Why was this written? In 1791, the States had the ability to raise an army to prevent the federal government from seizing complete control. While the Federal Government was limited in it's number of Army troops, the states were not and the States could raise many times more troops and they would be equally armed. The problem is, the cost of wars like WWI got so expensive that any one state could not afford to arm their militias to the federal standards. Single shot rifles now became Automatic Rifles and Machine Guns. Canons became Artillery. The Aircraft Bomber and Fighters were introduced. The limited number of Federal Troops was deemed to be no longer applicable. Plus, the passing of the 1919 National Guard Act that enabled the Federal Government to nationalize the state national guards passed. This also meant that the States, for the first time, had access to the really neat toys that the Federal Troops had. Now, this didn't stop the States from having States Militias and I know of a couple that have that but they are there mainly for public emergency than anything else. A Well Regulated Militia no longer applies

The Right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed. This one hasn't been applicable since 1869 when the first limitations were done on local levels for firearms. And then again in 1871. Shall Not Be Infringed means that it shall not be limited. During the 20th century, we did quite a few limitations like the Heavy Machine Gun, the Mortars, the Nuclear Weapons, the Personal Bombs and much, much more. Yes, we have a right to keep and bear arms but there will be limitations. And who determines those limitations? We are a country of laws so I guess it's up to the Legislators. Instead, we have had to rely on our Justice because our Legislators are too busy catering to the fringes to get elected and reelected to actually do their jobs. It didn't used to be that way. But it is today. The problem isn't really with anyone other than the lilly livered Congress Critters we keep sending to Washington and the various States.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

This has been the universal result every time conceal carry is approved...

Snitsar added that she might drop the class but still wondered if the professor “is aware crime on campus is down in the wake of the [campus carry] policy?”

Crime plummets wherever citizens are permitted to carry firearms.

Guns allowed on campus leads prof to cancel office hours, declare ‘I no longer feel safe’: student

Your article has nothing to do with showing crime on campus is down. No comprehensive study has ever concluded that more or less guns has anything to do with the increase or the decrease of gun crimes. But there was one historical time when life taught a very valuable lesson where almost everyone was armed on the streets and this is why cities and towns passed laws forbidding open carry and automatic hanging offense for using holdout weapons. Fewer guns has no affect at all. More guns within reason has no affect either. More Guns outside of reason will increase the murder rate. Learn from History or be doomed to repeat it.

People kill people not firearms

People with firearms kill people.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

People with firearms kill people.

as do people without firearms.

At least you and I agree that the 2nd Amendment has been bastardized beyond recognition.

 

[danielpalos]

It orders the meaning of the words. The first clause expresses the context. It is not about individual liberty or natural rights.

It's about the limit of congressional power.

“I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people except for a few public officials.”
— George Mason

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.

Here we go again. It has been awhile. Let's look at the 2nd amendment.

A Well Regulated Militia. Why was this written? In 1791, the States had the ability to raise an army to prevent the federal government from seizing complete control. While the Federal Government was limited in it's number of Army troops, the states were not and the States could raise many times more troops and they would be equally armed. The problem is, the cost of wars like WWI got so expensive that any one state could not afford to arm their militias to the federal standards. Single shot rifles now became Automatic Rifles and Machine Guns. Canons became Artillery. The Aircraft Bomber and Fighters were introduced. The limited number of Federal Troops was deemed to be no longer applicable. Plus, the passing of the 1919 National Guard Act that enabled the Federal Government to nationalize the state national guards passed. This also meant that the States, for the first time, had access to the really neat toys that the Federal Troops had. Now, this didn't stop the States from having States Militias and I know of a couple that have that but they are there mainly for public emergency than anything else. A Well Regulated Militia no longer applies

The Right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed. This one hasn't been applicable since 1869 when the first limitations were done on local levels for firearms. And then again in 1871. Shall Not Be Infringed means that it shall not be limited. During the 20th century, we did quite a few limitations like the Heavy Machine Gun, the Mortars, the Nuclear Weapons, the Personal Bombs and much, much more. Yes, we have a right to keep and bear arms but there will be limitations. And who determines those limitations? We are a country of laws so I guess it's up to the Legislators. Instead, we have had to rely on our Justice because our Legislators are too busy catering to the fringes to get elected and reelected to actually do their jobs. It didn't used to be that way. But it is today. The problem isn't really with anyone other than the lilly livered Congress Critters we keep sending to Washington and the various States.

Our Second Amendment covers the security of a free State; there is no excuse for not having an army group in reserve.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Our Second Amendment covers the security of a free State; there is no excuse for not having an army group in reserve.

This statement has little to no meaning.

 

[danielpalos]

Our Second Amendment covers the security of a free State; there is no excuse for not having an army group in reserve.

This statement has little to no meaning.

The Right of the People to Keep and Bear Arms!

 

[otto105]

The entire left-wing narrative about firearms is a lie. It’s all built on a political agenda rather than on data.

The report states that investigators posing online as gun buyers who were not legally able to purchase a firearm were completely unsuccessful when attempting to purchase firearms from private sellers. In fact, the report states that investigators tried 72 times — and each time they failed.

That’s right - 0% of the ATF investigators were able to make an illegal purchase. Not even one.

Investigators test how well gun laws work online — and find shocking results that undermine liberals

Or this from the study.

Excerpt

Why GAO Did This Study
The current federal legal framework governing buying and selling of firearms does not specifically address the use of the Internet to facilitate these transactions. Additionally, private transactions involving the most-common types of firearms between individuals who are not licensed to commercially sell weapons and who are residents of the same state, including transactions facilitated by the Internet, are generally not subject to federal background-check requirements.

Congressional requesters asked that GAO assess the extent to which ATF is enforcing existing laws and investigate whether online private sellers sell firearms to people who are not allowed or eligible to possess a firearm. This report describes (1) techniques ATF uses to investigate and enforce generally applicable firearm laws in instances where the firearm or firearm-component transaction is facilitated by the Internet and (2) results of GAO's undercover attempts to buy firearms on the Dark Web and Surface Web.

GAO analyzed documents and interviewed officials to identify actions ATF has taken to prohibit illegal firearm transactions. GAO also attempted to purchase firearms from Dark Web and Surface Web marketplaces. The results of the testing are illustrative and nongeneralizable.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

The Right of the People to Keep and Bear Arms!

Means what?

 

[danielpalos]

The Right of the People to Keep and Bear Arms!

Means what?

Our Second Amendment covers the security of a free State; there is no excuse for not having an army group in reserve.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Our Second Amendment covers the security of a free State; there is no excuse for not having an army group in reserve.

Makes no sense.

What does that have to do with the right of the people?

 

[otto105]

The Right of the People to Keep and Bear Arms!

Means what?

It means if your a person you have a right to bear arms.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

The Right of the People to Keep and Bear Arms!

Means what?

It means if your a person you have a right to bear arms.

 

[otto105]

The Right of the People to Keep and Bear Arms!

Means what?

It means if your a person you have a right to bear arms.

You idiotic meme shows that a bear can't have arms.

 

[danielpalos]

Our Second Amendment covers the security of a free State; there is no excuse for not having an army group in reserve.

Makes no sense.

What does that have to do with the right of the people?

If you knew anything about our Second Amendment, you would know what and where it should apply.

the whole and entire concept of natural rights, is not one of them.

 

[Rustic]

This has been the universal result every time conceal carry is approved...

Snitsar added that she might drop the class but still wondered if the professor “is aware crime on campus is down in the wake of the [campus carry] policy?”

Crime plummets wherever citizens are permitted to carry firearms.

Guns allowed on campus leads prof to cancel office hours, declare ‘I no longer feel safe’: student

Your article has nothing to do with showing crime on campus is down. No comprehensive study has ever concluded that more or less guns has anything to do with the increase or the decrease of gun crimes. But there was one historical time when life taught a very valuable lesson where almost everyone was armed on the streets and this is why cities and towns passed laws forbidding open carry and automatic hanging offense for using holdout weapons. Fewer guns has no affect at all. More guns within reason has no affect either. More Guns outside of reason will increase the murder rate. Learn from History or be doomed to repeat it.

People kill people not firearms

People with firearms kill people.

Firearms have nothing to do with it

 

[Rustic]

Firearm ownership as none of the federal governments business… End of story

 

[hadit]

So, the first clause orders the second clause?

Yes, it does.

See, that’s your problem. You think words order other words to do something. The constitution orders the federal government, not the words ordering words. Words don’t do anything but convey a message. Words can’t tell other words what to do.

The constitution direct the federal government and the states. Ultimately, it orders people, individuals, how to act or behave, for the benefit of individuals.

Did we forget the purpose of society?

It orders the meaning of the words. The first clause expresses the context. It is not about individual liberty or natural rights.

You claim the amendments don't protect individual rights, yet won't deal with how the first obviously protects your rights as an individual to speak without being part of a regulated group.

each amendment is separate.

There are no individual rights in our Second Amendment; they are plural and collective.

No, you said none of the amendments preserve individual rights.

 

[danielpalos]

Yes, it does.

See, that’s your problem. You think words order other words to do something. The constitution orders the federal government, not the words ordering words. Words don’t do anything but convey a message. Words can’t tell other words what to do.

The constitution direct the federal government and the states. Ultimately, it orders people, individuals, how to act or behave, for the benefit of individuals.

Did we forget the purpose of society?

It orders the meaning of the words. The first clause expresses the context. It is not about individual liberty or natural rights.

You claim the amendments don't protect individual rights, yet won't deal with how the first obviously protects your rights as an individual to speak without being part of a regulated group.

each amendment is separate.

There are no individual rights in our Second Amendment; they are plural and collective.

No, you said none of the amendments preserve individual rights.

I said our Second Amendment is about the security of a free State.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

See, that’s your problem. You think words order other words to do something. The constitution orders the federal government, not the words ordering words. Words don’t do anything but convey a message. Words can’t tell other words what to do.

The constitution direct the federal government and the states. Ultimately, it orders people, individuals, how to act or behave, for the benefit of individuals.

Did we forget the purpose of society?

It orders the meaning of the words. The first clause expresses the context. It is not about individual liberty or natural rights.

You claim the amendments don't protect individual rights, yet won't deal with how the first obviously protects your rights as an individual to speak without being part of a regulated group.

each amendment is separate.

There are no individual rights in our Second Amendment; they are plural and collective.

No, you said none of the amendments preserve individual rights.

I said our Second Amendment is about the security of a free State.

It is about the limited power of the federal government.

Stop making shit up, dumbass.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Our Second Amendment covers the security of a free State; there is no excuse for not having an army group in reserve.

Makes no sense.

What does that have to do with the right of the people?

If you knew anything about our Second Amendment, you would know what and where it should apply.

the whole and entire concept of natural rights, is not one of them.

There are no collective rights. That is pure dumbassery. Only commie idiots believe in the illogical concept of collective rights.

A collective right is exercised by no one, just like collective property is enjoyed or used by no one.

Collectivism is a lie. It is a scam to defraud individuals of liberty and property.

Who has the right? The people, but not the person.

Who owns the property? The people, but not the person.

Who gets to eat the bread owned by the people? Not you.

Collectivists are murdering thieves who deserve death.