The REAL purpose of 2nd Amendment; The no B.S. truth

[M14 Shooter]

If that were true, they would have written it that way.

But they didn't.

It simply says that the right of the people cannot be taken away or restricted. And it provides an explanation why... but makes no conditions on its mandate.

Even if somebody managed to prove that a well-regulated militia were NOT necessary for the security of a free states, the 2nd would still be a command that the right shall not be infringed. Period.

Much to the disappointment of left-wing fanatics.

The right of the people as a group, not as individuals, is what is guaranteed not to be infringed.

There is no such thing as people as a group, with the possible exception of a mob. People exist, live, die, as individuals, not as a group.

No group of people can have a right that is not first possessed by each individual of that group, unto himself.

 

[Survivalist]

Stalkers and Shooters: A History of Snipers: Kevin Dockery: 9780425215425: Amazon.com: Books

Read this book last weekend, "Stalkers and Shooters: History of Snipers"; it was fantastic. Documents the history of snipers, from the early 1300's with arrows, up to the Revolutionary and Civil Wars, all the way to modern day military and swat snipers fighting terrorism. More of a detailed history than techincal teaching book.

Anyway, it spoke about the 2nd Amendment. And the real meaning of it within context of what was going on in the country at the time. This is not a political book. Its for no-B.S. military and police people. And here is basically how it lays it out:

The Revolutionary War depended a lot on volunteer militia to fight alongside official military. The problem was, the militia were being provided ammo by the regular troops, and they had to make 7 different types of ammo due to the militia all having different rifles.

The Revolutionary War was turned in large part due to American snipers and their marksmanship and guerilla tactics. They fought ALONGSIDE their government's official troops to fight off the British.

So, to put it bluntly, as the book lays it out, the CONTEXT of the idea behind the 2nd Amendment immediately after the Revolutionary War was a "well regulated" militia, MEANING that the standing government could provide ammunition in times of emergency to the citizens, and with "well regulated" militia, they'd all have a standard caliber ammo so the government could focus on mass producing one type of ammo, and thus, supply as much ammo as possible to it's people.

And that would allow the people to fight ALONG SIDE the regular troops in times of national defense.

THAT, in my opinion, is the true, no bullshit meaning, with historical context and purpose. To have armed citizens, in a common caliber of ammo, that the government can open up the hordes of ammo to should a national emergency or invasion happen.

Its not to allow the citizens to fight against their own government, its to allow them to fight WITH their government. The Revolutionary War showed this, when the Americans tried to supply 7 different types of ammo to the militia, and it was hard, so they determined that a "well regulated" (aka, common caliber) amongst the militia would be a good idea.

And it is. The standard ammo of choice seems to be 5.56/.223, 12 guage, and .45 or 9mm, all very common rounds that the federal, state and local governments use. And they are very popular among citizens.

It seems the 2nd Amendment works, accidentally or on purpose, in that if America were subjected to a mass invasion, the governments could distribute ammo to the people, most of whom would have guns that could fire the most common calibers government uses.



But much to the disappointment of right wing fanatics, the 2nd was, and is, meant to allow citizens to fight WITH their government, NOT against it.

You are only partly right, but on the right track.

Well regulated means the members of the militia(s) are regulated well under a chain of command. They should be well led, well fed, disciplined and armed. You can't have irregular troops running around without supervision. The Founders were NOT talking about gun control, as the gun-phobes imagine.

To see what the Founders expected their troops to be armed with, read the Militia Act of 1792. This allowed the free men to carry whatever they wanted. The cavarly should have pistols. Cannons were even allowed, but not because they were "bad"---but because they were rare, expensive and cumbersome.

 

[Wry Catcher]

change any reference you have in your tirade from "guns" to "free speech" and the NRA to the ACLU and I would assume you would support the same restrictions?

And we KNOW the overall goal is to keep the control of weapons with the government only, its been stated by gun controllers all along.

Not at all. You're free and always will be to walk into a movie theater or first grade class and yell and scream - you might end up in a rubber room for evaluation but no one would die.

Only a true paranoid schizophrenic 'knows' the government's plan (and who in the government might that be?) is to keep control of all weapons? Sane people understand guns are everywhere in the United States, their are more guns than people (I've heard). How would the government implement such a program (give everyone a cupcake for surrendering a gun?).

It would be implemented gradually over time. The old boiling a frog slowly in water trick. its what has happened in NY State, where each law is said to be ineffective, thus requiring a new law (which of course exempts people in the government) to the point where it is a major hassle for anyone not a government employee to get a gun when they want one.

And yelling "Fire" in a crowded theatre can cause a panic and kill people. We dont duct tape everyones mouth before they enter as a precaution though.

How many times has someone yelled fire in a crowded theater in your lifetime? How many people were killed? I guess when you have nothing intelligent or substantive to offer you default to being ridiculous.

 

[R.C. Christian]

why? so the government has the only teeth and can control us further?

Yes ........ that is the definition of government.

Coward.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Not at all. You're free and always will be to walk into a movie theater or first grade class and yell and scream - you might end up in a rubber room for evaluation but no one would die.

Only a true paranoid schizophrenic 'knows' the government's plan (and who in the government might that be?) is to keep control of all weapons? Sane people understand guns are everywhere in the United States, their are more guns than people (I've heard). How would the government implement such a program (give everyone a cupcake for surrendering a gun?).

It would be implemented gradually over time. The old boiling a frog slowly in water trick. its what has happened in NY State, where each law is said to be ineffective, thus requiring a new law (which of course exempts people in the government) to the point where it is a major hassle for anyone not a government employee to get a gun when they want one.

And yelling "Fire" in a crowded theatre can cause a panic and kill people. We dont duct tape everyones mouth before they enter as a precaution though.

How many times has someone yelled fire in a crowded theater in your lifetime? How many people were killed? I guess when you have nothing intelligent or substantive to offer you default to being ridiculous.

Regardless, the 1st does not protect this as free speech because to do so places people in a condition of clear, present and immediate danger, just as it does not protect libel/slander because they both cause harm to others.

Simple ownership/possession of any kind of firearm, however, does neither.

 

[martybegan]

Not at all. You're free and always will be to walk into a movie theater or first grade class and yell and scream - you might end up in a rubber room for evaluation but no one would die.

Only a true paranoid schizophrenic 'knows' the government's plan (and who in the government might that be?) is to keep control of all weapons? Sane people understand guns are everywhere in the United States, their are more guns than people (I've heard). How would the government implement such a program (give everyone a cupcake for surrendering a gun?).

It would be implemented gradually over time. The old boiling a frog slowly in water trick. its what has happened in NY State, where each law is said to be ineffective, thus requiring a new law (which of course exempts people in the government) to the point where it is a major hassle for anyone not a government employee to get a gun when they want one.

And yelling "Fire" in a crowded theatre can cause a panic and kill people. We dont duct tape everyones mouth before they enter as a precaution though.

How many times has someone yelled fire in a crowded theater in your lifetime? How many people were killed? I guess when you have nothing intelligent or substantive to offer you default to being ridiculous.

Its an example of how exercising a consitutional right can be punished by the government without being unconsitutional. Here one has to actually perform the bad act to be punished. Gun control advocates want to punish people who have never committed a bad act, and show no inclanation to perform said bad act, similar to wanting to gag people in the theatre because they "may" yell FIRE!!!

 

[martybegan]

It would be implemented gradually over time. The old boiling a frog slowly in water trick. its what has happened in NY State, where each law is said to be ineffective, thus requiring a new law (which of course exempts people in the government) to the point where it is a major hassle for anyone not a government employee to get a gun when they want one.

And yelling "Fire" in a crowded theatre can cause a panic and kill people. We dont duct tape everyones mouth before they enter as a precaution though.

How many times has someone yelled fire in a crowded theater in your lifetime? How many people were killed? I guess when you have nothing intelligent or substantive to offer you default to being ridiculous.

Regardless, the 1st does not protect this as free speech because to do so places people in a condition of clear, present and immediate danger, just as it does not protect libel/slander because they both cause harm to others.

Simple ownership/possession of any kind of firearm, however, does neither.

At least somebody gets the damn point.

Thanks.

 

[JoeB131]

[

There are inherent rights every person has. Your position is that the state has more power than then person in all matters. It makes you basically the equivalent of Stalin.

I'm saying as a practical matter they do. Just ask David Koresh. They didn't care he had a "right" to a crazy religion. They didn't care he had a right to guns. They just went in and took his sorry ass out.

[
A consitutional right can be taken away by amendment. An inherent right cannot, but you may have to fight for it to maintain it.

Actually, a right is what society ACCEPTS it to mean. They passed all these Amendments after the Civil War to make black folks equal. They didn't get anywhere near equality until society accepted that was far... oh, about a hundred years later.

So, really, a Constitututional Amendment is at best, what? A Helpful Hint?

And basing someones mental state via an anonymous message board is as stupid as you are.

It is not up to me to prevent criminals from getting/using guns. It is up to the government with the caveat that said methods cannot interfere with my right to own one.

Who said its supposed to be easy?

Oh, it would be VERY easy.

You can't have a gun. Period.

Done.

 

[Spoonman]

Stalkers and Shooters: A History of Snipers: Kevin Dockery: 9780425215425: Amazon.com: Books

Read this book last weekend, "Stalkers and Shooters: History of Snipers"; it was fantastic. Documents the history of snipers, from the early 1300's with arrows, up to the Revolutionary and Civil Wars, all the way to modern day military and swat snipers fighting terrorism. More of a detailed history than techincal teaching book.

Anyway, it spoke about the 2nd Amendment. And the real meaning of it within context of what was going on in the country at the time. This is not a political book. Its for no-B.S. military and police people. And here is basically how it lays it out:

The Revolutionary War depended a lot on volunteer militia to fight alongside official military. The problem was, the militia were being provided ammo by the regular troops, and they had to make 7 different types of ammo due to the militia all having different rifles.

The Revolutionary War was turned in large part due to American snipers and their marksmanship and guerilla tactics. They fought ALONGSIDE their government's official troops to fight off the British.

So, to put it bluntly, as the book lays it out, the CONTEXT of the idea behind the 2nd Amendment immediately after the Revolutionary War was a "well regulated" militia, MEANING that the standing government could provide ammunition in times of emergency to the citizens, and with "well regulated" militia, they'd all have a standard caliber ammo so the government could focus on mass producing one type of ammo, and thus, supply as much ammo as possible to it's people.

And that would allow the people to fight ALONG SIDE the regular troops in times of national defense.

THAT, in my opinion, is the true, no bullshit meaning, with historical context and purpose. To have armed citizens, in a common caliber of ammo, that the government can open up the hordes of ammo to should a national emergency or invasion happen.

Its not to allow the citizens to fight against their own government, its to allow them to fight WITH their government. The Revolutionary War showed this, when the Americans tried to supply 7 different types of ammo to the militia, and it was hard, so they determined that a "well regulated" (aka, common caliber) amongst the militia would be a good idea.

And it is. The standard ammo of choice seems to be 5.56/.223, 12 guage, and .45 or 9mm, all very common rounds that the federal, state and local governments use. And they are very popular among citizens.

It seems the 2nd Amendment works, accidentally or on purpose, in that if America were subjected to a mass invasion, the governments could distribute ammo to the people, most of whom would have guns that could fire the most common calibers government uses.



But much to the disappointment of right wing fanatics, the 2nd was, and is, meant to allow citizens to fight WITH their government, NOT against it.

You are only partly right, but on the right track.

Well regulated means the members of the militia(s) are regulated well under a chain of command. They should be well led, well fed, disciplined and armed. You can't have irregular troops running around without supervision. The Founders were NOT talking about gun control, as the gun-phobes imagine.

To see what the Founders expected their troops to be armed with, read the Militia Act of 1792. This allowed the free men to carry whatever they wanted. The cavarly should have pistols. Cannons were even allowed, but not because they were "bad"---but because they were rare, expensive and cumbersome.

no, to understand what is meant by the militia, read what the author, james Madison said about it. he was specific it was a public militia with leaders of their own choosing. not a government run and led militia. what he was talking about had nothing to do with a government managed militia

 

[martybegan]

[

There are inherent rights every person has. Your position is that the state has more power than then person in all matters. It makes you basically the equivalent of Stalin.

I'm saying as a practical matter they do. Just ask David Koresh. They didn't care he had a "right" to a crazy religion. They didn't care he had a right to guns. They just went in and took his sorry ass out.

[
A consitutional right can be taken away by amendment. An inherent right cannot, but you may have to fight for it to maintain it.

Actually, a right is what society ACCEPTS it to mean. They passed all these Amendments after the Civil War to make black folks equal. They didn't get anywhere near equality until society accepted that was far... oh, about a hundred years later.

So, really, a Constitututional Amendment is at best, what? A Helpful Hint?

And basing someones mental state via an anonymous message board is as stupid as you are.

It is not up to me to prevent criminals from getting/using guns. It is up to the government with the caveat that said methods cannot interfere with my right to own one.

Who said its supposed to be easy?

Oh, it would be VERY easy.

You can't have a gun. Period.
Done.

Considering a fascist like you can't do it on your own, you can go pound sand.

 

[JoeB131]

[

Considering a fascist like you can't do it on your own, you can go pound sand.

Only a matter of time before the rest of us stop putting up with your tantrums.

You see, here's the thing. If you guys are serious, you'd WANT background checks. You'd want to keep guns out of the hands of the insane and criminal.

But the thing is, you aren't calling the shots. The gun manufacturers are. And as long as crazy people and crooks can get guns, they can keep selling guns to the Nancy Lanza's of the world. What, Nancy, those other 11 guns aren't enough to make you feel safe? Here's an AR-15, just like the Army uses. It's not like your crazy kid will get ahold of it and do anything, like, Crazy with it.

 

[martybegan]

[

Considering a fascist like you can't do it on your own, you can go pound sand.

Only a matter of time before the rest of us stop putting up with your tantrums.

You see, here's the thing. If you guys are serious, you'd WANT background checks. You'd want to keep guns out of the hands of the insane and criminal.

But the thing is, you aren't calling the shots. The gun manufacturers are. And as long as crazy people and crooks can get guns, they can keep selling guns to the Nancy Lanza's of the world. What, Nancy, those other 11 guns aren't enough to make you feel safe? Here's an AR-15, just like the Army uses. It's not like your crazy kid will get ahold of it and do anything, like, Crazy with it.

Why would I accept anything you suggest when I know your overall goal is a gun ban?

Its like a butcher listening to PETA regarding how to display thier meat cuts.

I find your cavalier attitude towards rights pathetic and sad.

 

[JoeB131]

[

Why would I accept anything you suggest when I know your overall goal is a gun ban?

Its like a butcher listening to PETA regarding how to display thier meat cuts.

I find your cavalier attitude towards rights pathetic and sad.

Guy, it isn't a "right" you really need or should have. And like all "rights", it should be bordered by a little bit of common sense.

Freedom of religion does not mean you can smoke dope or have sex with kids. (Sorry, Rasterfairans and Branch Davidians).

Freedom of Speech does not mean you can make false claims about the benefits of your product. (Sorry, TObacco Companies.)

The Right to Bear Arms should not mean Joker Holmes can walk into a gun store with his orange hair and laugh manically while he buys an AR-15 and a 100 round clip. Or it shouldn't, if you applied a little common sense.

You gun nuts are beyond common sense. That's why people who think we should just take the right away completely have a point. You abused the Privilage.

 

[martybegan]

[

Why would I accept anything you suggest when I know your overall goal is a gun ban?

Its like a butcher listening to PETA regarding how to display thier meat cuts.

I find your cavalier attitude towards rights pathetic and sad.

Guy, it isn't a "right" you really need or should have. And like all "rights", it should be bordered by a little bit of common sense.

Freedom of religion does not mean you can smoke dope or have sex with kids. (Sorry, Rasterfairans and Branch Davidians).

Freedom of Speech does not mean you can make false claims about the benefits of your product. (Sorry, TObacco Companies.)

The Right to Bear Arms should not mean Joker Holmes can walk into a gun store with his orange hair and laugh manically while he buys an AR-15 and a 100 round clip. Or it shouldn't, if you applied a little common sense.

You gun nuts are beyond common sense. That's why people who think we should just take the right away completely have a point. You abused the Privilage.

Show proof that the guy walked into a gun store looking crazy and bought his gun.

Also, when it comes to your above cases, you CAN follow a religion that espouses those actions. Its only when you ACT and perform an illegal action that you get in trouble

People who use guns illegally get arrested. It still doesnt mean I cannot own a gun because someone else used one illegally.

and you call it a right and a privlidge in the same sentence. Consistency is key here nimrod.

also its a magazine, not a clip, idiot.

 

[JoeB131]

[

Show proof that the guy walked into a gun store looking crazy and bought his gun.

Also, when it comes to your above cases, you CAN follow a religion that espouses those actions. Its only when you ACT and perform an illegal action that you get in trouble

People who use guns illegally get arrested. It still doesnt mean I cannot own a gun because someone else used one illegally.

and you call it a right and a privlidge in the same sentence. Consistency is key here nimrod.

also its a magazine, not a clip, idiot.

I call it a clip because it annoys you gun fetishists.

If a religion went around talking about molesting kids, you don't think they'd be taking a really good look at them, proof or not? Really?

All "rights" are privilages. Jesus Christ on a Pogo Stick, how many times do I have to explain it to you?

 

[martybegan]

[

Show proof that the guy walked into a gun store looking crazy and bought his gun.

Also, when it comes to your above cases, you CAN follow a religion that espouses those actions. Its only when you ACT and perform an illegal action that you get in trouble

People who use guns illegally get arrested. It still doesnt mean I cannot own a gun because someone else used one illegally.

and you call it a right and a privlidge in the same sentence. Consistency is key here nimrod.

also its a magazine, not a clip, idiot.

I call it a clip because it annoys you gun fetishists.

If a religion went around talking about molesting kids, you don't think they'd be taking a really good look at them, proof or not? Really?

All "rights" are privilages. Jesus Christ on a Pogo Stick, how many times do I have to explain it to you?

Rights are not privlidges, no matter how many times you run that thought through your feeble little mind. Just because you dont like a given right doesnt mean it instantly loses its right status.

Yes, the Religon would be looked at, but you couldnt do squat about it until they actually performed an illegal act. How do you think NAMBLA can exist?

 

[JoeB131]

[

Rights are not privlidges, no matter how many times you run that thought through your feeble little mind. Just because you dont like a given right doesnt mean it instantly loses its right status.

Yes, the Religon would be looked at, but you couldnt do squat about it until they actually performed an illegal act. How do you think NAMBLA can exist?

NAMBLA doesn't exist as a legal organization. It's considered a criminal conspiracy.

(It's also not a religion, BTW)

There are no rights.

There are only privilages society lets you have.

It cannot be a "Right" if it can be taken away from you, as every "Right" in the consitution can be and has at various points in our history.

Just ask the Japanese Americans of 1942 about "rights".

 

[martybegan]

[

Rights are not privlidges, no matter how many times you run that thought through your feeble little mind. Just because you dont like a given right doesnt mean it instantly loses its right status.

Yes, the Religon would be looked at, but you couldnt do squat about it until they actually performed an illegal act. How do you think NAMBLA can exist?

NAMBLA doesn't exist as a legal organization. It's considered a criminal conspiracy.

(It's also not a religion, BTW)

There are no rights.

There are only privilages society lets you have.

It cannot be a "Right" if it can be taken away from you, as every "Right" in the consitution can be and has at various points in our history.

Just ask the Japanese Americans of 1942 about "rights".

I dont know where you got the concept that if something can be taken away, it is not a "right." You just dont like guns, and therefore have to justify doing something unconsitutional by calling it a "privlidge. Its the basic intellectual dishonesty i have come to expect from you.

And how does a criminal conpsiracy have a website?

 

[JoeB131]

[

I dont know where you got the concept that if something can be taken away, it is not a "right." You just dont like guns, and therefore have to justify doing something unconsitutional by calling it a "privlidge. Its the basic intellectual dishonesty i have come to expect from you.

And how does a criminal conpsiracy have a website?

I'm not sure. WTF are you doing visiting the NAMBLA website? Please don't post a link to it if it actually exists.

I have no desire to get the FBI involved in this thread.

If something can be taken away by the government, by society or by other people in general, it isn't a right. It's a privilage.

THat's the cost of living as a social animal.

Probably has been since the first ape-thing got driven out of the pack for doing something the other apes didn't like.

So now that we've established that gun ownership is a privilage, is it one you need?

And the answer is, probably not.

 

[martybegan]

[

I dont know where you got the concept that if something can be taken away, it is not a "right." You just dont like guns, and therefore have to justify doing something unconsitutional by calling it a "privlidge. Its the basic intellectual dishonesty i have come to expect from you.

And how does a criminal conpsiracy have a website?

I'm not sure. WTF are you doing visiting the NAMBLA website? Please don't post a link to it if it actually exists.

I have no desire to get the FBI involved in this thread.

If something can be taken away by the government, by society or by other people in general, it isn't a right. It's a privilage.

THat's the cost of living as a social animal.

Probably has been since the first ape-thing got driven out of the pack for doing something the other apes didn't like.

So now that we've established that gun ownership is a privilage, is it one you need?

And the answer is, probably not.

Its not a privlidge, its a right, and nothing you say can change that. You have established nothing, and proven nothing except your intellectual dishonesty.

Also The website is a link at the wikipedia article on it, and No, i didnt click on it.

and clicking on a website does not equal supporting said website. I own a copy of Mein Kampf, it doesnt mean I am a Nazi.