What is so hard to understand?

Discussion in 'Clean Debate Zone' started by RetiredGySgt, Aug 20, 2012.

  1. RetiredGySgt
    Online

    RetiredGySgt Platinum Member

    Joined:
    May 6, 2007
    Messages:
    39,584
    Thanks Received:
    5,906
    Trophy Points:
    1,140
    Location:
    North Carolina
    Ratings:
    +9,005
    The 2nd Amendment is an INDIVIDUAL right. It is not contingent on a person being IN a militia. States have the right to form militias but that is irrelevant to the right to bear arms.

    Further what part of supposed assault weapons are specifically covered by the 2nd don't people understand? The Supreme Court has on several occasions stated or affirmed that a weapon is only covered by the 2nd Amendment if it is suitable to the Militia, which means in use by the military, of use to the military or in prior use by the military. See White Vs Texas in 1939 for the actual text.
     
  2. FA_Q2
    Offline

    FA_Q2 Gold Member

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2009
    Messages:
    14,329
    Thanks Received:
    2,091
    Trophy Points:
    255
    Location:
    Washington State
    Ratings:
    +4,329
    It is hard to understand because it does not fit into some people’s ideology. It is similar to the failure to understand what the establishment clause means. It is a 2 way street.

    Simply put, most people only want to defend the constitution as long as it agrees with the world view they already have. It is not a case of what is hard to understand. It is a case of completely ignoring what things actually say/mean.
     
  3. uscitizen
    Offline

    uscitizen Senior Member

    Joined:
    May 6, 2007
    Messages:
    45,941
    Thanks Received:
    4,791
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    My Shack
    Ratings:
    +4,807
    The constitution also kinda restricts the military to defensive actions.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  4. RetiredGySgt
    Online

    RetiredGySgt Platinum Member

    Joined:
    May 6, 2007
    Messages:
    39,584
    Thanks Received:
    5,906
    Trophy Points:
    1,140
    Location:
    North Carolina
    Ratings:
    +9,005
    It does no such thing. It provides that a military budget for ground forces can not exceed two years and it leaves to Congress the power to turn off the money if the President sends the troops where Congress does not want them.
     
  5. AmyNation
    Offline

    AmyNation Road Warrior Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Aug 6, 2012
    Messages:
    9,021
    Thanks Received:
    1,013
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Currently stationed at the kitchen table
    Ratings:
    +1,016
    Considering constitutional scholars nick-pick this issue, I would say its not quite so black and white.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  6. Mad Scientist
    Offline

    Mad Scientist Deplorable Gold Supporting Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2008
    Messages:
    23,940
    Thanks Received:
    5,212
    Trophy Points:
    270
    Ratings:
    +7,684
    What's that got to do with the 2nd Amendment?
     
  7. uscitizen
    Offline

    uscitizen Senior Member

    Joined:
    May 6, 2007
    Messages:
    45,941
    Thanks Received:
    4,791
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    My Shack
    Ratings:
    +4,807
    You do realize that from 1776 up till 1812 we did not have a standing army per sie only state militias.
     
  8. FA_Q2
    Offline

    FA_Q2 Gold Member

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2009
    Messages:
    14,329
    Thanks Received:
    2,091
    Trophy Points:
    255
    Location:
    Washington State
    Ratings:
    +4,329
    Considering the words used, I would say it is black and white. I don’t really care how muddled the ‘scholars’ want to make it. I have yet to hear a well-constructed case that makes the second some vaunted ‘collective’ right or connect it to the militia.
     
  9. C_Clayton_Jones
    Offline

    C_Clayton_Jones Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2011
    Messages:
    41,543
    Thanks Received:
    8,933
    Trophy Points:
    2,030
    Location:
    In a Republic, actually
    Ratings:
    +23,869
    Many may not be aware the issue concerns self-defense:

    The firearm is thus the instrument used to facilitate that right.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  10. JoeB131
    Offline

    JoeB131 Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2011
    Messages:
    80,579
    Thanks Received:
    6,873
    Trophy Points:
    1,815
    Location:
    Chicago, Chicago, that Toddling Town
    Ratings:
    +15,082
    But Milller v. US said the government CAN limit what kind of weapons you can have.

    Personally, I think gun laws are impractical... but the reasons gun fetishist give for owning guns are kind of silly.

    1) A gun in you home is more a danger to your family than bad guys...

    2) You will never own enough guns to take on the govenrment, and if it ever comes down to that, your neighbors willl be cheering the day the government takes you out because you were frightening their children...

    Just sayin'.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1

Share This Page