CDZ What The 2nd does NOT Say!

[DarkFury]

Just a little interesting twist here. We all know that MANY liberal members of the FEDERAL government and liberals say YOU can't have guns. What if I told you the FEDERAL government is the one NOT protected by the 2nd?

"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."


Alright so there it is in full form so lets break it down...
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State".

Now THAT gives the right to STATE Militias NOT a central OR federal government. Now lets go to the second part.
"the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

That gives YOU the person the right to be armed and NO WHERE in in that statement does it give ANY central government OR agency OR political body the RIGHT to bear arms.

Now to back that up yet some more try this...
"July 26, 1908, United States of America" that was the year the FBI was founded.
Google

Only problem was that by law the FBI was NOT allowed to carry guns because of the 2nd!
"Agents of the FBI were authorized to carry firearms after the passage of the June 1934 Crime Bill, which also included the 1934 National Firearms Act,"
When did FBI agents start carrying guns

So as PRIVATE citizens they could carry guns but NOT as a central government agency.
The 2nd was NEVER designed NOR intended to protect central government OR a government agency. It was written SOLEY to protect the people FROM ANY central government Or agency!

Fury

 

[TheOldSchool]

well regulated

 

[DarkFury]

well regulated

Well regulated can mean MANY things BUT the regulations would NOT be given to the central government OR agency. It would BY LAW given to the states as also called out in other parts. Nice try, no cigar.

 

[ScienceRocks]

It says I can have a gun. Think about that Darkfury!

 

[DarkFury]

It says I can have a gun. Think about that Darkfury!

And you can as a person or a member of a militia. It does NOT say you can have one as a political party member or central government member or an agency member.

 

[Toronado3800]

I love this conversation.

Obviously our founding fathers knew they meant it to allow regular people to carry guns. It is how THEY enforced it.

But what do the words of the 2nd mean if you translate it as a whole, not halves?

Someone goofed there.

 

[DarkFury]

I love this conversation.

Obviously our founding fathers knew they meant it to allow regular people to carry guns. It is how THEY enforced it.

But what do the words of the 2nd mean if you translate it as a whole, not halves?

Someone goofed there.

I would disagree as they were protecting two different groups.

 

[Picaro]

Here is one of the better collections of the history of gun control, from the colonial era on up.

Primary Historical Sources

Clayton Cramer - Wikipedia

 

[Picaro]

I forgot this one.

My Law Review and Other Referreed Journal Articles

 

[Toronado3800]

I love this conversation.

Obviously our founding fathers knew they meant it to allow regular people to carry guns. It is how THEY enforced it.

But what do the words of the 2nd mean if you translate it as a whole, not halves?

Someone goofed there.

I would disagree as they were protecting two different groups.

A clear and concise point being necessary, one point five trains of thought it was.

 

[yiostheoy]

Just a little interesting twist here. We all know that MANY liberal members of the FEDERAL government and liberals say YOU can't have guns. What if I told you the FEDERAL government is the one NOT protected by the 2nd?

"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."


Alright so there it is in full form so lets break it down...
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State".

Now THAT gives the right to STATE Militias NOT a central OR federal government. Now lets go to the second part.
"the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

That gives YOU the person the right to be armed and NO WHERE in in that statement does it give ANY central government OR agency OR political body the RIGHT to bear arms.

Now to back that up yet some more try this...
"July 26, 1908, United States of America" that was the year the FBI was founded.
Google

Only problem was that by law the FBI was NOT allowed to carry guns because of the 2nd!
"Agents of the FBI were authorized to carry firearms after the passage of the June 1934 Crime Bill, which also included the 1934 National Firearms Act,"
When did FBI agents start carrying guns

So as PRIVATE citizens they could carry guns but NOT as a central government agency.
The 2nd was NEVER designed NOR intended to protect central government OR a government agency. It was written SOLEY to protect the people FROM ANY central government Or agency!

Fury

Another gun thread !!

I love gun threads !!

Thank you DarkFury for yet another gun thread !!

Here goes ... .

 

[yiostheoy]

Here is one of the better collections of the history of gun control, from the colonial era on up.

Primary Historical Sources

Clayton Cramer - Wikipedia

Heller v DC at the SCOTUS is the best overall summary and source.

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER

 

[yiostheoy]

I love this conversation.

Obviously our founding fathers knew they meant it to allow regular people to carry guns. It is how THEY enforced it.

But what do the words of the 2nd mean if you translate it as a whole, not halves?

Someone goofed there.

According to Scalia -- NOT "carry".

"Keep" in their homes.

 

[yiostheoy]

It says I can have a gun. Think about that Darkfury!

"To have and to hold" -- also applies to gay marriage according to the SCOTUS as well.

 

[rightwinger]

It says, government has the right to register guns, license gun owners, require training

 

[yiostheoy]

Just a little interesting twist here. We all know that MANY liberal members of the FEDERAL government and liberals say YOU can't have guns. What if I told you the FEDERAL government is the one NOT protected by the 2nd?

"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."


Alright so there it is in full form so lets break it down...
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State".

Now THAT gives the right to STATE Militias NOT a central OR federal government. Now lets go to the second part.
"the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

That gives YOU the person the right to be armed and NO WHERE in in that statement does it give ANY central government OR agency OR political body the RIGHT to bear arms.

Now to back that up yet some more try this...
"July 26, 1908, United States of America" that was the year the FBI was founded.
Google

Only problem was that by law the FBI was NOT allowed to carry guns because of the 2nd!
"Agents of the FBI were authorized to carry firearms after the passage of the June 1934 Crime Bill, which also included the 1934 National Firearms Act,"
When did FBI agents start carrying guns

So as PRIVATE citizens they could carry guns but NOT as a central government agency.
The 2nd was NEVER designed NOR intended to protect central government OR a government agency. It was written SOLEY to protect the people FROM ANY central government Or agency!

Fury

The US Code determines what Federal law is, not the 2nd Amendment.

And the FBI was founded by the Justice Dept which itself was founded by a special Congressional act in 1789.

Judiciary Act of 1789 - Wikipedia

Wiki has a great write-up. You can drill down to the primary sources yourself if you like.

 

[yiostheoy]

There is nothing about "carrying guns" in the 2nd Amendment.

This is the problem that morons stumble over all the time.

To understand the 2nd Amendment you really need to read Heller v DC carefully.

 

[Picaro]

It says, government has the right to register guns, license gun owners, require training

State governments do and always have for the most part; see Cramer's essays on 'The Racist Roots of Gun Control'. the issue is one the 'states' righters' always step all over their own arguments and pretend they didn't and their views are all perfectly compatible with each other. I'm personally just fine with firearm ownership; I'm fine with some sort of safety standards and screening restrictions, but that doesn't make me obligated to agree with stupid cognitively dissonant rubbish re original intent.

 

[yiostheoy]

It says, government has the right to register guns, license gun owners, require training

State governments do and always have for the most part; see Cramer's essays on 'The Racist Roots of Gun Control'. the issue is one the 'states' righters' always step all over their own arguments and pretend they didn't and their views are all perfectly compatible with each other.

Picaro why does such a smart person like you not even have a real avatar yet ??

Are you mentally challenged and don't know how to save-picture-as off the internet ??

 

[yiostheoy]

Here is an avatar for you Picaro .

Click on this and save it to your hard drive files somewhere.

Then upload it here in the avatar editor: