What would you do with the second amendment?

[Natural Citizen]

The background check is a violation of the first amendment because it compels people to speak and to provide information about themselves. The background check is a violation of the fifth amendment, the right against self-incrimination, because you have to provide evidence against yourself in order to require a gun. The background check is a violation of the tenth amendment because the requirement to provide this information is not something that is explicitly stated as a power of the federal government in the Constitution. If anyone had that power it would be the states, but even they have their second amendments so it would be questionable for them to try that.

Also, you can't ban my belt loop. It makes a pretty good bump stock. It's basic training, for those who might not already know this. Couple other ways to do it, too.

Lastly, I would remind friends that the second amendment exists for a specific reason. Which I'll snip from a great book on the topic,. Buy the book here -https://www.amazon.com/American-ideal-1776-twelve-principles/dp/0911668020/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1528909075&sr=1-1&keywords=american+ideal+1776&dpID=51ZTknY1WcL&preST=_SY291_BO1,204,203,200_QL40_&dpSrc=srch

''With regard to use by the States of forces, use of their Militia forces (all able-bodied males capable of bearing arms) in self-defense against any Federal usurpers seeking to oppress or dominate one or more States by force in violation of the Constitution's limits on Federal power, Hamilton and Madison discussed at length and in detail in The Federalist (numbers 28 by Hamilton and 46 by Madison) the assumption and expectation of The Framers that all States would marshall their forces and act jointly to crush the usurpers' forces.

This understanding of The Framers was shared by the members of the State Ratifying Conventions and the leaders and people in general of that day--all fearless foes of any and all enemies of Free Man in America. They believed that all true Americans must be ready to fight and die for Liberty, especially against tyrannical Federal officials who, as usurpers, violate not only the Constitution but also their oath of office: to support the Constitution only. It was also contemplated that any non-military force used by the Federal usurpers would be countered by the States' use of their own non-military forces: Sheriff's posses (posses comitatus) and any civilian police forces."

So, why on Earth would we take away our ability to do that? Federal usurpers can have all of these weapons. But we can't? Think about that for a minute. Let it sink in nice and good.

It's war on us!

 

[Daryl Hunt]

The background check is a violation of the first amendment because it compels people to speak and to provide information about themselves. The background check is a violation of the fifth amendment, the right against self-incrimination, because you have to provide evidence against yourself in order to require a gun. The background check is a violation of the tenth amendment because the requirement to provide this information is not something that is explicitly stated as a power of the federal government in the Constitution. If anyone had that power it would be the states, but even they have their second amendments so it would be questionable for them to try that.

Also, I you can't ban my belt loop. It makes a pretty good bump stock. It's basic training, for those who might not already know this. Couple other ways to do it, too.

Lastly, I would remind friends that the second amendment exists for a specific reason. Which I'll snip from a great book on the topic,. Buy the book here -https://www.amazon.com/American-ideal-1776-twelve-principles/dp/0911668020/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1528909075&sr=1-1&keywords=american+ideal+1776&dpID=51ZTknY1WcL&preST=_SY291_BO1,204,203,200_QL40_&dpSrc=srch

''With regard to use by the States of forces, use of their Militia forces (all able-bodied males capable of bearing arms) in self-defense against any Federal usurpers seeking to oppress or dominate one or more States by force in violation of the Constitution's limits on Federal power, Hamilton and Madison discussed at length and in detail in The Federalist (numbers 28 by Hamilton and 46 by Madison) the assumption and expectation of The Framers that all States would marshall their forces and act jointly to crush the usurpers' forces.

This understanding of The Framers was shared by the members of the State Ratifying Conventions and the leaders and people in general of that day--all fearless foes of any and all enemies of Free Man in America. They believed that all true Americans must be ready to fight and die for Liberty, especially against tyrannical Federal officials who, as usurpers, violate not only the Constitution but also their oath of office: to support the Constitution only. It was also contemplated that any non-military force used by the Federal usurpers would be countered by the States' use of their own non-military forces: Sheriff's posses (posses comitatus) and any civilian police forces."

So, why on Earth would we take away our ability to do that? Federal usurpers can have all of these weapons. But we can't? Think about that for a minute. Let it sink in nice and good.

It's war on us!

Easy to debunk your response.

1. You want the same weapons as the Feds you may be up against in case you have to go against a rogue Federal Government? You will need a few hundred billion dollars and some really great connections and a few years to stockpile. And you are going to amass about a million people a few years to train them to use those weapons and support systems. I won't say this is impossible. I will say that it's Friggin Impossible.

2. Look up the phrase posses comitatus. It has absolutely nothing to do with a Sheriff of any kind. It has to do with using Federal Troops to police US Citizens inside the US Borders. It's pretty well laid out on the hows and whys. Let's say that you do get your #1 going and do overwhelm your state forces then you get to see what the Feds look like for the next two years under posses comitatus right after Congress and the President authorize the used of the Federal Troops. Things have to be pretty bad for Congress and the President to authorize the use of Federal Troops inside the US Borders. This is why the US Military cannot patrol the Southern Borders unless it's outside of the 12 mile water border. Only the Coast Guard, National Guard,Border Patrol, ATF and Law Enforcement can do that patrol. The only way that US Federal Troops could be used under posses comitatus would be if Mexico were to go to war against the US.

You really need to research your data before you post. Otherwise, the inaccuracies makes us discount any and all accuracies you may have in the context.

 

[Natural Citizen]

2. Look up the phrase posses comitatus. It has absolutely nothing to do with a Sheriff of any kind.

You really need to research your data before you post. Otherwise, the inaccuracies makes us discount any and all accuracies you may have in the context.

Posse comitatus is the common-law or statute law authority of a county sheriff, or other law officer, to conscript any able-bodied man to assist him in keeping the peace or to pursue and arrest a felon, similar to the concept of the "hue and cry." Originally found in English common law,[2] it is generally obsolete; however, it survives in the United States, where it is the law enforcement equivalent of summoning the militia for military purposes.


Go color.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

1. You want the same weapons as the Feds you may be up against in case you have to go against a rogue Federal Government? You will need a few hundred billion dollars and some really great connections and a few years to stockpile. And you are going to amass about a million people a few years to train them to use those weapons and support systems. I won't say this is impossible. I will say that it's Friggin Impossible.

This has been debunked repeatedly.

You should know better, if you were in the military. Unless you had no training in actual combat tactics. Were you an Air Force Janitor?

No amount of support will replace boots on the ground. Unless the federal government force plans on killing everyone, they will never permanently hold any ground position. That would be impossible.

The size of force ration will be at least 15:1 in favor of the citizens armed with regular foot soldier weapons and equipment. That is insurmountable by even the most conservative estimates.

Of course, this assumes that the whole military is not with the citizens.

At best, no citizen aircraft will get off the ground and the military will temporarily hold certain areas of land. AT BEST.

But, I would LOVE to hear your retort to my reasoning. This will be fun.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

1. You want the same weapons as the Feds you may be up against in case you have to go against a rogue Federal Government? You will need a few hundred billion dollars and some really great connections and a few years to stockpile. And you are going to amass about a million people a few years to train them to use those weapons and support systems. I won't say this is impossible. I will say that it's Friggin Impossible.

This has been debunked repeatedly.

You should know better, if you were in the military. Unless you had no training in actual combat tactics. Were you an Air Force Janitor?

No amount of support will replace boots on the ground. Unless the federal government force plans on killing everyone, they will never permanently hold any ground position. That would be impossible.

The size of force ration will be at least 15:1 in favor of the citizens armed with regular foot soldier weapons and equipment. That is insurmountable by even the most conservative estimates.

Of course, this assumes that the whole military is not with the citizens.

At best, no citizen aircraft will get off the ground and the military will temporarily hold certain areas of land. AT BEST.

But, I would LOVE to hear your retort to my reasoning. This will be fun.

You are laying your life on the line that every citizen and most of the Military will be on your side. Sounds nice in a book of Fiction. But reality gets in the way of a good fiction when the chips are down.


The only way to debunk it is to actually do it and I don't see that happening. But you are welcome to try.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

2. Look up the phrase posses comitatus. It has absolutely nothing to do with a Sheriff of any kind.

You really need to research your data before you post. Otherwise, the inaccuracies makes us discount any and all accuracies you may have in the context.

Posse comitatus is the common-law or statute law authority of a county sheriff, or other law officer, to conscript any able-bodied man to assist him in keeping the peace or to pursue and arrest a felon, similar to the concept of the "hue and cry." Originally found in English common law,[2] it is generally obsolete; however, it survives in the United States, where it is the law enforcement equivalent of summoning the militia for military purposes.


Go color.

Sure,. if you are in 1358 in England. But it has nothing to do with the United States where it means something else entirely. You want your version, get a time machine, travel back to Merry Olde England to 1358 and you too can become part of it. Hell, most of us will gladly buy you the super juice that your time machine will require to get there. The rest of us will use the Legal Definition of the Constitution of the United States. Or don't you believe in that either.

 

[Natural Citizen]

Sure,. if you are in 1358 in England. But it has nothing to do with the United States where it means something else entirely. You want your version, get a time machine, travel back to Merry Olde England to 1358 and you too can become part of it. Hell, most of us will gladly buy you the super juice that your time machine will require to get there. The rest of us will use the Legal Definition of the Constitution of the United States. Or don't you believe in that either.

Posse comitatus is the common-law or statute law authority of a county sheriff, or other law officer, to conscript any able-bodied man to assist him in keeping the peace or to pursue and arrest a felon, similar to the concept of the "hue and cry." Originally found in English common law,[2] it is generally obsolete; however, it survives in the United States, where it is the law enforcement equivalent of summoning the militia for military purposes.


And you're supposed to be coloring. pst...

 

[Cellblock2429]

Leave it alone and institute sensible gun regulations

Sounds like you have a desire to infringe.

Background Checks, Registration, required training, licensing.......it is what our founders wanted

/-----/ Link please.....

 

[TahoeHorn]

Can we make a trade? I'll support repeal of the Second Amendment if you'll support repeal of the Seventeenth. Or adoption of a Right-to-Work Amendment.

But seriously, what would you do with the 300MM guns which currently exist?

I'm a conservative who is open to a sensible gun control proposal. But I've never hear a proposal I thought would work. They all curb rights of law-abiding citizens but have almost no effect on criminals and mentally ill people.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

You are laying your life on the line that every citizen and most of the Military will be on your side. Sounds nice in a book of Fiction. But reality gets in the way of a good fiction when the chips are down.

See, that would not be citizenry throwing off a usurper. It would be one citizen attacking what everyone else appears to believe is a legitimate government.

You gave the fact scenario and now you want to change it?

 

[Daryl Hunt]

Sure,. if you are in 1358 in England. But it has nothing to do with the United States where it means something else entirely. You want your version, get a time machine, travel back to Merry Olde England to 1358 and you too can become part of it. Hell, most of us will gladly buy you the super juice that your time machine will require to get there. The rest of us will use the Legal Definition of the Constitution of the United States. Or don't you believe in that either.

Posse comitatus is the common-law or statute law authority of a county sheriff, or other law officer, to conscript any able-bodied man to assist him in keeping the peace or to pursue and arrest a felon, similar to the concept of the "hue and cry." Originally found in English common law,[2] it is generally obsolete; however, it survives in the United States, where it is the law enforcement equivalent of summoning the militia for military purposes.


And you're supposed to be coloring. pst...

And you are supposed to be time traveling back to the time it actually meant that. Now, pack your bags and make sure you take lots of spare underwear.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

You are laying your life on the line that every citizen and most of the Military will be on your side. Sounds nice in a book of Fiction. But reality gets in the way of a good fiction when the chips are down.

See, that would not be citizenry throwing off a usurper. It would be one citizen attacking what everyone else appears to believe is a legitimate government.

You gave the fact scenario and now you want to change it?

Paint me the scenario where this might happen. And use real facts. How does it start. How does it unfold and how does it end. Include all the players. Don't use blanket statements. Get specific. And then let's discuss it.

 

[AZrailwhale]

kaz

Let's get to the end game. What should the Constitution say, if anything, about guns and what power should the Federal government have to regulate them?

The federal government should have no power to regulate gun possession, carry, or use.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Let's get to the end game. What should the Constitution say, if anything, about guns and what power should the Federal government have to regulate them?

Great OP!

 

[rightwinger]

kaz
The federal government should have no power to regulate gun possession, carry, or use.

I agree

Lets repeal the second amendment and leave it to the states

 

[Cellblock2429]

I agree

Lets repeal the second amendment and leave it to the states

/——-/ Ok, you run with that. Keep us posted on your progress.

 

[rightwinger]

/——-/ Ok, you run with that. Keep us posted on your progress.

A well regulated militia….

 

[westwall]

A well regulated militia….

Well regulated meant in good working order at the time it was written.

But, you already knew that...so you lie.

 

[Cellblock2429]

A well regulated militia….

/———/ Thanks for making my point.
militia, military organization of citizens with limited military training, which is available for emergency service, usually for local defense. That means they had their own weapons.

militia | Definition, History, & Facts

militia, military organization of citizens with limited military training, which is available for emergency service, usually for local defense. In many countries the militia is of ancient origin; Macedonia under Philip II (d. 336 bc), for example, had a militia of clansmen in border regions who...

www.britannica.com