Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
So what? The purpose of a car is to transport you from point a to point b. But that does not prevent you from turning it into a murder weapon. The intent of the 2nd is a well regulated militia, but it specifically states the people's right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. If they were writing the Constitution today, I doubt the FFs would have included the second amendment. But we aren't and they did. The only way to change that is another amendment.
Certainly there is a compromise between unsafe and free and unsafe and not free. However, I think the point is that what you are looking for is "safe" and that option is not on the table. You aren't safe and you will never be safe. If I wish you dead and am willing to die to make you dead, then you are dead. Whether I use a gun, a knife or a hammer changes nothing. Without another amendment, the best you can hope for is a limitation on types of guns. But even if this guy had been limited to revolvers, he could still have done a lot of damage.
No, the clear purpose of the 2nd is specified as "necessary to the security of a free state" and presupposes such as being "well-regulated". The 2nd was meant to secure the right of the people to bear arms for this necessary purpose... That is not to say random violence doesn't happen etc but that there is no necessary purpose to securing a free state in having average citizens wielding assault weapons. Au contraire such may prove detrimental to a free state...
Wrong. The 2nd Amendment does not presuppose the free state to be 'well-regulated.'
So what? The purpose of a car is to transport you from point a to point b. But that does not prevent you from turning it into a murder weapon. The intent of the 2nd is a well regulated militia, but it specifically states the people's right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. If they were writing the Constitution today, I doubt the FFs would have included the second amendment. But we aren't and they did. The only way to change that is another amendment.
Certainly there is a compromise between unsafe and free and unsafe and not free. However, I think the point is that what you are looking for is "safe" and that option is not on the table. You aren't safe and you will never be safe. If I wish you dead and am willing to die to make you dead, then you are dead. Whether I use a gun, a knife or a hammer changes nothing. Without another amendment, the best you can hope for is a limitation on types of guns. But even if this guy had been limited to revolvers, he could still have done a lot of damage.
No, the clear purpose of the 2nd is specified as "necessary to the security of a free state" and presupposes such as being "well-regulated". The 2nd was meant to secure the right of the people to bear arms for this necessary purpose... That is not to say random violence doesn't happen etc but that there is no necessary purpose to securing a free state in having average citizens wielding assault weapons. Au contraire such may prove detrimental to a free state...
Wrong. The 2nd Amendment does not presuppose the free state to be 'well-regulated.'
As passed by the Congress
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.
As ratified by the States and authenticated by Thomas Jefferson, Secretary of State:
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.[8]
well i can say it now.....only the schools in the "good" neighborhoods will get the maximum protection.....Protecting the kids.So you are suggesting that nothing be done?
about "Weird" people or protecting the kids?....
No, the clear purpose of the 2nd is specified as "necessary to the security of a free state" and presupposes such as being "well-regulated". The 2nd was meant to secure the right of the people to bear arms for this necessary purpose... That is not to say random violence doesn't happen etc but that there is no necessary purpose to securing a free state in having average citizens wielding assault weapons. Au contraire such may prove detrimental to a free state...
Wrong. The 2nd Amendment does not presuppose the free state to be 'well-regulated.'
As passed by the Congress
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.
As ratified by the States and authenticated by Thomas Jefferson, Secretary of State:
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.[8]
Second Amendment to the United States Constitution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
so what part of that doesn't require a well-regulated militia don't you understand?
I've read it. Show me where these two were part of a well regulated militia securing the state.
They don't get that part.
It's too hard.
We were never meant to have a permanent standing army. Only "citizen" soldiers that stood at the ready in case of insurrection or invasion.
You didn't have to be part of a militia. But you did have to be ready to join one in the event of a need to defend the country.
Hence the right to arms.
What was have today is a corruption of that amendment.
You just buried his argument, that the citizen's right to bear arms is to be 'well-regulated' as they are part of the militia.
The militia does not even exist until called up.
I've read it. Show me where these two were part of a well regulated militia securing the state.
They don't get that part.
It's too hard.
We were never meant to have a permanent standing army. Only "citizen" soldiers that stood at the ready in case of insurrection or invasion.
You didn't have to be part of a militia. But you did have to be ready to join one in the event of a need to defend the country.
Hence the right to arms.
What was have today is a corruption of that amendment.
You just buried his argument, that the citizen's right to bear arms is to be 'well-regulated' as they are part of the militia.
The militia does not even exist until called up.
They don't get that part.
It's too hard.
We were never meant to have a permanent standing army. Only "citizen" soldiers that stood at the ready in case of insurrection or invasion.
You didn't have to be part of a militia. But you did have to be ready to join one in the event of a need to defend the country.
Hence the right to arms.
What was have today is a corruption of that amendment.
You just buried his argument, that the citizen's right to bear arms is to be 'well-regulated' as they are part of the militia.
The militia does not even exist until called up.
Wrong. 10 USC 311
a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.
So what? The purpose of a car is to transport you from point a to point b. But that does not prevent you from turning it into a murder weapon. The intent of the 2nd is a well regulated militia, but it specifically states the people's right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. If they were writing the Constitution today, I doubt the FFs would have included the second amendment. But we aren't and they did. The only way to change that is another amendment.
Certainly there is a compromise between unsafe and free and unsafe and not free. However, I think the point is that what you are looking for is "safe" and that option is not on the table. You aren't safe and you will never be safe. If I wish you dead and am willing to die to make you dead, then you are dead. Whether I use a gun, a knife or a hammer changes nothing. Without another amendment, the best you can hope for is a limitation on types of guns. But even if this guy had been limited to revolvers, he could still have done a lot of damage.
No, the clear purpose of the 2nd is specified as "necessary to the security of a free state" and presupposes such as being "well-regulated". The 2nd was meant to secure the right of the people to bear arms for this necessary purpose... That is not to say random violence doesn't happen etc but that there is no necessary purpose to securing a free state in having average citizens wielding assault weapons. Au contraire such may prove detrimental to a free state...
Wrong. The 2nd Amendment does not presuppose the free state to be 'well-regulated.'
No, the clear purpose of the 2nd is specified as "necessary to the security of a free state" and presupposes such as being "well-regulated". The 2nd was meant to secure the right of the people to bear arms for this necessary purpose... That is not to say random violence doesn't happen etc but that there is no necessary purpose to securing a free state in having average citizens wielding assault weapons. Au contraire such may prove detrimental to a free state...
Wrong. The 2nd Amendment does not presuppose the free state to be 'well-regulated.'
Not the free state, the militia needs to be well regulated...for the specific purpose of securing a free state. A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, presupposes the right of the people to keep and bear arms for that purpose.
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.
Wrong. The 2nd Amendment does not presuppose the free state to be 'well-regulated.'
Not the free state, the militia needs to be well regulated...for the specific purpose of securing a free state. A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, presupposes the right of the people to keep and bear arms for that purpose.
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.
Mrs. Lanza is not part of the male-only militia. The right to bear arms must exist independent of militia regulation unless you believe women don't enjoy the same inalienable rights of men.
You just buried his argument, that the citizen's right to bear arms is to be 'well-regulated' as they are part of the militia.
The militia does not even exist until called up.
Wrong. 10 USC 311
a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.
As we see, the weaponry of Mrs. Lanza could not be regulated under any argument pertaining to maintenance of a militia.
She is female.
The right to bear arms exists independently.
Wrong. 10 USC 311
a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.
As we see, the weaponry of Mrs. Lanza could not be regulated under any argument pertaining to maintenance of a militia.
She is female.
The right to bear arms exists independently.
No. It does not. You really should read what the amendment says, not what you wish it would say.
Not the free state, the militia needs to be well regulated...for the specific purpose of securing a free state. A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, presupposes the right of the people to keep and bear arms for that purpose.
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.
Mrs. Lanza is not part of the male-only militia. The right to bear arms must exist independent of militia regulation unless you believe women don't enjoy the same inalienable rights of men.
WTF are you talking about? The 2nd is not gender specific. Certain specific types of weapons have no law-abiding purpose being stored in the average American home, and the Court has ruled that regulation does not infringe anyone's 2nd amendment rights.
"Similarly, the Court in its dicta found regulations of similar weaponry that cannot be used for law-abiding purchases as laws that would not implicate the Second Amendment. Further, the Court suggested that the United States Constitution would not disallow regulations prohibiting criminals and the mentally ill from firearm possession."
Second Amendment | LII / Legal Information Institute
Yes, and it really has only recently, relatively speaking, been corrupted. Some interesting info here:It is a Constitutional right.
Read it sometime.
I've read it. Show me where these two were part of a well regulated militia securing the state.
They don't get that part.
It's too hard.
We were never meant to have a permanent standing army. Only "citizen" soldiers that stood at the ready in case of insurrection or invasion.
You didn't have to be part of a militia. But you did have to be ready to join one in the event of a need to defend the country.
Hence the right to arms.
What was have today is a corruption of that amendment.
As we see, the weaponry of Mrs. Lanza could not be regulated under any argument pertaining to maintenance of a militia.
She is female.
The right to bear arms exists independently.
No. It does not. You really should read what the amendment says, not what you wish it would say.
The amendment says the right to bear arms shall not be infringed upon.
Correct?
No. It does not. You really should read what the amendment says, not what you wish it would say.
The amendment says the right to bear arms shall not be infringed upon.
Correct?
That is only the last part of the sentence. Why do you think they bothered to preface that statement with the other...?
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.
No. It does not. You really should read what the amendment says, not what you wish it would say.
The amendment says the right to bear arms shall not be infringed upon.
Correct?
That is only the last part of the sentence. Why do you think they bothered to preface that statement with the other...?
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.
The amendment says the right to bear arms shall not be infringed upon.
Correct?
That is only the last part of the sentence. Why do you think they bothered to preface that statement with the other...?
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.
Exactly. To fit his interpretation the amendment would simply read: The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
The amendment says the right to bear arms shall not be infringed upon.
Correct?
That is only the last part of the sentence. Why do you think they bothered to preface that statement with the other...?
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.
Exactly. To fit his interpretation the amendment would simply read: The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
As we see, the weaponry of Mrs. Lanza could not be regulated under any argument pertaining to maintenance of a militia.
She is female.
The right to bear arms exists independently.
No. It does not. You really should read what the amendment says, not what you wish it would say.
The amendment says the right to bear arms shall not be infringed upon.
Correct?
