Would you be willing to accept this Second Amendment compromise?

[Daryl Hunt]

The current text: "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 right generally interpret the militia to be the unorganized militia, that is the entire body of all militarily capable men. The left generally interprets it to be the organized militias of the old colonies, or at least the current National Guard. Instead let us consider it the collective term for the various state defense forces. They're much like the Guard except in that they do not fall under federal authority in any way. To own a firearm legally, one would to buy and register it. To register as a gun owner, one would need to enlist in their state's defense force. What this would mean in practice is that those people carrying a concealed firearm around you in public would be required to attend regular safety and marksmanship instruction from professionals. The pasty white guy packing the Glock in his jacket pocket would pose less of a danger to you and other bystanders when he decided to play big badass hero.

What do you say? Yea? Nay? Yea with modifications?

registering arms with the state makes the state a party to and you now share the control of the arms with the state.

siwwy wabbits twix are 4 kids

The 2nd amendment was written applying to the Federal Government. Please stop beating this dead horse.

 

[KokomoJojo]

The current text: "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 right generally interpret the militia to be the unorganized militia, that is the entire body of all militarily capable men. The left generally interprets it to be the organized militias of the old colonies, or at least the current National Guard. Instead let us consider it the collective term for the various state defense forces. They're much like the Guard except in that they do not fall under federal authority in any way. To own a firearm legally, one would to buy and register it. To register as a gun owner, one would need to enlist in their state's defense force. What this would mean in practice is that those people carrying a concealed firearm around you in public would be required to attend regular safety and marksmanship instruction from professionals. The pasty white guy packing the Glock in his jacket pocket would pose less of a danger to you and other bystanders when he decided to play big badass hero.

What do you say? Yea? Nay? Yea with modifications?

registering arms with the state makes the state a party to and you now share the control of the arms with the state.

siwwy wabbits twix are 4 kids

The 2nd amendment was written applying to the Federal Government. Please stop beating this dead horse.

How does your post have anything to do with mine?

 

[Daryl Hunt]

The current text: "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 right generally interpret the militia to be the unorganized militia, that is the entire body of all militarily capable men. The left generally interprets it to be the organized militias of the old colonies, or at least the current National Guard. Instead let us consider it the collective term for the various state defense forces. They're much like the Guard except in that they do not fall under federal authority in any way. To own a firearm legally, one would to buy and register it. To register as a gun owner, one would need to enlist in their state's defense force. What this would mean in practice is that those people carrying a concealed firearm around you in public would be required to attend regular safety and marksmanship instruction from professionals. The pasty white guy packing the Glock in his jacket pocket would pose less of a danger to you and other bystanders when he decided to play big badass hero.

What do you say? Yea? Nay? Yea with modifications?

registering arms with the state makes the state a party to and you now share the control of the arms with the state.

siwwy wabbits twix are 4 kids

The 2nd amendment was written applying to the Federal Government. Please stop beating this dead horse.

How does your post have anything to do with mine?

The 2nd amendment was written to limit the Federal Powers. You will notice that there is no mention of what a State can do. But this was also written during the time that the maximum size of the Federal Free Standing Army (including Navy, Army and Marines) was maxed at 75,000. It stayed that way until the Civil War where both sides exceeded those numbers. After the war, it went back to 75,000 max. During that time period, there wasn't a single army in the world that could take on 75,000 fighters. Also, up until 1917, the National Guard was not considered part of Federal doles and could not be used by the Feds without express permission for the States Governors. The National Guard was State Guards and operate at the pleasures of the Governors and not the President. In 1917, the National Guard was transfered to a federal asset in the time of emergency if the President calls them up. Today, a State Guard Member cannot be called up as long as they don't have a Federal Military obligation. When I retired from the Air Force, I could have joined the State Guard but I also carried a 10 year obligation as a Ready Reservist. There are very few States with a States guard and those are the ones that would be considered Well Regulated Military and the second amendment would protect them.

It's not about a single citizen. It's about protecting the States from the Federal Government. It also appears that the States need to revisit this. There is nothing wrong with the 2nd amendment but we have to look at the intent of it. And that was to protect the State from the Feds.

 

[KokomoJojo]

It's not about a single citizen. It's about protecting the States from the Federal Government

ah so in your opinion amendments are limited to one single intended purpose per amendment is that it?

 

[Chuz Life]

The current text: "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 right generally interpret the militia to be the unorganized militia, that is the entire body of all militarily capable men. The left generally interprets it to be the organized militias of the old colonies, or at least the current National Guard. Instead let us consider it the collective term for the various state defense forces. They're much like the Guard except in that they do not fall under federal authority in any way. To own a firearm legally, one would to buy and register it. To register as a gun owner, one would need to enlist in their state's defense force. What this would mean in practice is that those people carrying a concealed firearm around you in public would be required to attend regular safety and marksmanship instruction from professionals. The pasty white guy packing the Glock in his jacket pocket would pose less of a danger to you and other bystanders when he decided to play big badass hero.

What do you say? Yea? Nay? Yea with modifications?

registering arms with the state makes the state a party to and you now share the control of the arms with the state.

siwwy wabbits twix are 4 kids

The 2nd amendment was written applying to the Federal Government. Please stop beating this dead horse.

How does your post have anything to do with mine?

The 2nd amendment was written to limit the Federal Powers. You will notice that there is no mention of what a State can do. But this was also written during the time that the maximum size of the Federal Free Standing Army (including Navy, Army and Marines) was maxed at 75,000. It stayed that way until the Civil War where both sides exceeded those numbers. After the war, it went back to 75,000 max. During that time period, there wasn't a single army in the world that could take on 75,000 fighters. Also, up until 1917, the National Guard was not considered part of Federal doles and could not be used by the Feds without express permission for the States Governors. The National Guard was State Guards and operate at the pleasures of the Governors and not the President. In 1917, the National Guard was transfered to a federal asset in the time of emergency if the President calls them up. Today, a State Guard Member cannot be called up as long as they don't have a Federal Military obligation. When I retired from the Air Force, I could have joined the State Guard but I also carried a 10 year obligation as a Ready Reservist. There are very few States with a States guard and those are the ones that would be considered Well Regulated Military and the second amendment would protect them.

It's not about a single citizen. It's about protecting the States from the Federal Government. It also appears that the States need to revisit this. There is nothing wrong with the 2nd amendment but we have to look at the intent of it. And that was to protect the State from the Feds.

The right of the people to keep and bear arms does not come from the Constitution. The right to keep and bear arms was in full swing for more than one hundred years before the Constitution was even written.

 

[KokomoJojo]

The current text: "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 right generally interpret the militia to be the unorganized militia, that is the entire body of all militarily capable men. The left generally interprets it to be the organized militias of the old colonies, or at least the current National Guard. Instead let us consider it the collective term for the various state defense forces. They're much like the Guard except in that they do not fall under federal authority in any way. To own a firearm legally, one would to buy and register it. To register as a gun owner, one would need to enlist in their state's defense force. What this would mean in practice is that those people carrying a concealed firearm around you in public would be required to attend regular safety and marksmanship instruction from professionals. The pasty white guy packing the Glock in his jacket pocket would pose less of a danger to you and other bystanders when he decided to play big badass hero.

What do you say? Yea? Nay? Yea with modifications?

registering arms with the state makes the state a party to and you now share the control of the arms with the state.

siwwy wabbits twix are 4 kids

The 2nd amendment was written applying to the Federal Government. Please stop beating this dead horse.

How does your post have anything to do with mine?

The 2nd amendment was written to limit the Federal Powers. You will notice that there is no mention of what a State can do. But this was also written during the time that the maximum size of the Federal Free Standing Army (including Navy, Army and Marines) was maxed at 75,000. It stayed that way until the Civil War where both sides exceeded those numbers. After the war, it went back to 75,000 max. During that time period, there wasn't a single army in the world that could take on 75,000 fighters. Also, up until 1917, the National Guard was not considered part of Federal doles and could not be used by the Feds without express permission for the States Governors. The National Guard was State Guards and operate at the pleasures of the Governors and not the President. In 1917, the National Guard was transfered to a federal asset in the time of emergency if the President calls them up. Today, a State Guard Member cannot be called up as long as they don't have a Federal Military obligation. When I retired from the Air Force, I could have joined the State Guard but I also carried a 10 year obligation as a Ready Reservist. There are very few States with a States guard and those are the ones that would be considered Well Regulated Military and the second amendment would protect them.

It's not about a single citizen. It's about protecting the States from the Federal Government. It also appears that the States need to revisit this. There is nothing wrong with the 2nd amendment but we have to look at the intent of it. And that was to protect the State from the Feds.

The right of the people to keep and bear arms does not come from the Constitution. The right to keep and bear arms was in full swing for more than one hundred years before the Constitution was even written.

yeh you are talking about the british bill of rights that the glorious ones copy pasted that we worship on high LOL

Good to see some people have historical knowledge, most of what I see out here is laughable.

The right to keep and bear arms goes back much further than militia duty as these modern day agenda driven propagandists would talk about.

enjoy

The antiquity of the right is so great that it is all but impossible to document its actual beginning. It is fairly clear that its origin lay in the customs of Germanic tribes, under which arms bearing was a right and a duty of free men; in fact, the ceremony for giving freedom to a slave required that the former slave be presented with the armament of a free man.[4] He then acquired the duty to serve in an equivalent of a citizen army. These customs were brought into England by the earliest Saxons. The first mention of the citizen army, or the "fyrd" is found in documents dating to 690 A.D., but scholars have concluded that the duty to serve in such with personal armament "is older than our oldest records." (Not knowing of the earlier records, 18th century legal historians including the great Blackstone attributed the origin of the English system to Alfred the Great, who ruled in the late 9th century A.D.)[5]

 

[Daryl Hunt]

Wow, how most have forgotten Civics or never learned it in the first place.

Until 1868, the Constitution was only applied to the federal government. The first 10 amendments were written to preserve the states powers over the Federals.

Now, let's take a good look at the applicable line in the Bill of Rights.
subjects who are Protestants may bear arms for their defense as permitted by law;
One has to remember, in 1689, the King was Protestant and the state sponsored Government was also Protestant. This has more to do with the separation of Church and State than what was adopted in the Constitution for Amendment 2. All a King had to do was to claim you weren't a proper Protestant and he could take your arms, and any other restrictions that he deems necessary. All proper Protestant Churches were sanctioned by the King.

Then the newly formed Confederation (later called United States of America) adopted the US version.
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

In United States v. Cruikshank (1875), the Court ruled that "[t]he right to bear arms is not granted by the Constitution; neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The Second Amendment means no more than that it shall not be infringed by Congress, and has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the National Government."
In United States v. Miller (1939), the Court ruled that the amendment "[protects arms that had a] reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia"
In District of Columbia v. Heller (2008), the Court ruled that the Second Amendment "codified a pre-existing right" and that it "protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home" but also stated that "the right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose"
In McDonald v. Chicago (2010), the Court ruled that the Second Amendment limits state and local governments to the same extent that it limits the federal government.

So you can easily see that today's definition is quite different than the Bill of Rights or even the Constitution. The powers that many claim came from alter Supreme Court decisions.

Judge Blackstone who, more or less, wrote the lawbooks that are used today said
a public allowance under due restrictions, of the natural right of resistance and self-preservation, when the sanctions of society and laws are found insufficient to restrain the violence of oppression
This does not mean you can carry any type of gun down the street without regardless of your intention or it's purpose. This does not mean you can have a M-60 setup in your front yard. All of these means that you have to be within the current law and reason. And it can't come from the Federal but must come from the State. Each State has the right to limit weapons in Non Military hands. Most do already. Is this another case where the Constitution only applies when it is someone else? At least the English had the balls to clearly put that into the original Bill of Rights.

 

[KokomoJojo]

Wow, how most have forgotten Civics or never learned it in the first place.

Until 1868, the Constitution was only applied to the federal government. The first 10 amendments were written to preserve the states powers over the Federals.

Now, let's take a good look at the applicable line in the Bill of Rights.
subjects who are Protestants may bear arms for their defense as permitted by law;
One has to remember, in 1689, the King was Protestant and the state sponsored Government was also Protestant. This has more to do with the separation of Church and State than what was adopted in the Constitution for Amendment 2. All a King had to do was to claim you weren't a proper Protestant and he could take your arms, and any other restrictions that he deems necessary. All proper Protestant Churches were sanctioned by the King.

Then the newly formed Confederation (later called United States of America) adopted the US version.
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

In United States v. Cruikshank (1875), the Court ruled that "[t]he right to bear arms is not granted by the Constitution; neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The Second Amendment means no more than that it shall not be infringed by Congress, and has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the National Government."
In United States v. Miller (1939), the Court ruled that the amendment "[protects arms that had a] reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia"
In District of Columbia v. Heller (2008), the Court ruled that the Second Amendment "codified a pre-existing right" and that it "protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home" but also stated that "the right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose"
In McDonald v. Chicago (2010), the Court ruled that the Second Amendment limits state and local governments to the same extent that it limits the federal government.

So you can easily see that today's definition is quite different than the Bill of Rights or even the Constitution. The powers that many claim came from alter Supreme Court decisions.

Judge Blackstone who, more or less, wrote the lawbooks that are used today said
a public allowance under due restrictions, of the natural right of resistance and self-preservation, when the sanctions of society and laws are found insufficient to restrain the violence of oppression
This does not mean you can carry any type of gun down the street without regardless of your intention or it's purpose. This does not mean you can have a M-60 setup in your front yard. All of these means that you have to be within the current law and reason. And it can't come from the Federal but must come from the State. Each State has the right to limit weapons in Non Military hands. Most do already. Is this another case where the Constitution only applies when it is someone else? At least the English had the balls to clearly put that into the original Bill of Rights.

Nope, sorry there is no back door that allows any other source of bullshit to infringe upon this brain.

If you agree with that, then you believe the state has a right to trial by jury for an infamous crime?


Fifth Amendment: An Overview
The Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution provides, "No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."


Oh and the best one of all, The state has the right to exercise its religion?

I mean bro, anyone who would say those things are operating on hypno auto pilot and not using their heads sorry.


Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.


The First Amendment guarantees freedoms concerning religion, expression, assembly, and the right to petition. It forbids Congress from both promoting one religion over others and also restricting an individual’s religious practices. It guarantees freedom of expression by prohibiting Congress from restricting the press or the rights of individuals to speak freely. It also guarantees the right of citizens to assemble peaceably and to petition their government.



So you think a state can be held for murder charges or exercise its own religion? Seriously?

Who was the asshole that opined that again? most likely marshall or story.

Its all a house of cards, multi-layered corruption!

Everyone needs to read through the sales hype and see the substance. The constitution 'guarantees' NOTHING!

The rights are 'reserved' NOT guaranteed which means set out or set aside or do not pass go, outside their jurisdiction!

 

[KokomoJojo]

Read what was written 'IN' context:

"Until 1868, the Constitution was only applied to the federal government."

Doesnt mean its application was proper, if it was there would be no 14th which is another legislative abortion.

This does not mean you can carry any type of gun down the street without regardless of your intention or it's purpose. This does not mean you can have a M-60 setup in your front yard. All of these means that you have to be within the current law and reason. And it can't come from the Federal but must come from the State. Each State has the right to limit weapons in Non Military hands. Most do already. Is this another case where the Constitution only applies when it is someone else? At least the English had the balls to clearly put that into the original Bill of Rights.

It sure does mean that!

How do you plan on determining 'anyones intention' without a trial?

Last time I checked the constitution is current law and reason. oh you mean court 'opinions'?


Oh yeh the states create a federal constitution in express agreement to the reserved rights of the people then when they get home they simply say just kidding! We were just fooling around when we signed that contract

So you post history then ignore it to push a militia only agenda when one of its central purposes is to go to war against the government if necessary to protect the rights of the individuals of this nation from despotism and tryanny?

So you expect then that the government is going to order the militia to attack the government to clean out government corruption? Seriously?

You dont see how ridiculous that position is?

 

[Daryl Hunt]

Read what was written 'IN' context:

"Until 1868, the Constitution was only applied to the federal government."

Doesnt mean its application was proper, if it was there would be no 14th which is another legislative abortion.

This does not mean you can carry any type of gun down the street without regardless of your intention or it's purpose. This does not mean you can have a M-60 setup in your front yard. All of these means that you have to be within the current law and reason. And it can't come from the Federal but must come from the State. Each State has the right to limit weapons in Non Military hands. Most do already. Is this another case where the Constitution only applies when it is someone else? At least the English had the balls to clearly put that into the original Bill of Rights.

It sure does mean that!

How do you plan on determining 'anyones intention' without a trial?

Last time I checked the constitution is current law and reason. oh you mean court 'opinions'?


Oh yeh the states create a federal constitution in express agreement to the reserved rights of the people then when they get home they simply say just kidding! We were just fooling around when we signed that contract

So you post history then ignore it to push a militia only agenda when one of its central purposes is to go to war against the government if necessary to protect the rights of the individuals of this nation from despotism and tryanny?

So you expect then that the government is going to order the militia to attack the government to clean out government corruption? Seriously?

You dont see how ridiculous that position is?

Our Founding Fathers knew that things would change as time went on. So they created a living, fluid document. They made it hard to change it. And to unchange it. When some things were needing to be fluid, they used ambiguous language. When it was quite clear that no changes were going to be needed or it dealt with basic rights of existance, they were quite specific.

What bothers me is, the ones that scream the loudest about how they are the "Patriots" are also the first to leave out parts that disagree with their own views. I am a constitutionalist. Afraid I left the GOP because it no longer believed any of this. There are three types of Republicans. The Lincoln/Eisenhower, the Reagonites, and the Dick Chaneys. Most of us Lincoln types have left the party since it has been hijacked. And it pisses me off to no end to hear a DC type claim to be from the Lincoln side. Maybe we need a new party called Lincoln.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

Read what was written 'IN' context:

"Until 1868, the Constitution was only applied to the federal government."

Doesnt mean its application was proper, if it was there would be no 14th which is another legislative abortion.

This does not mean you can carry any type of gun down the street without regardless of your intention or it's purpose. This does not mean you can have a M-60 setup in your front yard. All of these means that you have to be within the current law and reason. And it can't come from the Federal but must come from the State. Each State has the right to limit weapons in Non Military hands. Most do already. Is this another case where the Constitution only applies when it is someone else? At least the English had the balls to clearly put that into the original Bill of Rights.

It sure does mean that!

How do you plan on determining 'anyones intention' without a trial?

Last time I checked the constitution is current law and reason. oh you mean court 'opinions'?


Oh yeh the states create a federal constitution in express agreement to the reserved rights of the people then when they get home they simply say just kidding! We were just fooling around when we signed that contract

So you post history then ignore it to push a militia only agenda when one of its central purposes is to go to war against the government if necessary to protect the rights of the individuals of this nation from despotism and tryanny?

So you expect then that the government is going to order the militia to attack the government to clean out government corruption? Seriously?

You dont see how ridiculous that position is?

As corrupt as the Feds are, the states and locals are dripping with corruption. You clean it up from the ground up.

 

[KokomoJojo]

Read what was written 'IN' context:

"Until 1868, the Constitution was only applied to the federal government."

Doesnt mean its application was proper, if it was there would be no 14th which is another legislative abortion.

This does not mean you can carry any type of gun down the street without regardless of your intention or it's purpose. This does not mean you can have a M-60 setup in your front yard. All of these means that you have to be within the current law and reason. And it can't come from the Federal but must come from the State. Each State has the right to limit weapons in Non Military hands. Most do already. Is this another case where the Constitution only applies when it is someone else? At least the English had the balls to clearly put that into the original Bill of Rights.

It sure does mean that!

How do you plan on determining 'anyones intention' without a trial?

Last time I checked the constitution is current law and reason. oh you mean court 'opinions'?


Oh yeh the states create a federal constitution in express agreement to the reserved rights of the people then when they get home they simply say just kidding! We were just fooling around when we signed that contract

So you post history then ignore it to push a militia only agenda when one of its central purposes is to go to war against the government if necessary to protect the rights of the individuals of this nation from despotism and tryanny?

So you expect then that the government is going to order the militia to attack the government to clean out government corruption? Seriously?

You dont see how ridiculous that position is?

Our Founding Fathers knew that things would change as time went on. So they created a living, fluid document. They made it hard to change it. And to unchange it. When some things were needing to be fluid, they used ambiguous language. When it was quite clear that no changes were going to be needed or it dealt with basic rights of existance, they were quite specific.

What bothers me is, the ones that scream the loudest about how they are the "Patriots" are also the first to leave out parts that disagree with their own views. I am a constitutionalist. Afraid I left the GOP because it no longer believed any of this. There are three types of Republicans. The Lincoln/Eisenhower, the Reagonites, and the Dick Chaneys. Most of us Lincoln types have left the party since it has been hijacked. And it pisses me off to no end to hear a DC type claim to be from the Lincoln side. Maybe we need a new party called Lincoln.

If by living fluid document you mean that it can be changed by first leveling the rocky mountain range then yeh its living and fluid. It nonetheless is written in the negative and reserves stipulates to the reservation of our rights in the lowest common denominator which is not likely to change. If that is what you meant we agree.

One thing they absolutely cannot do is reduce our reserved rights legitimately, for it is not up to them to do so. The only way they can accomplish that is through the courts and the constant nibbling away around the edges as they have been doing over the course of many years.

Not really, the system if you take a close look was designed to be near anarchy in its intent. By that I am talking about near statuteless and everything dealt with case by case in the courts. Statutes more often than not predjudice one party over another and the state grossly uses that to their advantage.

If you want a real eyeopener, pay close attention to this: The 'states' own the 'soil' in this country. The corporation restructured, (creating the 'united states', under the 'united states of america', which was a restructuring of the united 'colonies' of america under the king). What is known in britain as Estates in america were abbreviated to 'states', but carries the same meaning.

Pay particular attention to the law respecting 'soil' rights versus 'land' rights and then compare those in pre-revolutionary britain and the king then to now, but be prepared to pick your tummy off the floor.

 

[Chuz Life]

Read what was written 'IN' context:

"Until 1868, the Constitution was only applied to the federal government."

Doesnt mean its application was proper, if it was there would be no 14th which is another legislative abortion.

This does not mean you can carry any type of gun down the street without regardless of your intention or it's purpose. This does not mean you can have a M-60 setup in your front yard. All of these means that you have to be within the current law and reason. And it can't come from the Federal but must come from the State. Each State has the right to limit weapons in Non Military hands. Most do already. Is this another case where the Constitution only applies when it is someone else? At least the English had the balls to clearly put that into the original Bill of Rights.

It sure does mean that!

How do you plan on determining 'anyones intention' without a trial?

Last time I checked the constitution is current law and reason. oh you mean court 'opinions'?


Oh yeh the states create a federal constitution in express agreement to the reserved rights of the people then when they get home they simply say just kidding! We were just fooling around when we signed that contract

So you post history then ignore it to push a militia only agenda when one of its central purposes is to go to war against the government if necessary to protect the rights of the individuals of this nation from despotism and tryanny?

So you expect then that the government is going to order the militia to attack the government to clean out government corruption? Seriously?

You dont see how ridiculous that position is?

Our Founding Fathers knew that things would change as time went on. So they created a living, fluid document. They made it hard to change it. And to unchange it. When some things were needing to be fluid, they used ambiguous language. When it was quite clear that no changes were going to be needed or it dealt with basic rights of existance, they were quite specific.

What bothers me is, the ones that scream the loudest about how they are the "Patriots" are also the first to leave out parts that disagree with their own views. I am a constitutionalist. Afraid I left the GOP because it no longer believed any of this. There are three types of Republicans. The Lincoln/Eisenhower, the Reagonites, and the Dick Chaneys. Most of us Lincoln types have left the party since it has been hijacked. And it pisses me off to no end to hear a DC type claim to be from the Lincoln side. Maybe we need a new party called Lincoln.

When the revolutionary war began, our founding fathers/ patriots "took up arms" against the tyrannical King.

This was 13 Years before the U.S. Constitution was written.

My questions for you are very simple.

1. Where did the "people" get their right to have those guns, 13 years BEFORE the Constitution was written?

2. Where did the founders get the right from - to form a militia and to use those arms in defense of their own freedoms and against the king and his tyranny?

 

[KokomoJojo]

Read what was written 'IN' context:

"Until 1868, the Constitution was only applied to the federal government."

Doesnt mean its application was proper, if it was there would be no 14th which is another legislative abortion.

This does not mean you can carry any type of gun down the street without regardless of your intention or it's purpose. This does not mean you can have a M-60 setup in your front yard. All of these means that you have to be within the current law and reason. And it can't come from the Federal but must come from the State. Each State has the right to limit weapons in Non Military hands. Most do already. Is this another case where the Constitution only applies when it is someone else? At least the English had the balls to clearly put that into the original Bill of Rights.

It sure does mean that!

How do you plan on determining 'anyones intention' without a trial?

Last time I checked the constitution is current law and reason. oh you mean court 'opinions'?


Oh yeh the states create a federal constitution in express agreement to the reserved rights of the people then when they get home they simply say just kidding! We were just fooling around when we signed that contract

So you post history then ignore it to push a militia only agenda when one of its central purposes is to go to war against the government if necessary to protect the rights of the individuals of this nation from despotism and tryanny?

So you expect then that the government is going to order the militia to attack the government to clean out government corruption? Seriously?

You dont see how ridiculous that position is?

Our Founding Fathers knew that things would change as time went on. So they created a living, fluid document. They made it hard to change it. And to unchange it. When some things were needing to be fluid, they used ambiguous language. When it was quite clear that no changes were going to be needed or it dealt with basic rights of existance, they were quite specific.

What bothers me is, the ones that scream the loudest about how they are the "Patriots" are also the first to leave out parts that disagree with their own views. I am a constitutionalist. Afraid I left the GOP because it no longer believed any of this. There are three types of Republicans. The Lincoln/Eisenhower, the Reagonites, and the Dick Chaneys. Most of us Lincoln types have left the party since it has been hijacked. And it pisses me off to no end to hear a DC type claim to be from the Lincoln side. Maybe we need a new party called Lincoln.

When the revolutionary war began, our founding fathers/ patriots "took up arms" against the tyrannical King.

This was 13 Years before the U.S. Constitution was written.

My questions for you are very simple.

1. Where did the "people" get their right to have those guns, 13 years BEFORE the Constitution was written?

2. Where did the founders get the right from - to form a militia and to use those arms in defense of their own freedoms and against the king and his tyranny?

ok there better be a big prize in this for me! LOL

that would be article 6 of the AoC and prior the 1689 bill of rights and prior to that alfred the great.

The people then took for granted that only slaves and prisoners of state were not allowed to freely bear arms.

 

[Chuz Life]

Read what was written 'IN' context:

"Until 1868, the Constitution was only applied to the federal government."

Doesnt mean its application was proper, if it was there would be no 14th which is another legislative abortion.

This does not mean you can carry any type of gun down the street without regardless of your intention or it's purpose. This does not mean you can have a M-60 setup in your front yard. All of these means that you have to be within the current law and reason. And it can't come from the Federal but must come from the State. Each State has the right to limit weapons in Non Military hands. Most do already. Is this another case where the Constitution only applies when it is someone else? At least the English had the balls to clearly put that into the original Bill of Rights.

It sure does mean that!

How do you plan on determining 'anyones intention' without a trial?

Last time I checked the constitution is current law and reason. oh you mean court 'opinions'?


Oh yeh the states create a federal constitution in express agreement to the reserved rights of the people then when they get home they simply say just kidding! We were just fooling around when we signed that contract

So you post history then ignore it to push a militia only agenda when one of its central purposes is to go to war against the government if necessary to protect the rights of the individuals of this nation from despotism and tryanny?

So you expect then that the government is going to order the militia to attack the government to clean out government corruption? Seriously?

You dont see how ridiculous that position is?

Our Founding Fathers knew that things would change as time went on. So they created a living, fluid document. They made it hard to change it. And to unchange it. When some things were needing to be fluid, they used ambiguous language. When it was quite clear that no changes were going to be needed or it dealt with basic rights of existance, they were quite specific.

What bothers me is, the ones that scream the loudest about how they are the "Patriots" are also the first to leave out parts that disagree with their own views. I am a constitutionalist. Afraid I left the GOP because it no longer believed any of this. There are three types of Republicans. The Lincoln/Eisenhower, the Reagonites, and the Dick Chaneys. Most of us Lincoln types have left the party since it has been hijacked. And it pisses me off to no end to hear a DC type claim to be from the Lincoln side. Maybe we need a new party called Lincoln.

When the revolutionary war began, our founding fathers/ patriots "took up arms" against the tyrannical King.

This was 13 Years before the U.S. Constitution was written.

My questions for you are very simple.

1. Where did the "people" get their right to have those guns, 13 years BEFORE the Constitution was written?

2. Where did the founders get the right from - to form a militia and to use those arms in defense of their own freedoms and against the king and his tyranny?

ok there better be a big prize in this for me! LOL

that would be article 6 of the AoC and prior the 1689 bill of rights and prior to that alfred the great.

The people then took for granted that only slaves and prisoners of state were not allowed to freely bear arms.

Your answer is above and beyond what I was actually looking for. It's hard enough just to get a gunbrabber to admit that people had guns and a right to have them even before the 2nd Amendment was written.

 

[Centinel]

The current text: "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 right generally interpret the militia to be the unorganized militia, that is the entire body of all militarily capable men. The left generally interprets it to be the organized militias of the old colonies, or at least the current National Guard. Instead let us consider it the collective term for the various state defense forces. They're much like the Guard except in that they do not fall under federal authority in any way. To own a firearm legally, one would to buy and register it. To register as a gun owner, one would need to enlist in their state's defense force. What this would mean in practice is that those people carrying a concealed firearm around you in public would be required to attend regular safety and marksmanship instruction from professionals. The pasty white guy packing the Glock in his jacket pocket would pose less of a danger to you and other bystanders when he decided to play big badass hero.

What do you say? Yea? Nay? Yea with modifications?

The federal government is one of limited, specific, and enumerated powers. (Listed in Art I, section 8). Similarly to Madison, I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of enacting such a requirement.

 

[M14 Shooter]

The 2nd amendment was written to limit the Federal Powers. You will notice that there is no mention of what a State can do.

See: Amendment 14

It's not about a single citizen. It's about protecting the States from the Federal Government.

The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.