2nd Amendment Discussion

[bigrebnc1775]

Second Amendment. The Second Amendment of the United States Constitution reads: "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."

So...in my opinion (your own mileages may vary), I'm pretty darn sure our founding fathers did NOT have in mind that we should ALL be allowed to have siege towers, catapults, tanks, canons, etc in our back yards aimed at our neighbors or nearby cities/towns.

So my question is.....why are NON MILITARY NON POLICE people allowed to own machine guns in any form? What is the purpose? To hunt? Maybe for sport since using one will shred what they claim they plan to eat for ....cough...survival. So why? NOBODY should own or have a permit to carry or own an AK whatever or anything similar to it. The ONLY purpose of these weapons are for mass extermination...in a quick manner. To take out as many as possible, usually humans.

I am all for the second amendment, but that means to protect ourselves against harm..which means a hand gun or two, a rifle, a hunting weapon, etc. This does NOT mean we can drag our catapults with us wherever we go. The only purpose for a catapult is the same reason AKs exist. Mass death. And as I stated....I don't think the writers of the constitution had what is happening now, in mind when they wrote it.

The only ones that SHOULD have access to such weapons are the military and police/sheriff/etc (Law Enforcement).

Your thoughts?

I am all for the second amendment

NO YOU AREN'T end of this discussion

 

[Picaro]

Endless circular reasoning arguments yet again? Fact is states could and did regulate firearms, based on race and other reasons from the beginning, so we know 'original intent' was it was left to the states, whose requirements varied a lot. We also know that later on many western towns, cities, counties in the West also regulated them for various reasons, including banning them entirely from certain parts of towns. The history is messy and of course will make most on on all sides make claims they can't really support and thus resort to fantasy narratives. I don't care what some theory or fantasy says about regulating or prohibiting some weapons, since I don't give a crap about Goober Pyle up the street's 'right' to try and make his own nuclear warhead in his garage with some plutonium he bought at some military surplus sale, nor do I want the nutjob on the other end of the street stockpiling 600 left over 500# bombs in his back yard, regardless of what some armchair loon claims the 2nd Amendment says.

Machine guns? Yes, they were 'legal' for a while, then they were heavily restricted. Why? because the world is full of idiots an sociopaths who abused them, that's why. Same for explosives, etc. Most sane people don't give a crap what extremist loons on either side of these ridiculously absurd arguments think, they want common sense laws and restrictions,.

The question was the original intent. What the Founders intended when they wrote and adopted the 2nd Amendment. It was never intended to be left to the States. It was never intended to be left to the whim of municipalities. Just as your First, Third, Fourth, Fifth, or Sixth Amendments were not intended to be left to the whims of any State.

Wrong. The Establishment clause for instance applied only to the Feds, many states did indeed have established sects, complete with taxing authority. The Feds couldn't impose those types of restriction on states, but states themselves were free to do so on their own, and they did. In any case, the Constitution was toast by 1861, and the SC after that were nothing but crooks and shills, so pretending it still holds water when it changes every time the Court makeup changes with the new political appointees is just a silly game, with no binding precedents any more. Even Clinton had to sign on to a 'Religious Freedom Act' because of SC and state abuses of the clause were rampant, and nothing has changed since then. Any Federal judge can make up whatever ruling they want to now, based on personal whim and ideological rubbish. We have hundreds of years of gun control laws imposed by states; it's nuts to claim otherwise.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

The Founding Fathers were very concerned that a single madman had the ability to kill many of them at a whim.

Which happens every week now, but hey...

I think they had no clue just far advanced weaponry would become. When they sat down and wrote that...they had no clue about airplanes, trains, speed cars, tanks, jets, floating artillary ships, nukes, etc. Their goal was for every citizen to be able to protect themselves..which is what most of us that own weapon(s) planned when purchasing them. That I have no problem with. But..I see no reason why deeper delving into psyche should also be utilitzed to keep the nutbars from owning them. The guy in El Paso..his dad seems to be a nutbar too. So who bought him the weapons? Him or the guy himself? Also, on the other end of the dilemma....criminals don't really care about the standards and hoops of red tape to get a gun. Black market is alive and well.

Ever heard of the Puckle gun?

 

[Picaro]

They also determined who was counted as 'citizens' and who could vote, mostly based on wealth, which in turn allowed them to decide who was in a militia or not. On the frontiers, nobody gave a crap, because there was no law and order, outside of the locals themselves, and if they wanted you to give up your guns for some reason or other, they took them. Not many western territories and states paid attention to SC rulings then. All those myths the 'Libertarians' have invented after the fact don't bear up to much scrutiny. Many of them didn't even exist until the Gilded Age in the first place.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Endless circular reasoning arguments yet again? Fact is states could and did regulate firearms, based on race and other reasons from the beginning, so we know 'original intent' was it was left to the states…

The question was the original intent. What the Founders intended when they wrote and adopted the 2nd Amendment. It was never intended to be left to the States. It was never intended to be left to the whim of municipalities. Just as your First, Third, Fourth, Fifth, or Sixth Amendments were not intended to be left to the whims of any State.

See the Tenth Amendment, which speaks of powers belonging to the federal government, powers belonging to the states, and powers belonging to the people.

The point was to clarify that the federal government only had those powers that the Constitution specifically delegated to it, all other powers belonging to the states or to the people; and to prohibit the federal government from claiming or exercising powers that did not belong to it.

The Tenth Amendment mentions, but really doesn't otherwise address the distinction between powers belonging to the states and powers belonging to the people. But the distinction is there.

Now, according to the Second Amendment, to whom does the right to keep and bear arms belong? Does it belong to the states? No, it certainly does not. It belongs to the people. Therefore, neither the states nor the federal government have any legitimate authority to violate it.

 

[task0778]

Endless circular reasoning arguments yet again? Fact is states could and did regulate firearms, based on race and other reasons from the beginning, so we know 'original intent' was it was left to the states…

The question was the original intent. What the Founders intended when they wrote and adopted the 2nd Amendment. It was never intended to be left to the States. It was never intended to be left to the whim of municipalities. Just as your First, Third, Fourth, Fifth, or Sixth Amendments were not intended to be left to the whims of any State.

See the Tenth Amendment, which speaks of powers belonging to the federal government, powers belonging to the states, and powers belonging to the people.

The point was to clarify that the federal government only had those powers that the Constitution specifically delegated to it, all other powers belonging to the states or to the people; and to prohibit the federal government from claiming or exercising powers that did not belong to it.

The Tenth Amendment mentions, but really doesn't otherwise address the distinction between powers belonging to the states and powers belonging to the people. But the distinction is there.

Now, according to the Second Amendment, to whom does the right to keep and bear arms belong? Does it belong to the states? No, it certainly does not. It belongs to the people. Therefore, neither the states nor the federal government have any legitimate authority to violate it.

Well, the SCOTUS does not agree. Like every other constitutional right, the 2nd is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose. So, in addition to federal laws, we have something of a patchwork of state and local laws regarding gun control that vary widely, as long as these laws are considered by the Court to be reasonable. Whether it was intended to be that way is debatable I guess, but that's the way it is.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Well, the SCOTUS does not agree. Like every other constitutional right, the 2nd is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose. So, in addition to federal laws, we have something of a patchwork of state and local laws regarding gun control that vary widely, as long as these laws are considered by the Court to be reasonable. Whether it was intended to be that way is debatable I guess, but that's the way it is.

Although we, as a nation, have foolishly allowed them to get away with it, the Supreme Court absolutely does not have the authority to override the Constitution.

The Second Amendment is absolutely clear. The right to keep and bear arms belongs to the people, and government is forbidden from infringing the right. Period. Where the Supreme Court has upheld any such infringements, it has been acting illegally.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

Second Amendment. The Second Amendment of the United States Constitution reads: "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."

So...in my opinion (your own mileages may vary), I'm pretty darn sure our founding fathers did NOT have in mind that we should ALL be allowed to have siege towers, catapults, tanks, canons, etc in our back yards aimed at our neighbors or nearby cities/towns.

So my question is.....why are NON MILITARY NON POLICE people allowed to own machine guns in any form? What is the purpose? To hunt? Maybe for sport since using one will shred what they claim they plan to eat for ....cough...survival. So why? NOBODY should own or have a permit to carry or own an AK whatever or anything similar to it. The ONLY purpose of these weapons are for mass extermination...in a quick manner. To take out as many as possible, usually humans.

I am all for the second amendment, but that means to protect ourselves against harm..which means a hand gun or two, a rifle, a hunting weapon, etc. This does NOT mean we can drag our catapults with us wherever we go. The only purpose for a catapult is the same reason AKs exist. Mass death. And as I stated....I don't think the writers of the constitution had what is happening now, in mind when they wrote it.

The only ones that SHOULD have access to such weapons are the military and police/sheriff/etc (Law Enforcement).

Your thoughts?

I think your thoughts are out of touch with reality. The Right to keep and bear Arms was intended so people could have military weapons. The best place to prove is that is to identify Rights and then see what the courts ruled relative to your Right to keep and bear Arms. Sit back and enjoy:

“By the "absolute rights" of individuals is meant those which are so in their primary and strictest sense, such as would belong to their persons merely in a state of nature, and which every man is entitled to enjoy, whether out of society or in it. The rights of personal security, of personal liberty, and private property do not depend upon the Constitution for their existence. They existed before the Constitution was made, or the government was organized. These are what are termed the "absolute rights" of individuals, which belong to them independently of all government, and which all governments which derive their power from the consent of the governed were instituted to protect.” People v. Berberrich (N. Y.) 20 Barb. 224, 229; McCartee v. Orphan Asylum Soc. (N. Y.) 9 Cow. 437, 511, 513, 18 Am. Dec. 516; People v. Toynbee (N. Y.) 2 Parker, Cr. R. 329, 369, 370 (quoting 1 Bl. Comm. 123) - {1855}

“The absolute rights of individuals may be resolved into the right of personal security, the right of personal liberty, and the right to acquire and enjoy property. These rights are declared to be natural, inherent, and unalienable.” Atchison & N. R. Co. v. Baty, 6 Neb. 37, 40, 29 Am. Rep. 356 (1877)


“Men are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights,-'life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness;'and to 'secure,'not grant or create, these rights, governments are instituted. That property which a man has honestly acquired he retains full control of, subject to these limitations: First, that he shall not use it to his neighbor's injury, and that does not mean that he must use it for his neighbor's benefit; second, that if the devotes it to a public use, he gives to the public a right to control that use; and third, that whenever the public needs require, the public may take it upon payment of due compensation.” BUDD v. PEOPLE OF STATE OF NEW YORK, 143 U.S. 517 (1892)

Notice that these are COURT HOLDINGS - the job of the judiciary is to interpret the law. So, let's apply this to gun Rights.I'm bolding some words and terms so you can SEE something important. Here are more court rulings:

According to Wikipedia:

"The first state court decision resulting from the "right to bear arms" issue was Bliss v. Commonwealth. The court held that "the right of citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State must be preserved entire, ..." "This holding was unique because it stated that the right to bear arms is absolute and unqualified."

Right to keep and bear arms in the United States - Wikipedia

In 1846 the Georgia Supreme Court ruled:

“The right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed." The right of the whole people, old and young, men, women and boys, and not militia only, to keep and bear arms of every description, not such merely as are used by the militia, shall not be infringed, curtailed, or broken in upon, in the smallest degree; and all this for the important end to be attained: the rearing up and qualifying a well-regulated militia, so vitally necessary to the security of a free State. Our opinion is, that any law, State or Federal, is repugnant to the Constitution, and void, which contravenes this right, originally belonging to our forefathers, trampled under foot by Charles I. and his two wicked sons and successors, reestablished by the revolution of 1688, conveyed to this land of liberty by the colonists, and finally incorporated conspicuously in our own Magna Charta!” Nunn v State 1 Ga. (1 Kel.) 243 (1846)

In Texas, their Supreme Court made the point unequivocally clear:

"The right of a citizen to bear arms in lawful defense of himself or the State, is absolute. He does not derive it from the State government. It is one of the high powers delegated directly to the citizen, and is excepted out of the general powers of government. A law cannot be passed to infringe upon or impair it, because it is above the law, and independent of the lawmaking power."

-Cockrum v. State, 24 Tex. 394 (1859)

Then, the United States Supreme Court weighed in:

“The Government of the United States, although it is, within the scope of its powers, supreme and beyond the States, can neither grant nor secure to its citizens rights or privileges which are not expressly or by implication placed under its jurisdiction. All that cannot be so granted or secured are left to the exclusive protection of the States.

..The right there specified is that of "bearing arms for a lawful purpose." This is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. United States v. Cruikshank 92 US 542 (1875)

The Right exists. The Constitution don't grant it. The states did not grant it. It is absolute. It is above the lawmaking power. It is an unalienable Right. It is an extension of your Right to Life.

Now then, that was the original intent. So, how do you suppose that the government can now restrict your Rights? I'm going to give you the answer in the form of a link. It was a "debate" and NOBODY stepped up to the plate to debate the illegal way Americans had their Rights stolen:

Stolen Rights

The government has the power to try to limit your Rights. They most assuredly do not have the authority to. Just so you know, I'm the only swinging Richard on God's green earth who has laid out a plan to significantly lower firearm related deaths (cutting mass shootings by at least 90 percent) without raising taxes, creating new bureaucracies, or attacking gun Rights. Nobody gives a shit. The only people comfortable with the government taking your guns are those who blindly trust government to be their God.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

Well, the SCOTUS does not agree. Like every other constitutional right, the 2nd is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose. So, in addition to federal laws, we have something of a patchwork of state and local laws regarding gun control that vary widely, as long as these laws are considered by the Court to be reasonable. Whether it was intended to be that way is debatable I guess, but that's the way it is.

Although we, as a nation, have foolishly allowed them to get away with it, the Supreme Court absolutely does not have the authority to override the Constitution.

The Second Amendment is absolutely clear. The right to keep and bear arms belongs to the people, and government is forbidden from infringing the right. Period. Where the Supreme Court has upheld any such infringements, it has been acting illegally.

I would add to that, but if someone out there IS interested, there was a recent "debate" and nobody stepped forward to challenge it. The debate explains how the system stole our Rights.

The government may have the power to attack your Rights, but they do NOT have the authority. See this link and it will enlighten you:

Stolen Rights

 

[Porter Rockwell]

Endless circular reasoning arguments yet again? Fact is states could and did regulate firearms, based on race and other reasons from the beginning, so we know 'original intent' was it was left to the states…

The question was the original intent. What the Founders intended when they wrote and adopted the 2nd Amendment. It was never intended to be left to the States. It was never intended to be left to the whim of municipalities. Just as your First, Third, Fourth, Fifth, or Sixth Amendments were not intended to be left to the whims of any State.

See the Tenth Amendment, which speaks of powers belonging to the federal government, powers belonging to the states, and powers belonging to the people.

The point was to clarify that the federal government only had those powers that the Constitution specifically delegated to it, all other powers belonging to the states or to the people; and to prohibit the federal government from claiming or exercising powers that did not belong to it.

The Tenth Amendment mentions, but really doesn't otherwise address the distinction between powers belonging to the states and powers belonging to the people. But the distinction is there.

Now, according to the Second Amendment, to whom does the right to keep and bear arms belong? Does it belong to the states? No, it certainly does not. It belongs to the people. Therefore, neither the states nor the federal government have any legitimate authority to violate it.

Well, the SCOTUS does not agree. Like every other constitutional right, the 2nd is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose. So, in addition to federal laws, we have something of a patchwork of state and local laws regarding gun control that vary widely, as long as these laws are considered by the Court to be reasonable. Whether it was intended to be that way is debatable I guess, but that's the way it is.

There are over 45,000 federal, state, county, and city laws, ordinances, statutes, rules, regulations, edicts, etc. regarding firearms. Most of them are blatantly illegal.

The Heller decision rests its precedent on what was an illegal act, designed to nullify the Bill of Rights. Heller is wrong. Read the holding very carefully. It says:

"Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited"

Like most Rights? WTH??? Okay, what Rights, in their opinion ARE unlimited? They said most Rights, didn't they? How come they didn't say ALL Rights are subject to limitations?

The Heller decision was a slap in the face to 133 years of standing United States Supreme Court precedents. How did they get away with it? See my other posts and follow the links.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Next question....why does anyone want to own an AK47 or whatever they are called? For what purpose? To just blow stuff up?

There are those who collect AK clones, there are scores of variations.

Many appreciate how simple and reliable the platform is.

And others consider it to be a means of superior self-defense because it's utterly reliable and chambers an effective round.

Or all of the above.

 

[SavannahMann]

Endless circular reasoning arguments yet again? Fact is states could and did regulate firearms, based on race and other reasons from the beginning, so we know 'original intent' was it was left to the states…

The question was the original intent. What the Founders intended when they wrote and adopted the 2nd Amendment. It was never intended to be left to the States. It was never intended to be left to the whim of municipalities. Just as your First, Third, Fourth, Fifth, or Sixth Amendments were not intended to be left to the whims of any State.

See the Tenth Amendment, which speaks of powers belonging to the federal government, powers belonging to the states, and powers belonging to the people.

The point was to clarify that the federal government only had those powers that the Constitution specifically delegated to it, all other powers belonging to the states or to the people; and to prohibit the federal government from claiming or exercising powers that did not belong to it.

The Tenth Amendment mentions, but really doesn't otherwise address the distinction between powers belonging to the states and powers belonging to the people. But the distinction is there.

Now, according to the Second Amendment, to whom does the right to keep and bear arms belong? Does it belong to the states? No, it certainly does not. It belongs to the people. Therefore, neither the states nor the federal government have any legitimate authority to violate it.

The Bill of Rights, or for that matter, the Constitution, was never intended to be viewed as an exclusively legal document where only experienced legal scholars could be expected to interpret it. And if you think that defined legal documents did not exist in that era, you are foolish beyond belief. Just look at the Construction Contracts for the ships of the fledgling Navy. Specifications on what kind of wood would be used, what the schedule of construction, and all sorts of things defined to the smallest degree. Laws passed by the First Congress also had the same thing. Each term was defined, and each specific legal principle was outlined. Yet, they did not choose to go that route with the Bill of Rights.

They went with a format that called upon people to resist the temptation. Moreover, the Founders never envisioned the questions being settled by the Supreme Court. Otherwise the language would have certainly been the aforementioned legalese with every term and phrase defined specifically as to the intent just as other laws of the era were.

So what was the foundation of the Bill of Rights? It was not the idea that these rights were granted to you by the Government. It was that these rights were granted by the Creator. That is why the Bill of Rights was written in the same sort of style we find the Ten Commandments written in.

Take the First Amendment. If it was intended to be the foundation of a Legal Doctrine, it would have said something like this. The Supreme Court shall find invalid and overturn any law which passed by Congress and signed into law by the President, or upon the Presidential Veto, was passed using the Congressional Overrule of a vote consisting of 2/3 of the whole, any law which abridges freedom of speech. Freedom of speech is defined as the ability to speak either through verbal, or non verbal means, including written, on any subject that the speaker feels compelled to express an opinion about. This freedom should not be construed to include language which if heard in public, would be offensive to ladies or clergy.

The First Amendment would be ten pages long if it was written in legalese. It isn’t even a fraction of that. The language is simple. Congress shall pass no law. The First Amendment was intended, as all the other amendments, to be a guide. Just as the Ten Commandments were not specific, but general. You know what this is, just don’t do it.

It is the fact that we have spent the intervening years declaring that the Amendments don’t really mean this, or that, or the other. Finding exceptions that we use to ignore the clearly stated foundation of our Society. Congress shall not. Thou Shall Not.

We do not read what the Founders described as the Press that would be free. We just are told not to abridge Freedom of the Press. We are not told what Quartering Soldiers in our homes would be like, and what would qualify. We are told that it may not happen. We are not told in detail what a person’s papers would qualify to be protected from illegal search.

We were given a broad outline, and told not to cross those lines. Benjamin Franklin famously told the people that we had a Republic, if we could keep it. The Founders saw the possibility of abuse, and worried about it. So we the people were expected to go and vote out of office anyone who showed the intent, or willingness to abuse. Instead, those abuses came with cheers.

I don’t want to hear that kind of speech. We will ban it. I don’t want to see that kind of news, so we will restrict it. I don’t like those guns, and we will make them illegal. It is just wrong that a guilty guy can go free because of some silly restrictions on searches. If you have nothing to fear, you have nothing to hide.

If the Founders had known that we would totally eviscerate those rights so quickly, and willingly, I wonder if they would have written them more adamant in the restrictions? Thou Shall Not is pretty specific, and pretty adamant. Perhaps they would have included number 11. Anyone who does pass a law, or move to restrict those rights, shall be put to death in the slowest, and most cruel manner possible taking days to suffer unto death.

Because taking those rights, one exception at a time, is part of reason that our people feel such discontent. Because we don’t mean those words. They are just words, just a piece of paper. It is interesting isn’t it? When World War One started, Germany was outraged that Britain was going to war over the Treaty with Belgium. You would go to war over words? Over a piece of paper? Now of course, we go to war against anyone who objects to holding to those words, on that piece of paper. The one who says that this is wrong, and that was never what it was supposed to mean.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

Endless circular reasoning arguments yet again? Fact is states could and did regulate firearms, based on race and other reasons from the beginning, so we know 'original intent' was it was left to the states…

The question was the original intent. What the Founders intended when they wrote and adopted the 2nd Amendment. It was never intended to be left to the States. It was never intended to be left to the whim of municipalities. Just as your First, Third, Fourth, Fifth, or Sixth Amendments were not intended to be left to the whims of any State.

See the Tenth Amendment, which speaks of powers belonging to the federal government, powers belonging to the states, and powers belonging to the people.

The point was to clarify that the federal government only had those powers that the Constitution specifically delegated to it, all other powers belonging to the states or to the people; and to prohibit the federal government from claiming or exercising powers that did not belong to it.

The Tenth Amendment mentions, but really doesn't otherwise address the distinction between powers belonging to the states and powers belonging to the people. But the distinction is there.

Now, according to the Second Amendment, to whom does the right to keep and bear arms belong? Does it belong to the states? No, it certainly does not. It belongs to the people. Therefore, neither the states nor the federal government have any legitimate authority to violate it.

The Bill of Rights, or for that matter, the Constitution, was never intended to be viewed as an exclusively legal document where only experienced legal scholars could be expected to interpret it. And if you think that defined legal documents did not exist in that era, you are foolish beyond belief. Just look at the Construction Contracts for the ships of the fledgling Navy. Specifications on what kind of wood would be used, what the schedule of construction, and all sorts of things defined to the smallest degree. Laws passed by the First Congress also had the same thing. Each term was defined, and each specific legal principle was outlined. Yet, they did not choose to go that route with the Bill of Rights.

They went with a format that called upon people to resist the temptation. Moreover, the Founders never envisioned the questions being settled by the Supreme Court. Otherwise the language would have certainly been the aforementioned legalese with every term and phrase defined specifically as to the intent just as other laws of the era were.

So what was the foundation of the Bill of Rights? It was not the idea that these rights were granted to you by the Government. It was that these rights were granted by the Creator. That is why the Bill of Rights was written in the same sort of style we find the Ten Commandments written in.

Take the First Amendment. If it was intended to be the foundation of a Legal Doctrine, it would have said something like this. The Supreme Court shall find invalid and overturn any law which passed by Congress and signed into law by the President, or upon the Presidential Veto, was passed using the Congressional Overrule of a vote consisting of 2/3 of the whole, any law which abridges freedom of speech. Freedom of speech is defined as the ability to speak either through verbal, or non verbal means, including written, on any subject that the speaker feels compelled to express an opinion about. This freedom should not be construed to include language which if heard in public, would be offensive to ladies or clergy.

The First Amendment would be ten pages long if it was written in legalese. It isn’t even a fraction of that. The language is simple. Congress shall pass no law. The First Amendment was intended, as all the other amendments, to be a guide. Just as the Ten Commandments were not specific, but general. You know what this is, just don’t do it.

It is the fact that we have spent the intervening years declaring that the Amendments don’t really mean this, or that, or the other. Finding exceptions that we use to ignore the clearly stated foundation of our Society. Congress shall not. Thou Shall Not.

We do not read what the Founders described as the Press that would be free. We just are told not to abridge Freedom of the Press. We are not told what Quartering Soldiers in our homes would be like, and what would qualify. We are told that it may not happen. We are not told in detail what a person’s papers would qualify to be protected from illegal search.

We were given a broad outline, and told not to cross those lines. Benjamin Franklin famously told the people that we had a Republic, if we could keep it. The Founders saw the possibility of abuse, and worried about it. So we the people were expected to go and vote out of office anyone who showed the intent, or willingness to abuse. Instead, those abuses came with cheers.

I don’t want to hear that kind of speech. We will ban it. I don’t want to see that kind of news, so we will restrict it. I don’t like those guns, and we will make them illegal. It is just wrong that a guilty guy can go free because of some silly restrictions on searches. If you have nothing to fear, you have nothing to hide.

If the Founders had known that we would totally eviscerate those rights so quickly, and willingly, I wonder if they would have written them more adamant in the restrictions? Thou Shall Not is pretty specific, and pretty adamant. Perhaps they would have included number 11. Anyone who does pass a law, or move to restrict those rights, shall be put to death in the slowest, and most cruel manner possible taking days to suffer unto death.

Because taking those rights, one exception at a time, is part of reason that our people feel such discontent. Because we don’t mean those words. They are just words, just a piece of paper. It is interesting isn’t it? When World War One started, Germany was outraged that Britain was going to war over the Treaty with Belgium. You would go to war over words? Over a piece of paper? Now of course, we go to war against anyone who objects to holding to those words, on that piece of paper. The one who says that this is wrong, and that was never what it was supposed to mean.

I agree with your premise, but it is imperative that the posterity of the framers understand the underhanded and illegal way that government now believes they are the ones granting us our unalienable Rights. You cannot miss this:

Stolen Rights

 

[Picaro]

Another thing is the 'Founders' went from thinking state 'militias' were enough to financing and building two Federally run armories plus West Point as an engineering school and supplying a standing Army and Navy by Jefferson's Presidency, and it was Jefferson who first used Federal troops against American citizens, not 'militias'. Were those armories selling cannon to civilians? Grenades? Selling anything to 'militias'?

 

[Picaro]

Endless circular reasoning arguments yet again? Fact is states could and did regulate firearms, based on race and other reasons from the beginning, so we know 'original intent' was it was left to the states…

The question was the original intent. What the Founders intended when they wrote and adopted the 2nd Amendment. It was never intended to be left to the States. It was never intended to be left to the whim of municipalities. Just as your First, Third, Fourth, Fifth, or Sixth Amendments were not intended to be left to the whims of any State.

See the Tenth Amendment, which speaks of powers belonging to the federal government, powers belonging to the states, and powers belonging to the people.

The point was to clarify that the federal government only had those powers that the Constitution specifically delegated to it, all other powers belonging to the states or to the people; and to prohibit the federal government from claiming or exercising powers that did not belong to it.

The Tenth Amendment mentions, but really doesn't otherwise address the distinction between powers belonging to the states and powers belonging to the people. But the distinction is there.

Now, according to the Second Amendment, to whom does the right to keep and bear arms belong? Does it belong to the states? No, it certainly does not. It belongs to the people. Therefore, neither the states nor the federal government have any legitimate authority to violate it.

My point is that despite all the sophistry and wringing of blood from gnats, in real life firearms have always been regulated in one form or another in this country; whether one is happy or not about it isn't a Constitutional issue; the Federal and state Courts rule whatever suits them personally as a majority, and they don''t care about precedent; they can make that up as they go along, and that's what they did. It hasn't been a Constitutional problem since 1792, just a matter of whims every time the SC or a lower Court changes its makeup of ideologies. Precedent was either abandoned or invented from the beginning.

 

[progressive hunter]

The Founding Fathers were very concerned that a single madman had the ability to kill many of them at a whim.

Which happens every week now, but hey...

I think they had no clue just far advanced weaponry would become. When they sat down and wrote that...they had no clue about airplanes, trains, speed cars, tanks, jets, floating artillary ships, nukes, etc. Their goal was for every citizen to be able to protect themselves..which is what most of us that own weapon(s) planned when purchasing them. That I have no problem with. But..I see no reason why deeper delving into psyche should also be utilitzed to keep the nutbars from owning them. The guy in El Paso..his dad seems to be a nutbar too. So who bought him the weapons? Him or the guy himself? Also, on the other end of the dilemma....criminals don't really care about the standards and hoops of red tape to get a gun. Black market is alive and well.

I don't see any reason that semi-automatic carbines couldn't be categorized as a "destructive weapon," and require a tax stamp, like machine guns and grenade launchers are. It's common sense. But how much compliance will there be? There is a guarantee that this sort of violence will continue for some time, unless those illegally providing the weapons to the evildoers begin facing terrorism charges. Aiding and abetting in any manner should be a capital crime.

you dumb mother fuckers need to learn the 2nd amendment was meant for weapons of war and things that destroy,,,

 

[Porter Rockwell]

Endless circular reasoning arguments yet again? Fact is states could and did regulate firearms, based on race and other reasons from the beginning, so we know 'original intent' was it was left to the states…

The question was the original intent. What the Founders intended when they wrote and adopted the 2nd Amendment. It was never intended to be left to the States. It was never intended to be left to the whim of municipalities. Just as your First, Third, Fourth, Fifth, or Sixth Amendments were not intended to be left to the whims of any State.

See the Tenth Amendment, which speaks of powers belonging to the federal government, powers belonging to the states, and powers belonging to the people.

The point was to clarify that the federal government only had those powers that the Constitution specifically delegated to it, all other powers belonging to the states or to the people; and to prohibit the federal government from claiming or exercising powers that did not belong to it.

The Tenth Amendment mentions, but really doesn't otherwise address the distinction between powers belonging to the states and powers belonging to the people. But the distinction is there.

Now, according to the Second Amendment, to whom does the right to keep and bear arms belong? Does it belong to the states? No, it certainly does not. It belongs to the people. Therefore, neither the states nor the federal government have any legitimate authority to violate it.

My point is that despite all the sophistry and wringing of blood from gnats, in real life firearms have always been regulated in one form or another in this country; whether one is happy or not about it isn't a Constitutional issue; the Federal and state Courts rule whatever suits them personally as a majority, and they don''t care about precedent; they can make that up as they go along, and that's what they did. It hasn't been a Constitutional problem since 1792, just a matter of whims every time the SC or a lower Court changes its makeup of ideologies. Precedent was either abandoned or invented from the beginning.

All of this has been refuted with actual court rulings.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

The Founding Fathers were very concerned that a single madman had the ability to kill many of them at a whim.

Which happens every week now, but hey...

I think they had no clue just far advanced weaponry would become. When they sat down and wrote that...they had no clue about airplanes, trains, speed cars, tanks, jets, floating artillary ships, nukes, etc. Their goal was for every citizen to be able to protect themselves..which is what most of us that own weapon(s) planned when purchasing them. That I have no problem with. But..I see no reason why deeper delving into psyche should also be utilitzed to keep the nutbars from owning them. The guy in El Paso..his dad seems to be a nutbar too. So who bought him the weapons? Him or the guy himself? Also, on the other end of the dilemma....criminals don't really care about the standards and hoops of red tape to get a gun. Black market is alive and well.

I don't see any reason that semi-automatic carbines couldn't be categorized as a "destructive weapon," and require a tax stamp, like machine guns and grenade launchers are. It's common sense. But how much compliance will there be? There is a guarantee that this sort of violence will continue for some time, unless those illegally providing the weapons to the evildoers begin facing terrorism charges. Aiding and abetting in any manner should be a capital crime.

you dumb mother fuckers need to learn the 2nd amendment was meant for weapons of war and things that destroy,,,

In the famous Miller ruling over a short barreled shotgun, Miller only lost because a shotgun was not a weapons associated with a militia. There were never any laws aimed at military type weapons until the Constitution was 145 years old.

There are over 400 million firearms in the United States with less than 1 percent involved in any kind of criminal activity. Can you name anything out there other than a video game (maybe) that has that good of a safety record?

People need to focus more on reducing crime without worrying about gun control. We can focus on the problem without any gun control measures being passed. We won't. The numbers are unimportant. Some sick people just want to ban guns. They have no use for Liberty or Freedom.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

In the famous Miller ruling over a short barreled shotgun, Miller only lost because a shotgun was not a weapons associated with a militia.

Actually, Miller was dead when that ruling came out. Nobody appeared to argue his side to the Supreme Court, so it only heard one side. It ruled against him, on the premise that a short-barrelled shotgun was not a weapon with a military application.

Had someone been there to present a competent argument for Miller's side, he might have convinced the court that a weapon did not need to have a military application to be protected under the Second Amendment. He certainly would have called the court's attention to the fact that short-barrelled shotguns were, in fact, in use at that time by our army, known as “trench sweepers”, and on the basis of that knowledge, by the logic that the court employed, they would have had to rule the other way.

 

[danielpalos]

We have a Second Amendment and should have no security problems in our free States.