CDZ How The Second Amendment Comes From Something That Happened In The 2nd Century BCE

[DudleySmith]

I think it's very clear the Founders left it to the states to decide such individual issues, and the history bears it out, same as they did with establishment of religion, voting rights. etc. This makes both 'sides' unhappy but that is the way it was.

A safety course should be the primary requirement regardless of any of the rest of it. Times change, and far fewer people are raised around firearms from childhood like they were in the past, and that cultural change needs to be accounted for.

the country has been run by judicial fiat since the Civil war, and its no different today; the 'Constitutionality' of anything has long since been irrelevant, it's just whatever gang can pack the Federal benches these days gets to make up whatever laws they want to now. It's just delusional fantasy to believe otherwise.

I dont see anywhere that its left up to the states for anything having to do with the peoples right to be armed,,,

the 2nd makes it clear "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED",,,

I don't care if you can't see it or not. Ideologues are all morons, left or right wingers; they all look alike.and they all end up with the exact same 'order'.

instead of being an ass why not just point out where it says that which you claim???

because the 10th amendment makes it clear it is delegated to the people not the states or feds,,

Why would I waste my time on rebutting rubbish claims? You think the 2nd A magically trumped states' rights for some reason, the sole Amendment to do so, despite all the other Amendments that didn't. The states decided who could vote, whether or not a state could have an established religion, etc. etc, but all of sudden the Feds were granted the absolute power to decide who could shoot everybody else regardless of what the individual states wanted. It's rubbish, and a made up 'universal right' that doesn't exist, as demonstrated over and over and over and over by subsequent state laws for the next 200+ years.

of course it does when you read both the 2nd and the tenth together,,, what youre doing is ignoring all of it,,,

if you only had a specific thing you could point to like I did your opinion might have merit,,

There is nothing in the 10th about unlimited weapon ownership. You can keep claiming that and dance around with the other cultists like you won something, but the fact is it was not a power granted to the Federal govt. and denied the states, by the 10th or any other Amendment.

we arent talking about unlimited ownership so dont change the subject because you dont have proof the states have a right to regulate,,,

it was a power delegated to THE PEOPLE as stated in the 2nd and the 10th,,,

'The People' as defined by the Founders, not you. Their definitions of 'The People' are a lot less broad than you would like.

Wrong....From Heller...

6 What is more, in all six other provisions of the Constitution that mention “the people,” the term unambiguously refers to all members of the political community, not an unspecified subset.

Heller is nothing but another fiat ruling based on ideology, not legal precedent or original intent; it's just another example of judicial fiat replacing the rule of law, something right wingers snivel about but suddenly decide they're all for it, as well as reams of executive orders, when it suits their fantasies. That's why ideologues are worthless shills, whether left or right wingers.

Wrong.....They went through the history of the Right to bear arms going back to England.......step by step, from England to the colonies to the states and their various constitutions........The U.S. has long held the Right to Bear arms as a Right not given by the Constitution but codified in it....

Nah, actually the regulations already existed in the various state constitutions and Assemblies, including who got to vote and who didn't, required property qualifications, and I also posted to an article on how badly 'The People' feel short of producing effective militias and how few people could actually afford to fulfill the basic requirements. Of course you ideologues ignore what anybody else posts and just continue to repeat cut and pastes made up of fake news and fake history, as if all the Founders agreed with each other and you 100% of the time. I.e your ridiculous fantasy versions of history don't reflect anything but your personal fantasies and memes from your treehouse clubs.

if they did why not post them so we can see them too,,,

The y already have, in the previous 34 million threads on this; you ignored them then, so no need to keep repeating them for trolls who got nothing.

figures they didnt exist,,

Obviously few care what you think. They can look it all up themselves these days, while you continue to look like an idiot.

I tried looking it up buit all I found was the 2nd amendment that says "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED",,

but feel free to keep makin shit up,,,

Yes, we know how diligent you are ....

Just curious...why do you use the royal "we"?

I don't; you're just unable to make a competent rebuttal of what I said; that's because you spend way too much time in the fever swamps and lost your capacity to be objective on this issue and do your own research.

youree the one that lacks a competent rebuttal,, you just keep saying things that arent real,,

Too bad you have no way to rebut the sources I've posted and named, and now just play ' I Touched You Last!!!' with zero in the way of an argument, as shown by your last 10 quotes of me clearly show. You just aren't a Player, just another bot spamming the thread, and almost nobody was talking to you here in the first place.

 

[justinacolmena]

When Congress approved the First Amendment on Dec. 15, 1791, they didn’t feel any need to describe why they were insisting on freedom of speech, publication, religion, and protest. They didn’t say “for the purposes of reporting the news,” or “because we think Americans should go to church,” or set limits on the size of marches. There are no specific purposes, and no boundaries set on any of these rights.

You aren't allowed into D.C. or to report on the news at all unless you've got a black race card and you're a legal resident there, or an official press pass from a licensed fourth-estate mainstream media establishment.

 

[daveman]

I think it's very clear the Founders left it to the states to decide such individual issues, and the history bears it out, same as they did with establishment of religion, voting rights. etc. This makes both 'sides' unhappy but that is the way it was.

A safety course should be the primary requirement regardless of any of the rest of it. Times change, and far fewer people are raised around firearms from childhood like they were in the past, and that cultural change needs to be accounted for.

the country has been run by judicial fiat since the Civil war, and its no different today; the 'Constitutionality' of anything has long since been irrelevant, it's just whatever gang can pack the Federal benches these days gets to make up whatever laws they want to now. It's just delusional fantasy to believe otherwise.

I dont see anywhere that its left up to the states for anything having to do with the peoples right to be armed,,,

the 2nd makes it clear "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED",,,

I don't care if you can't see it or not. Ideologues are all morons, left or right wingers; they all look alike.and they all end up with the exact same 'order'.

instead of being an ass why not just point out where it says that which you claim???

because the 10th amendment makes it clear it is delegated to the people not the states or feds,,

Why would I waste my time on rebutting rubbish claims? You think the 2nd A magically trumped states' rights for some reason, the sole Amendment to do so, despite all the other Amendments that didn't. The states decided who could vote, whether or not a state could have an established religion, etc. etc, but all of sudden the Feds were granted the absolute power to decide who could shoot everybody else regardless of what the individual states wanted. It's rubbish, and a made up 'universal right' that doesn't exist, as demonstrated over and over and over and over by subsequent state laws for the next 200+ years.

of course it does when you read both the 2nd and the tenth together,,, what youre doing is ignoring all of it,,,

if you only had a specific thing you could point to like I did your opinion might have merit,,

There is nothing in the 10th about unlimited weapon ownership. You can keep claiming that and dance around with the other cultists like you won something, but the fact is it was not a power granted to the Federal govt. and denied the states, by the 10th or any other Amendment.

we arent talking about unlimited ownership so dont change the subject because you dont have proof the states have a right to regulate,,,

it was a power delegated to THE PEOPLE as stated in the 2nd and the 10th,,,

'The People' as defined by the Founders, not you. Their definitions of 'The People' are a lot less broad than you would like.

Wrong....From Heller...

6 What is more, in all six other provisions of the Constitution that mention “the people,” the term unambiguously refers to all members of the political community, not an unspecified subset.

Heller is nothing but another fiat ruling based on ideology, not legal precedent or original intent; it's just another example of judicial fiat replacing the rule of law, something right wingers snivel about but suddenly decide they're all for it, as well as reams of executive orders, when it suits their fantasies. That's why ideologues are worthless shills, whether left or right wingers.

Wrong.....They went through the history of the Right to bear arms going back to England.......step by step, from England to the colonies to the states and their various constitutions........The U.S. has long held the Right to Bear arms as a Right not given by the Constitution but codified in it....

Nah, actually the regulations already existed in the various state constitutions and Assemblies, including who got to vote and who didn't, required property qualifications, and I also posted to an article on how badly 'The People' feel short of producing effective militias and how few people could actually afford to fulfill the basic requirements. Of course you ideologues ignore what anybody else posts and just continue to repeat cut and pastes made up of fake news and fake history, as if all the Founders agreed with each other and you 100% of the time. I.e your ridiculous fantasy versions of history don't reflect anything but your personal fantasies and memes from your treehouse clubs.

if they did why not post them so we can see them too,,,

The y already have, in the previous 34 million threads on this; you ignored them then, so no need to keep repeating them for trolls who got nothing.

figures they didnt exist,,

Obviously few care what you think. They can look it all up themselves these days, while you continue to look like an idiot.

I tried looking it up buit all I found was the 2nd amendment that says "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED",,

but feel free to keep makin shit up,,,

Yes, we know how diligent you are ....

Just curious...why do you use the royal "we"?

I don't; you're just unable to make a competent rebuttal of what I said; that's because you spend way too much time in the fever swamps and lost your capacity to be objective on this issue and do your own research. We're no longer a rural country, and few have parents who are competent with firearms to bring them up with ingrained common sense about them. It's not 'The Good Old Days' any more, it's 2021 and there is no 'common culture' any more.

We get it; guns hurt your feelings.

Tough shit.

 

[Pellinore]

Incredibly sad commentary on the type of nation you want. A nation where you never feel safe unless you're armed. Wow.

True. It's not the type of nation I want, but it sure is how the nation has become.

I'd like to have a chance at self-defense against all these crazies and blacks and muslims massacring lots of people nearly every day. If the leftists grab our guns, that just leaves us helpless against all these murderers.

Most other nations on earth have been around longer than our 233 year old republic...how have they avoided having a population that doesn't live in constant fear of being shot down? Hint: They don't have a 2nd amendment that allows anyone to buy as many guns as they can afford

Nations, yes, but most other governments have not. We are an unusually long-lasting government over an unusually large amount of resource-plentiful land, which is why it's so hard to find another nation to compare us to in so many things.

That said ... are we a population that doesn't live in constant fear of being shot down right now?

 

[2aguy]

Incredibly sad commentary on the type of nation you want. A nation where you never feel safe unless you're armed. Wow.

True. It's not the type of nation I want, but it sure is how the nation has become.

I'd like to have a chance at self-defense against all these crazies and blacks and muslims massacring lots of people nearly every day. If the leftists grab our guns, that just leaves us helpless against all these murderers.

Most other nations on earth have been around longer than our 233 year old republic...how have they avoided having a population that doesn't live in constant fear of being shot down? Hint: They don't have a 2nd amendment that allows anyone to buy as many guns as they can afford

They murdered their people over and over again in their various civil wars and conflicts between countries, you doofus.........they murdered 12 million innocent men, women and children between 1939-1945.........people who had committed no crime...simply because the government in Germany didn't like them........

Meanwhile, in the 82 years between 1939 and 2020, our criminals murdered 820,000 thousand people...

Can you see the difference?

And of those murdered in America, the majority, 70-80% of the victims were actual criminals involved in crime..........and of the remaining victims, the majority of those are friends and family of the criminals....

So in America, if you aren't a criminal, your odds of being murdered are small, if you stay out of democrat party controlled cities.......

In Europe....every few decades they commit mass murder against innocent people, including ethnic cleansing...their murder is focused on innocents, while our murder is focused on criminals murdering other criminals...

Do some research you twit.

 

[candycorn]

Incredibly sad commentary on the type of nation you want. A nation where you never feel safe unless you're armed. Wow.

True. It's not the type of nation I want, but it sure is how the nation has become.

I'd like to have a chance at self-defense against all these crazies and blacks and muslims massacring lots of people nearly every day. If the leftists grab our guns, that just leaves us helpless against all these murderers.

Most other nations on earth have been around longer than our 233 year old republic...how have they avoided having a population that doesn't live in constant fear of being shot down? Hint: They don't have a 2nd amendment that allows anyone to buy as many guns as they can afford

They murdered their people over and over again in their various civil wars and conflicts between countries, you doofus.........they murdered 12 million innocent men, women and children between 1939-1945.........people who had committed no crime...simply because the government in Germany didn't like them........

Meanwhile, in the 82 years between 1939 and 2020, our criminals murdered 820,000 thousand people...

Can you see the difference?

And of those murdered in America, the majority, 70-80% of the victims were actual criminals involved in crime..........and of the remaining victims, the majority of those are friends and family of the criminals....

So in America, if you aren't a criminal, your odds of being murdered are small, if you stay out of democrat party controlled cities.......

In Europe....every few decades they commit mass murder against innocent people, including ethnic cleansing...their murder is focused on innocents, while our murder is focused on criminals murdering other criminals...

Do some research you twit.

You really do make me laugh.

In the last 233 years, numerous nations have had their governments changed as colonial powers lost their colonies. There have been popular uprisings, separatists have formed their own government, and hundreds if not thousands have failed. How many of these new governments/ill-fated uprising have installed or even proposed the idea of all of their citizens being able to arm themselves?

Zero. None of them want that part of our society to where violence is so commonplace that nobody notices any longer when there is a homicide. They see our 30,000 gun deaths a year and want no part of it.

I can't blame them.

 

[candycorn]

Incredibly sad commentary on the type of nation you want. A nation where you never feel safe unless you're armed. Wow.

True. It's not the type of nation I want, but it sure is how the nation has become.

I'd like to have a chance at self-defense against all these crazies and blacks and muslims massacring lots of people nearly every day. If the leftists grab our guns, that just leaves us helpless against all these murderers.

Most other nations on earth have been around longer than our 233 year old republic...how have they avoided having a population that doesn't live in constant fear of being shot down? Hint: They don't have a 2nd amendment that allows anyone to buy as many guns as they can afford

Nations, yes, but most other governments have not. We are an unusually long-lasting government over an unusually large amount of resource-plentiful land, which is why it's so hard to find another nation to compare us to in so many things.

That said ... are we a population that doesn't live in constant fear of being shot down right now?

I mis-spoke when I said "most". Many nations have been around longer than ours. England has had it's monarchy for quite a while for example. You tell me, is there a popular faction of English society that is pining for the right to have every one be able to buy, keep, and walk down the street with an arsenal strapped to your hip--"just in case"?

 

[daveman]

Incredibly sad commentary on the type of nation you want. A nation where you never feel safe unless you're armed. Wow.

True. It's not the type of nation I want, but it sure is how the nation has become.

I'd like to have a chance at self-defense against all these crazies and blacks and muslims massacring lots of people nearly every day. If the leftists grab our guns, that just leaves us helpless against all these murderers.

Most other nations on earth have been around longer than our 233 year old republic...how have they avoided having a population that doesn't live in constant fear of being shot down? Hint: They don't have a 2nd amendment that allows anyone to buy as many guns as they can afford

They murdered their people over and over again in their various civil wars and conflicts between countries, you doofus.........they murdered 12 million innocent men, women and children between 1939-1945.........people who had committed no crime...simply because the government in Germany didn't like them........

Meanwhile, in the 82 years between 1939 and 2020, our criminals murdered 820,000 thousand people...

Can you see the difference?

And of those murdered in America, the majority, 70-80% of the victims were actual criminals involved in crime..........and of the remaining victims, the majority of those are friends and family of the criminals....

So in America, if you aren't a criminal, your odds of being murdered are small, if you stay out of democrat party controlled cities.......

In Europe....every few decades they commit mass murder against innocent people, including ethnic cleansing...their murder is focused on innocents, while our murder is focused on criminals murdering other criminals...

Do some research you twit.

You really do make me laugh.

In the last 233 years, numerous nations have had their governments changed as colonial powers lost their colonies. There have been popular uprisings, separatists have formed their own government, and hundreds if not thousands have failed. How many of these new governments/ill-fated uprising have installed or even proposed the idea of all of their citizens being able to arm themselves?

Zero. None of them want that part of our society to where violence is so commonplace that nobody notices any longer when there is a homicide. They see our 30,000 gun deaths a year and want no part of it.

I can't blame them.

Freedom's great. For instance, you're free to move to a country where your feelings aren't hurt.

Shall I start a Go Fund Me to help pay your moving expenses?

 

[2aguy]

Incredibly sad commentary on the type of nation you want. A nation where you never feel safe unless you're armed. Wow.

True. It's not the type of nation I want, but it sure is how the nation has become.

I'd like to have a chance at self-defense against all these crazies and blacks and muslims massacring lots of people nearly every day. If the leftists grab our guns, that just leaves us helpless against all these murderers.

Most other nations on earth have been around longer than our 233 year old republic...how have they avoided having a population that doesn't live in constant fear of being shot down? Hint: They don't have a 2nd amendment that allows anyone to buy as many guns as they can afford

They murdered their people over and over again in their various civil wars and conflicts between countries, you doofus.........they murdered 12 million innocent men, women and children between 1939-1945.........people who had committed no crime...simply because the government in Germany didn't like them........

Meanwhile, in the 82 years between 1939 and 2020, our criminals murdered 820,000 thousand people...

Can you see the difference?

And of those murdered in America, the majority, 70-80% of the victims were actual criminals involved in crime..........and of the remaining victims, the majority of those are friends and family of the criminals....

So in America, if you aren't a criminal, your odds of being murdered are small, if you stay out of democrat party controlled cities.......

In Europe....every few decades they commit mass murder against innocent people, including ethnic cleansing...their murder is focused on innocents, while our murder is focused on criminals murdering other criminals...

Do some research you twit.

You really do make me laugh.

In the last 233 years, numerous nations have had their governments changed as colonial powers lost their colonies. There have been popular uprisings, separatists have formed their own government, and hundreds if not thousands have failed. How many of these new governments/ill-fated uprising have installed or even proposed the idea of all of their citizens being able to arm themselves?

Zero. None of them want that part of our society to where violence is so commonplace that nobody notices any longer when there is a homicide. They see our 30,000 gun deaths a year and want no part of it.

I can't blame them.

Do you understand that these governments want total control over their people...including the ability to murder them when they decide that is in the governments interest?


LIke Myanmar?

If Myanmar had the level of gun ownership we have, the military wouldn't have been able to take over and murder all of these people....

Myanmar Military Slaughters More Than 80 Protesters in One City

pjmedia.com

 

[Circe]

Freedom's great. For instance, you're free to move to a country where your feelings aren't hurt.

Shall I start a Go Fund Me to help pay your moving expenses?

I suggest Liberia. . . .

 

[Turtlesoup]

When Congress approved the First Amendment on Dec. 15, 1791, they didn’t feel any need to describe why they were insisting on freedom of speech, publication, religion, and protest. They didn’t say “for the purposes of reporting the news,” or “because we think Americans should go to church,” or set limits on the size of marches. There are no specific purposes, and no boundaries set on any of these rights.

However, when the Second Amendment was passed on the same day, it was laden with all too familiar language that describes exactly why citizens were to be permitted firearms: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State.” Citizens were allowed to have guns for a specific purpose. And while it may be possible, with enough convoluted statements and nonsense about the 18th century context of “well-regulated” or the definition of “militia,” to deliberately misunderstand the clear meaning of the this limit, the authors underlined the meaning in the Third Amendment.

Daily Kos

Daily Kos is a progressive news site that fights for democracy by giving our audience information and resources to win elections and impact government. Our coverage is assiduously factual, ethical, and unapologetically liberal. We amplify what we think is important, with the proper context—not...

m.dailykos.com

Protection of the elected government from both a standing army, and an insurrectionist mob.

Ahhh...daily KOS spreading propaganda again and idiots licking it up.

Short answer pumpkin----KING GEORGE tried to disarm the citizens right before the war. Had he been successful, our troops would have never won.
Two comes down to state verses federal rights---------the new colonies/states feared an over bearing federal government and New leader which they weren't sure how would work out--------they wanted their people armed to better fight back any invasion---whether it be indian, the fed government, or even an neighboring state seeking power. Since some of our founders were states rights and others were federal rights---they often made comments playing both sides.
Three, Obviously they intended individuals to own guns simply because they made no moves to remove them from the armed populous that would have shot them for trying.

And Four, I had read of other times when the King of England had been successful in disarming the people--the people got killed needless to say shortly after.

 

[Rye Catcher]

The States have the right to militias, the PEOPLE have the right to keep and bear arms.

If the States refuse their right, the people don't give up theirs.

So you say. Have you read the Constitution, Art I, sec 8, and these two clauses:

'To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

'To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;"

 

[martybegan]

So you say. Have you read the Constitution, Art I, sec 8, and these two clauses:

'To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

'To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;"

Again, about militias, the people still retain the RKBA.

 

[Rye Catcher]

Again, about militias, the people still retain the RKBA.

What fantasy on the Militia is the RKBA

 

[martybegan]

What fantasy on the Militia is the RKBA

Right to Keep and Bear Arms, the 2nd part of the amendment that applies to the people, and their right to keep and bear arms.

 

[daveman]

What fantasy on the Militia is the RKBA

This argument is both unoriginal and busted. No one's going to give up their weapons.

 

[Leo123]

When Congress approved the First Amendment on Dec. 15, 1791, they didn’t feel any need to describe why they were insisting on freedom of speech, publication, religion, and protest. They didn’t say “for the purposes of reporting the news,” or “because we think Americans should go to church,” or set limits on the size of marches. There are no specific purposes, and no boundaries set on any of these rights.

However, when the Second Amendment was passed on the same day, it was laden with all too familiar language that describes exactly why citizens were to be permitted firearms: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State.” Citizens were allowed to have guns for a specific purpose. And while it may be possible, with enough convoluted statements and nonsense about the 18th century context of “well-regulated” or the definition of “militia,” to deliberately misunderstand the clear meaning of the this limit, the authors underlined the meaning in the Third Amendment.

Daily Kos

Daily Kos is a progressive news site that fights for democracy by giving our audience information and resources to win elections and impact government. Our coverage is assiduously factual, ethical, and unapologetically liberal. We amplify what we think is important, with the proper context—not...

m.dailykos.com

Protection of the elected government from both a standing army, and an insurrectionist mob.

Daily Kos op ed.....

 

[Stryder50]

The Constitution 'applied' it much earlier.

" 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. "

Having lived under the "Power of the State" as expressed with a standing army of "occupation", which was first confronted by local "militias" of armed citizens, the Founders considered, in the context of the times, that a "militia"-"of the People" would be better for all than a Standing Army "of the State". "Standing Army of the State" being the main and first tool of a tyranny.

Also consider that at the times, with Westward expansion into the frontier, those settlers sometimes encounter hostile animals; bear, wolves, cougar, etc. they would need to defend themselves from, as well as other animals that were "game" for food. Then there were frequent differences with the Native Americans, many tribes of such having been recruited and fought for the British during the War of Independence.

Much of this rolling debate on the meaning/intent of the 2nd Amendment most often reflects the depth of ignorance of history, common sense shortfall, urban(city living) lifestyle perception distortion, and unrealistic expectation of level of police protection to prevent violence. That is, when it's not just outright deception and sedition to undermine the freedom of the citizens.

BTW "arms" would include the sabre and foils hanging on my wall, the archery equipment I have, and maybe even my chef's knife in the kitchen. Oh yeah, likewise the axes and mauls I use to wood cut and maybe even my pitchfork. And baseball bats. Anything that might be used as an "arm" or weapon.

Meanwhile, I want a law that anyone whom opposes my right to carry(usually concealed) a firearm(pistol) has to wear a large yellow armband that identifies them as one who doesn't want me to use my firearm to defend them should they be attacked by a thug/mugger or hooligan.

 

[Concerned American]

Much of this rolling debate on the meaning/intent of the 2nd Amendment

There is no debate--SCOTUS has ruled. The only debate is in your shallow mind that refuses to accept the reality of the law.

 

[Stryder50]

There is no debate--SCOTUS has ruled. The only debate is in your shallow mind that refuses to accept the reality of the law.

Only shallow mind in play here is yours in thinking any ruling from SCOTUS is a final ruling. SCOTUS has changed positions/rulings in the past, will likely do so in the future.