The 2nd Amendment (Why we our Founders wrote it)

[there4eyeM]

At the end of the 18th century, an armed group could hypothetically have matched a professional army though Shay's Rebellion didn't turn out well). Romantic ideas of how today's over-armed vigilantes might resist a modern force are silly at best.

 

[Skull Pilot]

No mind reader, and you clearly didn't read what I had actually written either. You decided what I had written meant something that it didn't say. It happens too much for me not to get annoyed at it.

I am absolutely 100% positive that I read every single word.

Well it's not what light infantry would have. It was always the weapons that citizens carried around in their normal daily life.

I read militia as light infantry because that's what a militia is.

I didn't say there was a limitation on the number of arms. I said what the Amendment means, which is that the feds can't prevent individuals from having arms. If you have a handgun, have I prevented you from having arms? No, I have not. If I prevent you having two guns, am I preventing you from having arms? No, I'm not.

Actually, yes. Yes to are preventing me from having arms. Allowing one and preventing another still is preventing arms. The dead give way is the word preventing.

Maybe you read every word, however a lot of people end up thinking from their preconceived ideas on the subject, rather than trying to understand what is actually there.

The militia isn't "light infantry" at all. The militia is a citizen army. You look at rebel groups, which is what the militia would become if it ever had to fight against the US armed forces, and you see that they use all sorts of weaponry. However in the modern era they'd need more than just guns. In the past it was merely the sort of guns that people had for normal use, and that would be handguns for the most part.

No, allowing one and banning another is NOT preventing you from having arms. It is preventing you from having specific arms. However no one has ever argued that individuals be allowed to have nuclear weaponry, SAM missiles, or other such things. There are clearly limits to what arms can be had.

Semi automatic rifles with high capacity magazine is all we need to maintain liberty and freedom. Plus a good semi-automatic sidearm and shottie. Gotta have the shottie.

Liberty and freedom huh? A murder rate 4 times the norm is what you get with less than that. You'd not get liberty and freedom, but fear and killing.

Ever wondered why the US has the highest murder rate in the first world? And why the Americas are much worse than other continents?

the norm?

What is the norm?

FYI our murder rate is the same as it was in 1950 and is still declining despite the liberal murder capital of Chicago and other high crime cities

and another FYI the murder rate of the UK is the same as ir was in 1950 despite the draconian gun control laws passed in the 60's

 

[Skull Pilot]

A study undertaken by the Geneva Declaration on Armed Violence and Development estimated that there were approximately 490,000 intentional homicides in 2004. The study estimated that the global rate was 7.6 intentional homicides per 100,000 inhabitants for 2004.[5] UNODC (United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime) reported a global average intentional homicide rate of 6.2 per 100,000 population for 2012 (in their report titled "Global Study on Homicide 2013").[6][7] UNODC calculated a rate of 6.9 in 2010.[8]

It seems the "norm" for murders in the world is higher than the US murder rate

 

[ding]

It does negate your point if your point is that citizens are not allowed to own guns unless they are in a militia.

That is my point. Why put the word 'militia' in in the first place? Why not say "All free People, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

it's superfluous otherwise.

Not exactly. Citizens acting as a militia conveys cause. Since it was believed that the whole body of the people are the militia, I believe it conveys that the whole body of the people have the right, acting as a Constitutionally valid militia, to rise up against a tyrannical government. In effect, our Founding Fathers needed to write the DOI for their authority to rise up and overthrow their tyrannical government. We the people do not because that authority has already been given to us in the 2nd Amendment.

 

[ding]

Liberty and freedom huh? A murder rate 4 times the norm is what you get with less than that. You'd not get liberty and freedom, but fear and killing.

Ever wondered why the US has the highest murder rate in the first world? And why the Americas are much worse than other continents?

Gun violence and gun accidents are a cost of freedom and liberty. If you are truly concerned about the murder rate with guns, you would be more concerned with inner city violence which is why our murder rate is so high. I'll provide the numbers for you after I get back from work.

 

[rightwinger]

More gun nut fantasies... Gubmint fucks wit me, I'm gunna grab my shooting iron and me and the boys will put them in their fucking place Modern Army with modern weapons and tactics will put you in your place

Red Dawn......Wolverine!

"Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed, as they are in almost every country in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops." - Noah Webster, An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution, October 10, 1787

"If circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little, if at all, inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow-citizens. This appears to me the only substitute that can be devised for a standing army, and the best possible security against it, if it should exist." - - Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 28

Now do you understand.

You make it sound like if you take up arms against our country, you will be the good guys...you won't.

Large numbers of armed citizens without training, leadership, command and control or a logistics system are just targets

Why would I need to take up arms against my country? Like I've already mentioned at least 5 times in this thread, before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed. Do you think you know something I don't, skippy?

Now do you understand?

No people do not need to be disarmed. Their ability to form an effective fighting force is limited. An army is more than a "bunch of guys with guns" It takes training, tactics, communications, command and control plus the all important logistics
Most importantly it takes a willingness to die for your cause.....something our gun nuts lack

 

[rightwinger]

It does negate your point if your point is that citizens are not allowed to own guns unless they are in a militia.

That is my point. Why put the word 'militia' in in the first place? Why not say "All free People, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

it's superfluous otherwise.

Militias served a limited role in the Revolution and those were "Well regulated militias" that had a command structure, training and weapons equivalent to the enemy.....even then, they were routinely routed by the British

 

[Boss]

Liberty and freedom huh? A murder rate 4 times the norm is what you get with less than that. You'd not get liberty and freedom, but fear and killing.

Ever wondered why the US has the highest murder rate in the first world? And why the Americas are much worse than other continents?

Where do you get your bogus data? According to the UN Office on Drugs and Crime, the US ranks 108th in intentional homicides at 3.9 per 100k. That's around middle of the pack.
List of countries by intentional homicide rate - Wikipedia

 

[rightwinger]

Liberty and freedom huh? A murder rate 4 times the norm is what you get with less than that. You'd not get liberty and freedom, but fear and killing.

Ever wondered why the US has the highest murder rate in the first world? And why the Americas are much worse than other continents?

Where do you get your bogus data? According to the UN Office on Drugs and Crime, the US ranks 108th in intentional homicides at 3.9 per 100k. That's around middle of the pack.
List of countries by intentional homicide rate - Wikipedia

Middle of the pack is good enough?

Look at the third world countries that we are better than....make you proud?

 

[Boss]

Middle of the pack is good enough?

Look at the third world countries that we are better than....make you proud?

He said "highest in the first world" and "4 times the norm" which are incorrect. I was correcting the record.

Yes, I think middle of the pack is good enough to make the argument for our freedom to bear arms. When you remove the gang and crime-related murders, I imagine we're down near the bottom of the list.

 

[Boss]

Middle of the pack is good enough?

Look at the third world countries that we are better than....make you proud?

According to the anti-gun liberal argument, Chicago, Illinois should have the lowest violent crime rate in America because Illinois has the strictest gun laws in the country. However, statistics show that not to be the case at all. More people have been killed in Chicago this year than soldiers in Afghanistan.

 

[rightwinger]

Middle of the pack is good enough?

Look at the third world countries that we are better than....make you proud?

According to the anti-gun liberal argument, Chicago, Illinois should have the lowest violent crime rate in America because Illinois has the strictest gun laws in the country. However, statistics show that not to be the case at all. More people have been killed in Chicago this year than soldiers in Afghanistan.

Yea....maybe if Trump built a wall around Chicago and we could restrict guns

But our 32,000 gun fatalities a year go well beyond the gang bangers. They include suicides, domestic violence, criminal uses, accidents

Having a gun in a volatile situation rarely makes it better

 

[Boss]

Yea....maybe if Trump built a wall around Chicago and we could restrict guns

But our 32,000 gun fatalities a year go well beyond the gang bangers. They include suicides, domestic violence, criminal uses, accidents

Having a gun in a volatile situation rarely makes it better

LOL... According to Hillary they're toddlers!

I doubt many suicides would be prevented because the person didn't have a gun. I also doubt that many domestic violence deaths would be prevented because there wasn't a gun available. According to the Bible, the first domestic violence murder was done with a rock. People are gonna do what they're gonna do.

Having a gun in a situation where you need to defend yourself usually works out better.

 

[rightwinger]

Yea....maybe if Trump built a wall around Chicago and we could restrict guns

But our 32,000 gun fatalities a year go well beyond the gang bangers. They include suicides, domestic violence, criminal uses, accidents

Having a gun in a volatile situation rarely makes it better

LOL... According to Hillary they're toddlers!

I doubt many suicides would be prevented because the person didn't have a gun. I also doubt that many domestic violence deaths would be prevented because there wasn't a gun available. According to the Bible, the first domestic violence murder was done with a rock. People are gonna do what they're gonna do.

Having a gun in a situation where you need to defend yourself usually works out better.

Gun makes a big difference and its results are generally permanent

Try to kill yourself with pills and you have an hour to change your mind....with a gun, you have a split second

 

[Skull Pilot]

Liberty and freedom huh? A murder rate 4 times the norm is what you get with less than that. You'd not get liberty and freedom, but fear and killing.

Ever wondered why the US has the highest murder rate in the first world? And why the Americas are much worse than other continents?

Where do you get your bogus data? According to the UN Office on Drugs and Crime, the US ranks 108th in intentional homicides at 3.9 per 100k. That's around middle of the pack.
List of countries by intentional homicide rate - Wikipedia

Middle of the pack is good enough?

Look at the third world countries that we are better than....make you proud?

Gun control doesn't reduce the murder rate

We have the exact same murder rate as we did in 1950 despite the thousands of gun laws enacted in the last 60 years

The UK has the same murder rate it did in 1950 despite the passing the most draconian gun laws in their history in the 1960's

 

[rightwinger]

In actuality....our founders were wrong on the second amendment

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State........

In practice, militias, regulated or not are not necessary to the security of a free State. The US has never relied on militias to provide our security. No other free state in the world uses militias for security

In todays world, the idea of an impromptu militia is unworkable and has been abandoned for over 150 years

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

No mind reader, and you clearly didn't read what I had actually written either. You decided what I had written meant something that it didn't say. It happens too much for me not to get annoyed at it.

I am absolutely 100% positive that I read every single word.

Well it's not what light infantry would have. It was always the weapons that citizens carried around in their normal daily life.

I read militia as light infantry because that's what a militia is.

I didn't say there was a limitation on the number of arms. I said what the Amendment means, which is that the feds can't prevent individuals from having arms. If you have a handgun, have I prevented you from having arms? No, I have not. If I prevent you having two guns, am I preventing you from having arms? No, I'm not.

Actually, yes. Yes to are preventing me from having arms. Allowing one and preventing another still is preventing arms. The dead give way is the word preventing.

Maybe you read every word, however a lot of people end up thinking from their preconceived ideas on the subject, rather than trying to understand what is actually there.

The militia isn't "light infantry" at all. The militia is a citizen army. You look at rebel groups, which is what the militia would become if it ever had to fight against the US armed forces, and you see that they use all sorts of weaponry. However in the modern era they'd need more than just guns. In the past it was merely the sort of guns that people had for normal use, and that would be handguns for the most part.

No, allowing one and banning another is NOT preventing you from having arms. It is preventing you from having specific arms. However no one has ever argued that individuals be allowed to have nuclear weaponry, SAM missiles, or other such things. There are clearly limits to what arms can be had.

Semi automatic rifles with high capacity magazine is all we need to maintain liberty and freedom. Plus a good semi-automatic sidearm and shottie. Gotta have the shottie.

Wrong.

Following Constitutional jurisprudence and the rule of law is all we need to maintain liberty and freedom; and that starts with acknowledging the fact that the Second Amendment doesn’t ‘trump’ the First, as there can be no just and proper ‘armed rebellion’ absent the consent of the people.

 

[Boss]

Following Constitutional jurisprudence and the rule of law is all we need to maintain liberty and freedom; and that starts with acknowledging the fact that the Second Amendment doesn’t ‘trump’ the First, as there can be no just and proper ‘armed rebellion’ absent the consent of the people.

The so-called "rule of law" becomes nullified once a tyrannical regime takes over our government and that's what people are talking about here. You and other shitstain liberals want to envision some right-wing redneck uprising where Billy Bob and Bubba grab their shotguns and head to Washington to get that danged old Commie who got themselves elected... .that's NOT the scenario in question.

So we are talking about two entirely different types of event and that needs to be very clearly stipulated here. We have a democratic political process for change of power in government and as long as that is working and functioning as it is supposed to, there is no "tyrannical takeover" and no need for armed rebellion. Those making the argument for defending the country against a tyrannic government are specifically talking about a hostile takeover by an enemy of state. Like, if the Taliban came, went to Washington and killed everyone in Congress and seized the power of government. That's not very likely to happen but if it did, we could defend ourselves. That's the essence of the 2nd Amendment argument.

 

[Tennyson]

Following Constitutional jurisprudence and the rule of law is all we need to maintain liberty and freedom; and that starts with acknowledging the fact that the Second Amendment doesn’t ‘trump’ the First, as there can be no just and proper ‘armed rebellion’ absent the consent of the people.

The so-called "rule of law" becomes nullified once a tyrannical regime takes over our government and that's what people are talking about here. You and other shitstain liberals want to envision some right-wing redneck uprising where Billy Bob and Bubba grab their shotguns and head to Washington to get that danged old Commie who got themselves elected... .that's NOT the scenario in question.

So we are talking about two entirely different types of event and that needs to be very clearly stipulated here. We have a democratic political process for change of power in government and as long as that is working and functioning as it is supposed to, there is no "tyrannical takeover" and no need for armed rebellion. Those making the argument for defending the country against a tyrannic government are specifically talking about a hostile takeover by an enemy of state. Like, if the Taliban came, went to Washington and killed everyone in Congress and seized the power of government. That's not very likely to happen but if it did, we could defend ourselves. That's the essence of the 2nd Amendment argument.

These living constitution advocates cannot connect the dots that the rule of law and a living constitution are two seperate concepts.

Living constitution, mob rule, stare decisis, common law doctrine to bind constitutional law, and case law dependency are all antithetical to a written constitution.

 

[ding]

No people do not need to be disarmed. Their ability to form an effective fighting force is limited. An army is more than a "bunch of guys with guns" It takes training, tactics, communications, command and control plus the all important logistics
Most importantly it takes a willingness to die for your cause.....something our gun nuts lack

The Founding Fathers disagree with you, amigo.