The real meaning of the 2nd Amendment

[Bob Blaylock]

Pointing out how deranged your cult is? Definitely not.

It must be awfully crowded in your head, with almost seventeen million of us Mormons living rent-free therein.

 

[2aguy]

It must be awfully crowded in your head, with almost seventeen million of us Mormons living rent-free therein.

I have to say it is funny when he attacks Mormons........he votes for a political party created by actual slave rapists.....a party that started a Civil War to keep slaves and rape them........a political party that started the KKK to murder blacks and republicans....a political party to this day, that has destroyed the black family through their "Great Society," program and a political party today, where the minorities in the cities the party controls are suffering from murder, generational poverty and hopelessness...

He votes for that....every single election.....and then makes fun of Mormons.....

This is how you can tell the left are insane....and shouldn't be allowed anywhere near power.....

 

[SavannahMann]

Nope........they had rifles and pistols at home and were allowed to carry them....but thanks for playing.

Not so much.

Five types of gun laws the Founding Fathers loved

A leading historian of constitutional thought says the contemporary Second Amendment debate is founded on serious misunderstandings.

theconversation.com

 

[2aguy]

Not so much.

Five types of gun laws the Founding Fathers loved

A leading historian of constitutional thought says the contemporary Second Amendment debate is founded on serious misunderstandings.

theconversation.com

#1 is a lie...registering as a member of the militia is not gun registration...you idiot.

#2 is also a lie.....Scalia goes through this...traveling armed to cause trouble was banned...but not being armed....

#3...... Since the paper they use to justify attacking Stand Your Ground laws mentions the Trevon Martin shooting...it starts out legally inaccurate, since Stand Your Ground was not part of the Zimmerman Defense, and was not used in the trial........he was pinned to the ground by Martin, therefore Standing His Ground was not an option.......

#4....Safe Storage Laws......really? They had black powder weapons......and actually posed a fire hazard.....which is why the main powder stores of the militia were kept in a separate building, but the Americans in the militia still kept a ration of powder with them at all times.........doofus......

#5... Loyalty Oaths?


Wow....another dumb, anti-gun fanatic post.....

 

[M14 Shooter]

Not so much.

Five types of gun laws the Founding Fathers loved

A leading historian of constitutional thought says the contemporary Second Amendment debate is founded on serious misunderstandings.

theconversation.com

Your ignorance is laughable
No one was required to register their guns as a condition of ownership; no one was required to be enrolled in the militia to own a gun, and the people enrolled in the militia registered themselves, not their weapons.
Firearms, see , did not have serial numbers back then.

 

[JoeB131]

I have to say it is funny when he attacks Mormons........he votes for a political party created by actual slave rapists.....a party that started a Civil War to keep slaves and rape them........a political party that started the KKK to murder blacks and republicans....a political party to this day, that has destroyed the black family through their "Great Society," program and a political party today, where the minorities in the cities the party controls are suffering from murder, generational poverty and hopelessness...

Obviously, you have no idea about the history of the Democratic party or the Mormon Cult.

This information was deviously hidden from you in things called "Books".

 

[JoeB131]

It must be awfully crowded in your head, with almost seventeen million of us Mormons living rent-free therein.

Naw, man, I had my revenge on your cult when Romney lost. They were crying all the way to planet Kolob.

 

[2aguy]

Obviously, you have no idea about the history of the Democratic party or the Mormon Cult.

This information was deviously hidden from you in things called "Books".

The democrat party was created by two slave owners……according to your very own standard that makes them slave rapists…since the democrat party started the war to keep slaves….they started the war to keep raping their slaves……just following your beliefs…

 

[JoeB131]

The democrat party was created by two slave owners……according to your very own standard that makes them slave rapists…since the democrat party started the war to keep slaves….they started the war to keep raping their slaves……just following your beliefs…

.And when the Democrats asked those people to leave, Tricky Dick welcomed them with open arms.

 

[2aguy]

.And when the Democrats asked those people to leave, Tricky Dick welcomed them with open arms.

Yeah…..you guys try that lame ass lie……the Republicans freed blacks from their democrat party rapists, protected them from the democrat party rapist klan members ….. and then you guys try to call the republicans the racists…..

 

[2aguy]

.And when the Democrats asked those people to leave, Tricky Dick welcomed them with open arms.

The democrats never asked them to leave…. They just told them to hide their racism to get to get black votes…..

 

[JoeB131]

Yeah…..you guys try that lame ass lie……the Republicans freed blacks from their democrat party rapists, protected them from the democrat party rapist klan members ….. and then you guys try to call the republicans the racists…..

Yeah, they did that ONLY because the South tried to secede. Not because they wanted to.

Then Rutherford B. Hayes gave up on civil rights and the GOP never looked back.

The democrats never asked them to leave…. They just told them to hide their racism to get to get black votes…..

Actually, they left after LBJ signed the CRA's of 64 and 68, and Nixon welcomed them with open arms.

 

[2aguy]

Yeah, they did that ONLY because the South tried to secede. Not because they wanted to.

Then Rutherford B. Hayes gave up on civil rights and the GOP never looked back.



Actually, they left after LBJ signed the CRA's of 64 and 68, and Nixon welcomed them with open arms.

Wrong….you keep voting for the slave rapist party, then pretend to hold the moral high ground….

 

[woodwork201]

Yes, if you want to tell yourself that... but no. The Second and Third are clearly about militias.

The Fourth through Eighth are about limits on the courts.

And the Ninth and tenth are kind of catch alls for anything they hadn't thought of.

Actually, the Third Amendment has nothing at all to do with militias.

No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.​

During times of peace, the only people who are Federal soldiers are the standing army. The militia are only Federal soldiers when called up in a very short, explicit, set of circumstances outlined in the Constitution.

There's no way to get to what you claim.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Who suggested that the 2nd Amendment says it's legal to take up arms against the government? I must have missed that post.

But I did quote the absolute proof that the intent was an individual right of the people. In the original submitted text, the amendment said the people have the right to keep and bear arms - and that was the first of multiple independent clauses. That in merging all the different proposals and expectations into a single, more succinct, amendment, the order of the two clauses were reversed, even changing the relationship into prefatory and operative clauses, the intent and meaning did not change and was not intended to change.

Had the intent and meaning changed then those states which had demanded that the right of the people to keep and bear arms would not have voted for the 4th proposed (which became the 2nd ratified) amendment.

The States did not vote for the Bill of Rights; they ratified 10 out of 12 proposed Amendments sent to them by the Congress. In their ratifications they were explicit about which they approved. Five States insisted in their ratifying documents of the Constitution that the people's right to keep and bear arms must be included in the upcoming bill of rights. Not a single one of those five voted against the passing of the 4th amendment in the list, which came to be the 2nd amendment passed:

New Hampshire

In the House of Representatives, Jan. 25, 1790.​

Upon reading and maturely considering the proposed amendments to the federal constitution, Voted, To accept the whole of said amendments except the second article, which was rejected.​

Virginia

Resolved, That the second, third, fourth, fifth, sixth, seventh, eighth, ninth, tenth, eleventh, and twelfth articles of the amendments proposed by Congress to the constitution of the United States, be ratified by this commonwealth.​

New York

And whereas the legislature of this state have considered the said articles, and do agree to the same, except the second article.​

North Carolina

Be it therefore enacted by the general assembly of the state of North Carolina, and it is hereby enacted by the authority of the same, That the said amendments agreeable to the fifth article of the original constitution, be held and ratified on the part of this state, as articles in addition to, and amendment of the constitution of the United States of America.​

Rhode Island

Be it enacted by the general assembly, and by the authority thereof it is hereby enacted, That the following articles, proposed by the Congress of the United States of America, at their session in March, A. D. 1789, to the legislatures of the several states for ratification, as amendments to the constitution of the United States, pursuant to the fifth article of the said constitution, be, and the same are hereby fully assented to, and ratified on the part of this state​

​

Had any of those five states, all of which were explicit in their insistence the people's right to keep and bear arms, believed that the amendment had been changed to explicitly strip from the people the protection of the right to keep and bear arms, they would have voted against the 4th, which became the 2nd, amendment.

None of the five voted against the 4th, which became the 2nd, amendment which is absolute proof that they all understood that the right to keep and bear arms as proposed by the States to the Congress and the right to keep and bear arms as proposed by the Congress for ratification had the same meaning.

At no other place in the Constitution do you or the left attempt to claim that "people" is the collective.

In the preamble, does "We the people" refer to the States?

In Article 1, Section 2, does it say that the States will elect the members of the House of Representatives?

In the 1st Amendment, does it give the States the right to assemble to and petition the goverment or is assembling to petition the government an individual right?

In the 4th Amendment, does it secure the right of the States to be secure from unreasonable search and seizure or is it an individual right to be secure from search and seizure?

In the 9th Amendment, you know - the one you like to claim secures the right to abortion, does it secure unenumerated rights to the State or to the individual? Did it secure the right of the State to abort babies or did it secure the right of birthing people to become aborting people?

In the 10th Amendment, were the powers not delegated to the United States reserved to the States and to the States? Or were they reserved to the States and to the People?

Did the 17th Amendment require that the State elect its senators? How does the State do that? Or did it require that the People, each with their individual vote, elect the senators?

Why, in every other case where the word People is used in the Constitution, as amended, the word refers to the individuals but in this one case, you pretend it referred to the collective?

None of the firearm regulatory measures proposed by Democrats are un-Constitutional and do not violate the Second Amendment – including UBCs, AWBs, and magazine capacity restrictions, having never been invalidated by the Supreme Court.

Such measures are perfectly consistent with current Second Amendment jurisprudence.

Conservatives are lying when they claim that such measures ‘violate’ the Second Amendment.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

The entire Bill of Rights was about the rights of the people not the government.

The state has no rights, the government has no rights.

THE PEOPLE have rights

The liberties enshrined in the Bill of Rights are neither unlimited nor absolute.

Government has the authority reflecting the will of the people to place limits and restriction on our rights consistent with applicable case law – including the Second Amendment right.

 

[M14 Shooter]

The liberties enshrined in the Bill of Rights are neither unlimited nor absolute.

Just like the right to an abortion.
Oh. Wait.

 

[woodwork201]

Really, I could have sworn it was Trump standing on that Podium screaming at his followers... It was on TV and everything.

Please link any videos that show Trump calling for violence instead of calling for a peaceful protest.

 

[2aguy]

None of the firearm regulatory measures proposed by Democrats are un-Constitutional and do not violate the Second Amendment – including UBCs, AWBs, and magazine capacity restrictions, having never been invalidated by the Supreme Court.

Such measures are perfectly consistent with current Second Amendment jurisprudence.

Conservatives are lying when they claim that such measures ‘violate’ the Second Amendment.

And you are lying when you pretend to know what you are talking about…..they all violate the Constitution

 

[woodwork201]

Nope........they had rifles and pistols at home and were allowed to carry them....but thanks for playing.

And cannons and warships. And machine guns.