The Second Amendment Was A Failure From The Start, And Should Have Been Repealed 200 Years Ago

[Calypso Jones]

There are more guns in the Hands of LawaBiding citizens than there are citizens in the US. 400,000,000. to be exact. Keep that in mind. Good people...and tyrants.

Gun Restrictions Handicap Law-Abiding Citizens Under the Guise of Making Them Safer

 

[martybegan]

Move

Shouldn't have to as the 2nd is my right as a US citizen.

Maybe if all prog gun control proposals didn't look like NYC laws, where it takes 3-6 months and $500 in fees just to keep a fucking revolver in your own house or apartment, we would trust you fucking assholes.

 

[JustAGuy1]

Nah, this wasn't posted to you. Of course you are a gun lover, and gun lovers let postal workers flip out and kill others in their postal office, along with children in schools, and in other situations for those who buy guns legally and for fun.

I only have 2 12 gauges, Pheasant. Guns aren't things to love or hate, they are tools. Fact, there is no Law you could pass that would stop this. Not one, but Progs are about virtue signaling, nothing more.

 

[JustAGuy1]

I suppose, but those of us in California west of the Sierra have empathy.

"Empathy"
the action of understanding, being aware of, being sensitive to, and vicariously experiencing the feelings, thoughts, and experience of another of either the past or present without having the feelings, thoughts, and experience fully communicated in an objectively explicit manner.

Virtue signaling, nothing more.

 

[Rye Catcher]

"Empathy"
the action of understanding, being aware of, being sensitive to, and vicariously experiencing the feelings, thoughts, and experience of another of either the past or present without having the feelings, thoughts, and experience fully communicated in an objectively explicit manner.

Virtue signaling, nothing more.

Nothing more, yeah that's true in the minds of those who kill by sport and support putting a gun into the hands of every person.

 

[Pellinore]

the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Not the right of the militia.

Yeah. Back then, "bear arms" meant to carry it into battle, not just to pick it up.

To them, carrying your huntin' rifle off into the woods every day didn't count as "bearing arms." It referred specifically to militia use.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Yeah. Back then, "bear arms" meant to carry it into battle, not just to pick it up.

To them, carrying your huntin' rifle off into the woods every day didn't count as "bearing arms." It referred specifically to militia use.

The people had the right to carry their arms into battle? Cool!

It referred specifically to militia use.

Which is why it said the right of the people, not the right of the militia.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Almost all the other amendments have been incorporated, why would the 2nd be any different?

It's a right I have as a US Citizen and can't be taken away just because I am a Citizen of New York.

Although they repeatedly try.

It was the original intent of the Framers that the Second Amendment protect the states from Federal interference and overreach – nothing more.

Heller was a partisan contrivance intended to begin the process of undermining state firearm regulatory measures conservatives didn’t like.

Because the Second Amendment safeguarded a collective right and the right of the states from Federal interference, the Heller Court fabricated an individual right unconnected to militia service.

The McDonald Court in 2010 continued that process by incorporating the Second Amendment to the states and local jurisdictions, in violation of states’ rights, jeopardizing state firearm regulatory measures reflecting the will of the people of the states.

With the Second Amendment now incorporated, the partisan right is at liberty to use the courts to attack and overturn state firearm regulatory measures Republicans disapprove of.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Not the right of the militia.

Wrong.

The Second Amendment was a collective – not individual – right as intended by the Framers; a right that shall not be infringed upon by the Federal government, ensuring the autonomy of state militias and states’ rights.

We know this to be true because the sole purpose of the Heller case was to eliminate the collective right; if the Second Amendment recognized an individual right from the outset there’d be no need for Heller.

 

[martybegan]

It was the original intent of the Framers that the Second Amendment protect the states from Federal interference and overreach – nothing more.

Heller was a partisan contrivance intended to begin the process of undermining state firearm regulatory measures conservatives didn’t like.

Because the Second Amendment safeguarded a collective right and the right of the states from Federal interference, the Heller Court fabricated an individual right unconnected to militia service.

The McDonald Court in 2010 continued that process by incorporating the Second Amendment to the states and local jurisdictions, in violation of states’ rights, jeopardizing state firearm regulatory measures reflecting the will of the people of the states.

With the Second Amendment now incorporated, the partisan right is at liberty to use the courts to attack and overturn state firearm regulatory measures Republicans disapprove of.

Militias were part of the framers intent for State protection, hence the FIRST part of the 2nd amendment.

The SECOND part of the amendment gives the PEOPLE the right to keep and bear arms.

The PROBLEM is States and Cities like NYC implementing de facto bans via OVER regulation, such as needing to wait 3-6 months and pay $500 just to keep a revolver around your own home or apartment. How is that not infringement?

Notice also the 2nd amendment doesn't just restrict CONGRESS from making rules over firearms, like it says in the 1st amendment about speech freedoms and religious freedoms. the 2nd merely gives a right to THE PEOPLE and says it must not be infringed.

 

[martybegan]

Wrong.

The Second Amendment was a collective – not individual – right as intended by the Framers; a right that shall not be infringed upon by the Federal government, ensuring the autonomy of state militias and states’ rights.

We know this to be true because the sole purpose of the Heller case was to eliminate the collective right; if the Second Amendment recognized an individual right from the outset there’d be no need for Heller.

You still ignore the 2nd part, AFTER the comma, which gives the Right to Keep and Bear Arms to the PEOPLE.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

The Second Amendment was a collective – not individual – right as intended by the Framers;

Of course it was.

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.

That's why it says "the right of the people" not "the right of the militia".

 

[Devils_Advocate]

Now I understand what being postal is all about.

It was a saying back in the late 1980’s to early 1990’s about delivery people for the post office snapping…

 

[Devils_Advocate]

The issue the left will face is you do not have the States willing to Amend the Constitution, so the discussion is moot.

You can do State to State laws that could limit certain firearms and even ban at the Federal again for certain firearms or make the requirements for certain firearms more stringent by classifying certain firearms in the same class as the Uzi but with Manchin in your way this will be impossible…

 

[JustAGuy1]

Nothing more, yeah that's true in the minds of those who kill by sport and support putting a gun into the hands of every person.

You don't have feathers, you're safe. Virtue signaling, nothing more what's funny is that you sincerely can't that it is no different that "Thoughts and Prayers".

 

[hadit]

The states should determine how to regulate firearms, not tyrants in black robes legislating from the bench ignoring the will of the people.

If the will of the people is strong enough, the Constitution can be amended. Until then, it is the will of the people to obey the Constitution, no whatever your personal preference happens to be.

 

[Pellinore]

The people had the right to carry their arms into battle? Cool!

It referred specifically to militia use.

Which is why it said the right of the people, not the right of the militia.

Yes, they did! They were concerned that the federal government would disband the state militias, then use their goons to collect taxes and stuff.

Ask yourself this: Why didn't the framers of the Bill of Rights use the word "person," as they did in the Fifth Amendment? Why not "the right of a person"?

The First uses "people" to refer to assembly, which is by definition plural. The Third says "Owner" rather than "Owners" because it is individual, about the singular owner of one house. The Fourth guarantees "The right of the people to be secure in their persons," with the last two words confirming that again, "people" is plural. The Sixth uses "his," and not "their." The Ninth and Tenth use the word "people" to refer to the State governments.

"People" means a collective group of people here. If they were referring to each individual person, it would have read "the right of a person."

They never debated individual ownership; it never crossed their minds or their desks. They were always talking about the right of the State to assemble its militia on the village green, to resist the might of a central tyrant.

 

[hadit]

Yes, they did! They were concerned that the federal government would disband the state militias, then use their goons to collect taxes and stuff.

Ask yourself this: Why didn't the framers of the Bill of Rights use the word "person," as they did in the Fifth Amendment? Why not "the right of a person"?

The First uses "people" to refer to assembly, which is by definition plural. The Third says "Owner" rather than "Owners" because it is individual, about the singular owner of one house. The Fourth guarantees "The right of the people to be secure in their persons," with the last two words confirming that again, "people" is plural. The Sixth uses "his," and not "their." The Ninth and Tenth use the word "people" to refer to the State governments.

"People" means a collective group of people here. If they were referring to each individual person, it would have read "the right of a person."

They never debated individual ownership; it never crossed their minds or their desks. They were always talking about the right of the State to assemble its militia on the village green, to resist the might of a central tyrant.

The Supreme Court reads that differently.

 

[martybegan]

Yes, they did! They were concerned that the federal government would disband the state militias, then use their goons to collect taxes and stuff.

Ask yourself this: Why didn't the framers of the Bill of Rights use the word "person," as they did in the Fifth Amendment? Why not "the right of a person"?

The First uses "people" to refer to assembly, which is by definition plural. The Third says "Owner" rather than "Owners" because it is individual, about the singular owner of one house. The Fourth guarantees "The right of the people to be secure in their persons," with the last two words confirming that again, "people" is plural. The Sixth uses "his," and not "their." The Ninth and Tenth use the word "people" to refer to the State governments.

"People" means a collective group of people here. If they were referring to each individual person, it would have read "the right of a person."

They never debated individual ownership; it never crossed their minds or their desks. They were always talking about the right of the State to assemble its militia on the village green, to resist the might of a central tyrant.

And those "people" brought their own military grade weapons with them, they owned them.

If the framers wanted to limit the right to the Militia they wouldn't have needed the 2nd part of the 2nd to say "the people", they just would have said "the State" or the "Militia" if it was a collective right.

 

[martybegan]

The Supreme Court reads that differently.

And only had to answer it when the left decided it was a "collective right", not because it actually only is a collective right.