Why was the second amendment written?

[bigrebnc1775]

The city of Kennesaw, Georgia requires every home to have a firearm inside. Their murder rate and their violent crime rate is one of the lowest in the entire United States.

Irrelevant because guns in the hands of law abiding people are not the problem



Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

My stats are just relevant as anyone else's here. If you make the proposition that Virginia is an anti-gun state and that leads to a decreased murder rate when federal laws are enforced, then you have to begin asking the uncomfortable questions:

1) WHO is enforcing federal laws? If you tell me the local and state government, then there is problem. State and local governments cannot be forced to enforce federal laws. Furthermore, I fear if they did that, the courts would tell them they could not cherry pick. So, if / when confiscations begin the court might compel the local and state government to do so since the state / local government policy was to enforce federal laws prior to confiscation.

In other forums, some people in Virginia are ready to go war against the government over an over-zealous gun policy. Should the militia determine that the Constitutional Liberties of the people are being jeopardized, they can count on me to show up and help defend the citizenry

2) If one state enacts an anti-gun policy and another state enacts an opposite, but equal pro - gun policy and BOTH show reductions in crime, then the pro - anti gun policy is irrelevant on both counts and something else is the deciding factor

3) Benjamin Franklin once said something to the effect that anyone who would give up essential Liberty for the promise of temporary Safety deserved neither Liberty NOR Safety. Therefore, applying my first two points, maybe you can employ something other than gun control and reduce firearms shootings.

Project Exile was a joint operation with Richmond and the US attorneys office.

Gun crimes were all tried in Federal Court and the offenders were sent to federal prison

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

FWIW: In 1997 some sheriffs made it to the United States Supreme Court saying that they would not enforce the Brady Bill as they were elected by local voters and could not be forced to enforce federal laws.

"The Court quoted Federalist No. 51’s argument that by giving voters control over dual sovereign governments "a double security arises to the rights of the people. The different governments will control each other, at the same time that each will be controlled by itself."[11][12] The Court concluded that allowing the Federal government to draft the police officers of the 50 states into its service would increase its powers far beyond what the Constitution intends.

The Court identified an additional structural problem with commandeering the Sheriffs: it violated the constitutional separation of powers by robbing the President of the United States of his power to execute the laws; contradicting the "unitary executive theory". The Court explained

We have thus far discussed the effect that federal control of state officers would have upon the first element of the "double security" alluded to by Madison: the division of power between State and Federal Governments. It would also have an effect upon the second element: the separation and equilibration of powers between the three branches of the Federal Government itself.

... The Government had argued that the anti-commandeering doctrine established in New York v. United States (1992), which held that Congress could not command state legislatures to either pass a law or take ownership of nuclear waste, did not apply to state officials.[6] Rejecting the Government's argument, the Court held that the Tenth Amendment categorically forbids the Federal Government from commanding state officials directly.[6] As such, the Brady Act's mandate on the Sheriffs to perform background checks was unconstitutional."

Printz v. United States - Wikipedia

Those of you wanting the state and local governments to enforce federal laws are destroying your own country. As it stands now, if the federal government wanted to circumvent the Constitution, the states have no independent power to refuse to enforce unconstitutional laws when they"sometimes" use locals to enforce federal laws (it's that whole equal protection of the laws thing.) So, you are advocating things like gun confiscation, gun bans, etc. if you want the states to enforce federal laws. If you're anti - gun, the precedent would mean that pro-pot states would have to abide by the federal laws and not turn a blind eye to the fact that pot is illegal under federal law.

Having a ONE WORLD GOVERNMENT comes with a heavy price tag.

You have a logical problem. The phrase, "Shall not be infringed" has never been enforced, from Plato to the Common Law and in Scalia's comments in Heller. The 9th A. and the 10th A. allow for The People to enforce gun laws, especially since the 2nd notes "arms" not only guns, and all kinds of weapons have been outlawed by law in counties, cities and towns and villages and States and even The Congress.

The 9th and 10th amendment have no ruling over the Second Amendment because the second amendment is within the Federal jurisdiction
[Tenth Amendment] The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
Are the bill of rights delegated to the United States Constitution?
Is not the second amendment part of the United States Constitution?

How about the 14th amendment?
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

 

[Rye Catcher]

Irrelevant because guns in the hands of law abiding people are not the problem



Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

My stats are just relevant as anyone else's here. If you make the proposition that Virginia is an anti-gun state and that leads to a decreased murder rate when federal laws are enforced, then you have to begin asking the uncomfortable questions:

1) WHO is enforcing federal laws? If you tell me the local and state government, then there is problem. State and local governments cannot be forced to enforce federal laws. Furthermore, I fear if they did that, the courts would tell them they could not cherry pick. So, if / when confiscations begin the court might compel the local and state government to do so since the state / local government policy was to enforce federal laws prior to confiscation.

In other forums, some people in Virginia are ready to go war against the government over an over-zealous gun policy. Should the militia determine that the Constitutional Liberties of the people are being jeopardized, they can count on me to show up and help defend the citizenry

2) If one state enacts an anti-gun policy and another state enacts an opposite, but equal pro - gun policy and BOTH show reductions in crime, then the pro - anti gun policy is irrelevant on both counts and something else is the deciding factor

3) Benjamin Franklin once said something to the effect that anyone who would give up essential Liberty for the promise of temporary Safety deserved neither Liberty NOR Safety. Therefore, applying my first two points, maybe you can employ something other than gun control and reduce firearms shootings.

Project Exile was a joint operation with Richmond and the US attorneys office.

Gun crimes were all tried in Federal Court and the offenders were sent to federal prison

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

FWIW: In 1997 some sheriffs made it to the United States Supreme Court saying that they would not enforce the Brady Bill as they were elected by local voters and could not be forced to enforce federal laws.

"The Court quoted Federalist No. 51’s argument that by giving voters control over dual sovereign governments "a double security arises to the rights of the people. The different governments will control each other, at the same time that each will be controlled by itself."[11][12] The Court concluded that allowing the Federal government to draft the police officers of the 50 states into its service would increase its powers far beyond what the Constitution intends.

The Court identified an additional structural problem with commandeering the Sheriffs: it violated the constitutional separation of powers by robbing the President of the United States of his power to execute the laws; contradicting the "unitary executive theory". The Court explained

We have thus far discussed the effect that federal control of state officers would have upon the first element of the "double security" alluded to by Madison: the division of power between State and Federal Governments. It would also have an effect upon the second element: the separation and equilibration of powers between the three branches of the Federal Government itself.

... The Government had argued that the anti-commandeering doctrine established in New York v. United States (1992), which held that Congress could not command state legislatures to either pass a law or take ownership of nuclear waste, did not apply to state officials.[6] Rejecting the Government's argument, the Court held that the Tenth Amendment categorically forbids the Federal Government from commanding state officials directly.[6] As such, the Brady Act's mandate on the Sheriffs to perform background checks was unconstitutional."

Printz v. United States - Wikipedia

Those of you wanting the state and local governments to enforce federal laws are destroying your own country. As it stands now, if the federal government wanted to circumvent the Constitution, the states have no independent power to refuse to enforce unconstitutional laws when they"sometimes" use locals to enforce federal laws (it's that whole equal protection of the laws thing.) So, you are advocating things like gun confiscation, gun bans, etc. if you want the states to enforce federal laws. If you're anti - gun, the precedent would mean that pro-pot states would have to abide by the federal laws and not turn a blind eye to the fact that pot is illegal under federal law.

Having a ONE WORLD GOVERNMENT comes with a heavy price tag.

You have a logical problem. The phrase, "Shall not be infringed" has never been enforced, from Plato to the Common Law and in Scalia's comments in Heller. The 9th A. and the 10th A. allow for The People to enforce gun laws, especially since the 2nd notes "arms" not only guns, and all kinds of weapons have been outlawed by law in counties, cities and towns and villages and States and even The Congress.

I'm not going to reread this thread, but I have refuted this argument before (and on this thread IIRC.) So, let me refute what you've just said:

“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)

Here is the United States Supreme Court ruling:

“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)

Now, let's get specific to gun control:

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 EARLIEST court rulings unequivocally REFUTE your position. It was not until ALL of the founders and framers were dead and buried that the United States Supreme Court began reversing their own opinions. That is contrary to the Rule of Law. Imagine today that you think you're law abiding. A statute has been written; the courts including the United States Supreme Court have ruled. So, you think you're obeying the law? No, you are not... the United States Supreme Court has a nasty habit of reversing their own opinions which is NOT allowed in the Constitution. George Washington warned against the practice:

"If in the opinion of the People, the distribution or modification of the Constitutional powers be in any particular wrong, let it be corrected by an amendment in the way which the Constitution designates. But let there be no change by usurpation; for though this, in one instance, may be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed."

FAREWELL ADDRESS TO THE PEOPLE OF THE UNITED STATES 1795

You can beat around the bush all you like, but the clear intent of the Constitution is 180 degrees opposite of what you believe. YOU have the problem with logic. For when the government tries to enforce tyrannical gun laws, the people have the moral and legal Right, Duty, and Obligation to show you what the Second Amendment was REALLY written for.

Let's agree to disagree.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

My stats are just relevant as anyone else's here. If you make the proposition that Virginia is an anti-gun state and that leads to a decreased murder rate when federal laws are enforced, then you have to begin asking the uncomfortable questions:

1) WHO is enforcing federal laws? If you tell me the local and state government, then there is problem. State and local governments cannot be forced to enforce federal laws. Furthermore, I fear if they did that, the courts would tell them they could not cherry pick. So, if / when confiscations begin the court might compel the local and state government to do so since the state / local government policy was to enforce federal laws prior to confiscation.

In other forums, some people in Virginia are ready to go war against the government over an over-zealous gun policy. Should the militia determine that the Constitutional Liberties of the people are being jeopardized, they can count on me to show up and help defend the citizenry

2) If one state enacts an anti-gun policy and another state enacts an opposite, but equal pro - gun policy and BOTH show reductions in crime, then the pro - anti gun policy is irrelevant on both counts and something else is the deciding factor

3) Benjamin Franklin once said something to the effect that anyone who would give up essential Liberty for the promise of temporary Safety deserved neither Liberty NOR Safety. Therefore, applying my first two points, maybe you can employ something other than gun control and reduce firearms shootings.

Project Exile was a joint operation with Richmond and the US attorneys office.

Gun crimes were all tried in Federal Court and the offenders were sent to federal prison

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

FWIW: In 1997 some sheriffs made it to the United States Supreme Court saying that they would not enforce the Brady Bill as they were elected by local voters and could not be forced to enforce federal laws.

"The Court quoted Federalist No. 51’s argument that by giving voters control over dual sovereign governments "a double security arises to the rights of the people. The different governments will control each other, at the same time that each will be controlled by itself."[11][12] The Court concluded that allowing the Federal government to draft the police officers of the 50 states into its service would increase its powers far beyond what the Constitution intends.

The Court identified an additional structural problem with commandeering the Sheriffs: it violated the constitutional separation of powers by robbing the President of the United States of his power to execute the laws; contradicting the "unitary executive theory". The Court explained

We have thus far discussed the effect that federal control of state officers would have upon the first element of the "double security" alluded to by Madison: the division of power between State and Federal Governments. It would also have an effect upon the second element: the separation and equilibration of powers between the three branches of the Federal Government itself.

... The Government had argued that the anti-commandeering doctrine established in New York v. United States (1992), which held that Congress could not command state legislatures to either pass a law or take ownership of nuclear waste, did not apply to state officials.[6] Rejecting the Government's argument, the Court held that the Tenth Amendment categorically forbids the Federal Government from commanding state officials directly.[6] As such, the Brady Act's mandate on the Sheriffs to perform background checks was unconstitutional."

Printz v. United States - Wikipedia

Those of you wanting the state and local governments to enforce federal laws are destroying your own country. As it stands now, if the federal government wanted to circumvent the Constitution, the states have no independent power to refuse to enforce unconstitutional laws when they"sometimes" use locals to enforce federal laws (it's that whole equal protection of the laws thing.) So, you are advocating things like gun confiscation, gun bans, etc. if you want the states to enforce federal laws. If you're anti - gun, the precedent would mean that pro-pot states would have to abide by the federal laws and not turn a blind eye to the fact that pot is illegal under federal law.

Having a ONE WORLD GOVERNMENT comes with a heavy price tag.

You have a logical problem. The phrase, "Shall not be infringed" has never been enforced, from Plato to the Common Law and in Scalia's comments in Heller. The 9th A. and the 10th A. allow for The People to enforce gun laws, especially since the 2nd notes "arms" not only guns, and all kinds of weapons have been outlawed by law in counties, cities and towns and villages and States and even The Congress.

I'm not going to reread this thread, but I have refuted this argument before (and on this thread IIRC.) So, let me refute what you've just said:

“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)

Here is the United States Supreme Court ruling:

“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)

Now, let's get specific to gun control:

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 EARLIEST court rulings unequivocally REFUTE your position. It was not until ALL of the founders and framers were dead and buried that the United States Supreme Court began reversing their own opinions. That is contrary to the Rule of Law. Imagine today that you think you're law abiding. A statute has been written; the courts including the United States Supreme Court have ruled. So, you think you're obeying the law? No, you are not... the United States Supreme Court has a nasty habit of reversing their own opinions which is NOT allowed in the Constitution. George Washington warned against the practice:

"If in the opinion of the People, the distribution or modification of the Constitutional powers be in any particular wrong, let it be corrected by an amendment in the way which the Constitution designates. But let there be no change by usurpation; for though this, in one instance, may be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed."

FAREWELL ADDRESS TO THE PEOPLE OF THE UNITED STATES 1795

You can beat around the bush all you like, but the clear intent of the Constitution is 180 degrees opposite of what you believe. YOU have the problem with logic. For when the government tries to enforce tyrannical gun laws, the people have the moral and legal Right, Duty, and Obligation to show you what the Second Amendment was REALLY written for.

Let's agree to disagree.

Do you have an absolute right to defend yourself in the best way, and using the most effective tool that you have experience with?

 

[Dick Foster]

I doubt many will agree on the purpose of the second amendment, but I'd love to hear why everybody thinks the second amendment was written. Personally, I understand that it was put there so that we could take back our government if they get out of control.

Well maybe the answer is in the first half of the sentence that is the second amendment. It's not exactly rocket science.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

My stats are just relevant as anyone else's here. If you make the proposition that Virginia is an anti-gun state and that leads to a decreased murder rate when federal laws are enforced, then you have to begin asking the uncomfortable questions:

1) WHO is enforcing federal laws? If you tell me the local and state government, then there is problem. State and local governments cannot be forced to enforce federal laws. Furthermore, I fear if they did that, the courts would tell them they could not cherry pick. So, if / when confiscations begin the court might compel the local and state government to do so since the state / local government policy was to enforce federal laws prior to confiscation.

In other forums, some people in Virginia are ready to go war against the government over an over-zealous gun policy. Should the militia determine that the Constitutional Liberties of the people are being jeopardized, they can count on me to show up and help defend the citizenry

2) If one state enacts an anti-gun policy and another state enacts an opposite, but equal pro - gun policy and BOTH show reductions in crime, then the pro - anti gun policy is irrelevant on both counts and something else is the deciding factor

3) Benjamin Franklin once said something to the effect that anyone who would give up essential Liberty for the promise of temporary Safety deserved neither Liberty NOR Safety. Therefore, applying my first two points, maybe you can employ something other than gun control and reduce firearms shootings.

Project Exile was a joint operation with Richmond and the US attorneys office.

Gun crimes were all tried in Federal Court and the offenders were sent to federal prison

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

FWIW: In 1997 some sheriffs made it to the United States Supreme Court saying that they would not enforce the Brady Bill as they were elected by local voters and could not be forced to enforce federal laws.

"The Court quoted Federalist No. 51’s argument that by giving voters control over dual sovereign governments "a double security arises to the rights of the people. The different governments will control each other, at the same time that each will be controlled by itself."[11][12] The Court concluded that allowing the Federal government to draft the police officers of the 50 states into its service would increase its powers far beyond what the Constitution intends.

The Court identified an additional structural problem with commandeering the Sheriffs: it violated the constitutional separation of powers by robbing the President of the United States of his power to execute the laws; contradicting the "unitary executive theory". The Court explained

We have thus far discussed the effect that federal control of state officers would have upon the first element of the "double security" alluded to by Madison: the division of power between State and Federal Governments. It would also have an effect upon the second element: the separation and equilibration of powers between the three branches of the Federal Government itself.

... The Government had argued that the anti-commandeering doctrine established in New York v. United States (1992), which held that Congress could not command state legislatures to either pass a law or take ownership of nuclear waste, did not apply to state officials.[6] Rejecting the Government's argument, the Court held that the Tenth Amendment categorically forbids the Federal Government from commanding state officials directly.[6] As such, the Brady Act's mandate on the Sheriffs to perform background checks was unconstitutional."

Printz v. United States - Wikipedia

Those of you wanting the state and local governments to enforce federal laws are destroying your own country. As it stands now, if the federal government wanted to circumvent the Constitution, the states have no independent power to refuse to enforce unconstitutional laws when they"sometimes" use locals to enforce federal laws (it's that whole equal protection of the laws thing.) So, you are advocating things like gun confiscation, gun bans, etc. if you want the states to enforce federal laws. If you're anti - gun, the precedent would mean that pro-pot states would have to abide by the federal laws and not turn a blind eye to the fact that pot is illegal under federal law.

Having a ONE WORLD GOVERNMENT comes with a heavy price tag.

You have a logical problem. The phrase, "Shall not be infringed" has never been enforced, from Plato to the Common Law and in Scalia's comments in Heller. The 9th A. and the 10th A. allow for The People to enforce gun laws, especially since the 2nd notes "arms" not only guns, and all kinds of weapons have been outlawed by law in counties, cities and towns and villages and States and even The Congress.

I'm not going to reread this thread, but I have refuted this argument before (and on this thread IIRC.) So, let me refute what you've just said:

“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)

Here is the United States Supreme Court ruling:

“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)

Now, let's get specific to gun control:

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 EARLIEST court rulings unequivocally REFUTE your position. It was not until ALL of the founders and framers were dead and buried that the United States Supreme Court began reversing their own opinions. That is contrary to the Rule of Law. Imagine today that you think you're law abiding. A statute has been written; the courts including the United States Supreme Court have ruled. So, you think you're obeying the law? No, you are not... the United States Supreme Court has a nasty habit of reversing their own opinions which is NOT allowed in the Constitution. George Washington warned against the practice:

"If in the opinion of the People, the distribution or modification of the Constitutional powers be in any particular wrong, let it be corrected by an amendment in the way which the Constitution designates. But let there be no change by usurpation; for though this, in one instance, may be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed."

FAREWELL ADDRESS TO THE PEOPLE OF THE UNITED STATES 1795

You can beat around the bush all you like, but the clear intent of the Constitution is 180 degrees opposite of what you believe. YOU have the problem with logic. For when the government tries to enforce tyrannical gun laws, the people have the moral and legal Right, Duty, and Obligation to show you what the Second Amendment was REALLY written for.

Let's agree to disagree.

What has a degenerate, double talking, anti - gun hack got to do with this?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

I doubt many will agree on the purpose of the second amendment, but I'd love to hear why everybody thinks the second amendment was written. Personally, I understand that it was put there so that we could take back our government if they get out of control.

Well maybe the answer is in the first half of the sentence that is the second amendment. It's not exactly rocket science.

Yes Militia can be formed, because the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed

 

[Likkmee]

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Yet another gun thread documenting how the right has come to loathe Heller, and conservatives’ contempt for the Constitution, its case law, and the rule of law.

The Second Amendment right is not ‘unlimited.’ It is not a right to keep and carry any gun whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.

Firearm regulatory measures enacted consistent with Second Amendment jurisprudence are perfectly lawful and Constitutional, in no manner ‘violating’ the Second Amendment.

The Second Amendment right is not a right to ‘overthrow’ a lawfully elected government reflecting the will of the majority of the people through ‘force of arms’ because a minority of citizens incorrectly perceive that government to have become ‘tyrannical.’

The Second Amendment acknowledges an individual right to possess a firearm pursuant to lawful self-defense – not to act in the capacity of ‘law enforcement’ or to otherwise ‘fight crime.’

Don’t like it or disagree with this?

Dig up Scalia and argue with him about it.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

Yet another gun thread documenting how the right has come to loathe Heller, and conservatives’ contempt for the Constitution, its case law, and the rule of law.

The Second Amendment right is not ‘unlimited.’ It is not a right to keep and carry any gun whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.

Firearm regulatory measures enacted consistent with Second Amendment jurisprudence are perfectly lawful and Constitutional, in no manner ‘violating’ the Second Amendment.

The Second Amendment right is not a right to ‘overthrow’ a lawfully elected government reflecting the will of the majority of the people through ‘force of arms’ because a minority of citizens incorrectly perceive that government to have become ‘tyrannical.’

The Second Amendment acknowledges an individual right to possess a firearm pursuant to lawful self-defense – not to act in the capacity of ‘law enforcement’ or to otherwise ‘fight crime.’

Don’t like it or disagree with this?

Dig up Scalia and argue with him about it.

All of this nonsensical horse dung was dealt with and factually refuted in post # 190.

In response to your proposed solution, I'd like to remind you what George Washington said about the current way the United States Supreme Court operates:

"If in the opinion of the People, the distribution or modification of the Constitutional powers be in any particular wrong, let it be corrected by an amendment in the way which the Constitution designates. But let there be no change by usurpation; for though this, in one instance, may be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed." George Washington, Farewell Address 1795

You presume that everything the United States Supreme Court does is proper, legal and constitutional. Educated people realize that the only people who believe that are delusional. The founders / framers did not want to create a government wherein 9 judges dressed like ladies in robes could get a lifetime appointment to screw the Constitution any way they like. Ironically, the high Court itself laid the ground rules and those rules reply to the United States Supreme Court just as much as they do a city statute:


“The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and name of law, is in reality no law, but is wholly void, and ineffective for any purpose; since unconstitutionality dates from the time of its enactment, and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it. No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law, and no courts are bound to enforce it.”
— 16 Am Jur 2d, Sec 177 late 2d, Sec 256

But sometimes the courts DO uphold unconstitutional laws AND sometimes the United States Supreme Court illegally legislates from the bench. Even the courts, including the United States Supreme Court can be held accountable:

"It is the duty of courts to be watchful for the constitutional rights of the citizen, and against any stealthy encroachments thereon.”

Norton v. Shelby County, 118 U.S. 425 1886:

“An unconstitutional act is not law; it confers no rights; it imposes no duties; affords no protection; it creates no office; it is in legal contemplation as though it had never been passed.”

Olmstead v. United States, 277 U.S. 438 1928

Citizens have a myriad of options to deal with unconstitutional laws. You have to exhaust all of your non-violent political and legal avenues of redress before resorting to extraordinary actions - AND leave the door open at all times to a peaceful resolution, but we are not required to accept blatantly illegal acts, even if the United States Supreme Court says so. Bottom line: The United States Supreme Court NEVER had the authority to overrule their own holdings. Such a policy is increasingly ridiculous since we can never guess at what the law means. We aren't mind readers and the United States Supreme Court is not a legislative body.

 

[M14 Shooter]

I doubt many will agree on the purpose of the second amendment, but I'd love to hear why everybody thinks the second amendment was written. Personally, I understand that it was put there so that we could take back our government if they get out of control.

Well maybe the answer is in the first half of the sentence that is the second amendment. It's not exactly rocket science.

The supreme court disagreed.

 

[Dick Foster]

Yet another gun thread documenting how the right has come to loathe Heller, and conservatives’ contempt for the Constitution, its case law, and the rule of law.

The Second Amendment right is not ‘unlimited.’ It is not a right to keep and carry any gun whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.

Firearm regulatory measures enacted consistent with Second Amendment jurisprudence are perfectly lawful and Constitutional, in no manner ‘violating’ the Second Amendment.

The Second Amendment right is not a right to ‘overthrow’ a lawfully elected government reflecting the will of the majority of the people through ‘force of arms’ because a minority of citizens incorrectly perceive that government to have become ‘tyrannical.’

The Second Amendment acknowledges an individual right to possess a firearm pursuant to lawful self-defense – not to act in the capacity of ‘law enforcement’ or to otherwise ‘fight crime.’

Don’t like it or disagree with this?

Dig up Scalia and argue with him about it.

Thts just so much double talking bullshit and wishful thinking on your part. All guns laws are unconstitutional under the 2nd and are therefore illegal and unenforceable. PERIOD!

 

[Dick Foster]

I doubt many will agree on the purpose of the second amendment, but I'd love to hear why everybody thinks the second amendment was written. Personally, I understand that it was put there so that we could take back our government if they get out of control.

Well maybe the answer is in the first half of the sentence that is the second amendment. It's not exactly rocket science.

The supreme court disagreed.

And it wouldn't be the first time they were wrong. That is unless you think Jim Crow etc. were on track too. Fuck the supreme court I don't need anyone to interpret a single very clearly written sentence. It wasn't put down in secret code ya know.

 

[M14 Shooter]

I doubt many will agree on the purpose of the second amendment, but I'd love to hear why everybody thinks the second amendment was written. Personally, I understand that it was put there so that we could take back our government if they get out of control.

Well maybe the answer is in the first half of the sentence that is the second amendment. It's not exactly rocket science.

The supreme court disagreed.

And it wouldn't be the first time they were wrong.

You can disagree with them if you want, but -your- opinion doesn't matter.

Fact:
The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

I doubt many will agree on the purpose of the second amendment, but I'd love to hear why everybody thinks the second amendment was written. Personally, I understand that it was put there so that we could take back our government if they get out of control.

Well maybe the answer is in the first half of the sentence that is the second amendment. It's not exactly rocket science.

The supreme court disagreed.

Dadgum hack framers

 

[zaangalewa]

Q: Why was the second amendment written?

A: Red Indian wars.

 

[Fed Starving]

They needed an amendment between one and three.

Otherwise, it would look silly.

This must be reason #1!

 

[Dick Foster]

I doubt many will agree on the purpose of the second amendment, but I'd love to hear why everybody thinks the second amendment was written. Personally, I understand that it was put there so that we could take back our government if they get out of control.

In order to keep the government from running amok the way their previous one had. It's helpful to remember that Lexington and Concord were fresh in the farmer's minds as the constitution was hammered out and put down in writing. The second amendment addresses those events very directly.

 

[miketx]

Q: Why was the second amendment written?

A: Red Indian wars.

Fake news. So that the power to resist a corrupt and tyrannical government would always be in the hands of the people.

 

[zaangalewa]

Q: Why was the second amendment written?

A: Red Indian wars.

Fake news.

That's not a news - I think so, that's all. The Red Indians of North America were a long time able to resist against the migrants from all over the world, who call themselves today "Americans". The [semi-]automatic rifles were used to genocide the Red Indian tribes in masses during the 18th and 19th century. I guess the people, who buy today in masses war weapons for private use, live in fear of themselves - and in the hope to be able to live forever in their deadly senility.

So that the power to resist a corrupt and tyrannical government would always be in the hands of the people.

You are a democracy. You say here the people of the USA prefer to be governed from tyrants. Perhaps the weapon-fetishists of the USA are indeed self-fullfilling their ideas about corrupt tyrants by voting for Donald Trump and his very strange ideas about nothing what's important - and his lack of good ideas about anything what's real.

 

[miketx]

Q: Why was the second amendment written?

A: Red Indian wars.

Fake news.

That's not a news - I think so, that's all. The Red Indians of North America were a long time able to resist against the migrants from all over the world, who call themselves today "Americans". The [semi-]automatic rifles were used to genocide the Red Indian tribes in masses during the 18th and 19th century. I guess the people, who buy today in masses war weapons for private use, live in fear of themselves - and in the hope to be able to live forever in their deadly senility.

So that the power to resist a corrupt and tyrannical government would always be in the hands of the people.

You are a democracy. You say here the people of the USA prefer to be governed from tyrants. Perhaps the weapon-fetishists of the USA are indeed self-fullfilling their ideas about corrupt tyrants by voting for Donald Trump and his very strange ideas about nothing what's important - and his lack of good ideas about anything what's real.

You are full of crap. We are a constitutional republic. The 2A is about just what I posted it was. I ain't got a GD thing to do with Indians.