Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
It is way too easy to read the 2nd Amendment and understand exactly what it means and had meant, until the end of the Civil War. A war, where the 2nd amendment came into full play, as it was intended to be.
The people's Militias of the South, were armed the same as the Union Military. Same weapons at the start and the people of the South, invented the rifled barrel and the mini-ball and multiple fire chambers, allowing a much smaller force, to defeat much bigger forces.
" The recent bills that the Dems wanted to push through congress about no fly lists was not an all out ban, and it only affected a very small % of the population yet it got blasted down by a GOP congress. I thought it was a compromise - a start."
I see. You are willing to take rights away from people based on their name(s) appearing on some government list. No "due process" as guaranteed by the Constitution, no conviction of any kind, just take away their Constitutional rights because somebody put them on a list!
Not only that, you are willing to see a law passed that is blatantly unconstitutional, and will undoubtedly be taken all the way to the Supreme Court, costing the taxpayers of this country millions of dollars in attorney fees. Once the law is challenged, it will never go into effect until the Supreme Court rules on the Constitutionality of denying rights without due process.
Is there really any doubt about how SCOTUS would have to rule on the issue?
I really do not understand how any concerned United States citizen would want such a law passed!
The interpretation of 2A has changed a number of times through the years depending on the political climate and the makeup of SCOTUS. The current interpretation is due for an overhaul, and I doubt it will be too long after the election before the makeup of the court is going to change dramatically. The rulings they produce will set the climate for the next fifty years.
The laws that Jerry Brown just signed in California are well within 2A, and are compatible with Scalia's writing in the last major case brought before SCOTUS, the Heller decision of 2008. Get used to change. It's coming.
It is way too easy to read the 2nd Amendment and understand exactly what it means and had meant, until the end of the Civil War. A war, where the 2nd amendment came into full play, as it was intended to be.
The people's Militias of the South, were armed the same as the Union Military. Same weapons at the start and the people of the South, invented the rifled barrel and the mini-ball and multiple fire chambers, allowing a much smaller force, to defeat much bigger forces.
Uuuh, more revisionist history perhaps?:
Barrel rifling was invented in Augsburg, Germany at the end of the fifteenth century.[5] In 1520 August Kotter, an armourer of Nuremberg, Germany improved upon this work. Though true rifling dates from the mid-16th century, it did not become commonplace until the nineteenth century.
The concept of stabilizing the flight of a projectile by spinning it was known in the days of bows and arrows, but early firearms using black powder had difficulty with rifling because of the fouling left behind by the combustion of the powder. The most successful weapons using rifling with black powder were breech loaders such as the 1760's Queen Anne pistol.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Queen_...e_IMG_3172.jpg
The first guns with multichambered cylinders that revolved to feed one barrel were made in the late 16th century in Europe. They were expensive and rare curiosities. Not until the 19th century would revolvers become common weapons of industrial production. One of the first was a flintlock revolver patented by Elisha Collier in 1814. The first percussion revolver was made by Lenormand of Paris in 1820[1] and the first percussion cap revolver was invented by the Italian Francesco Antonio Broccu in 1833. He received a prize of 300 francs for his invention; although he did not patent it, his revolver was shown to King Charles Albert of Sardinia. However, in 1835 a similar handgun was patented by Samuel Colt, who would go on to make the first mass-produced revolver.
The first cartridge revolvers were produced around 1854 by Eugene Lefaucheux.
The interpretation of 2A has changed a number of times through the years depending on the political climate and the makeup of SCOTUS. The current interpretation is due for an overhaul, and I doubt it will be too long after the election before the makeup of the court is going to change dramatically. The rulings they produce will set the climate for the next fifty years.
The laws that Jerry Brown just signed in California are well within 2A, and are compatible with Scalia's writing in the last major case brought before SCOTUS, the Heller decision of 2008. Get used to change. It's coming.
What is to interpret?
It is very straight forward.
What has changed is the meaning of the constitution. It was intended to chain down government, not chain down people.
The Bill of Rights is not for government to reinterpret. It is there to prevent government from trying to redefine it.
And when all peaceful means to keep government from intruding on the Bill of Rights, the 2nd amendment stands as the final solution to maintain a free state. To organize and fight for liberty again, as outlined in the preceding document to the US. Constitution... The Declaration of Independence.
From what I can tell, with two sides being so far apart, status quo will win anyways as the stalemate will ensue, and issues with guns will continue. People kill, not guns. Right to bear arms.
From my viewpoint it's a sad debate. The argument can be twisted any way you see fit. But I sit here and still believe there is a real problem with guns in this country, and that hanging on to an amendment written centuries ago in a different world naive and old school backwards thinking. There is work to be done, and it seems only one side wants forward movement. I do not agree with all of the gun control advocates and their methodologies, just as I don't believe in the NRA and gun activists standing on their platforms.
I'll just continue to read news of senseless gun crimes and deaths with not enough work being done by both sides for change. Based on the 2nd amendment, arm all citizens with guns for vigilante justice. Or take away all guns and things will be better. Until both sides stop thinking the extremes of the argument is all that exists, then stalemate it will be.
From what I can tell, with two sides being so far apart, status quo will win anyways as the stalemate will ensue, and issues with guns will continue. People kill, not guns. Right to bear arms.
From my viewpoint it's a sad debate. The argument can be twisted any way you see fit. But I sit here and still believe there is a real problem with guns in this country, and that hanging on to an amendment written centuries ago in a different world naive and old school backwards thinking. There is work to be done, and it seems only one side wants forward movement. I do not agree with all of the gun control advocates and their methodologies, just as I don't believe in the NRA and gun activists standing on their platforms.
I'll just continue to read news of senseless gun crimes and deaths with not enough work being done by both sides for change. Based on the 2nd amendment, arm all citizens with guns for vigilante justice. Or take away all guns and things will be better. Until both sides stop thinking the extremes of the argument is all that exists, then stalemate it will be.
It is just my humble opinion, but I believe you to be representative of the majority of Americans who are tired beyond belief of the intransigent, disparate and immovable positions struck on this issue.
Where are these "numerous examples of self-proclaimed 'militia' and paramilitary types choosing to shoot first at law enforcement" ?
A quick google search turns up little other than Bundys and the Oregon man who was shot while allegedly reaching in his pocket for a gun, which some witnesses disagree with.
Yes, due to its 'popularity' a quick google search will indeed overwhelmingly turn up references to the recent Mahleur standoff and Lavoy Finicum. Here's some examples of what I referred to:
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
