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.
Nowhere in the Militia Amendment does it say ... that the amendment is about individuals.
First of all, the Supreme Court has already - and recently - disagreed with you.
But I'll give you the chance to put up an argument to support your position, anyway.
"the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
Here are the other instances where "the people" appears in the Constitution. Do any of them not refer to the citizens of this country? Which one(s)? If they do all refer to the citizenry, explain why the appearance of that term in the 2nd Amendment doesn't.
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union...
The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the People of the several States...
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble...
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures...
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
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.
The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, elected by the people thereof...
That the legislature of any State may empower the executive thereof to make temporary appointments until the people fill the vacancies by election as the legislature may direct.
So there you go. Explain the logic of your position. I'm very interested to read your justification, but I won't hold my breath.
Tell me what the circumstances were. I'm legitimately curious.
If you were legitimately curious, you would have already read the circumstances. IIRC, I've posted the circumstances three different times now, in three different threads.
I have read most of this thread with interest, curious to know what the positions of both men and women are on gun carrying. I think that this thread has clearly displayed just how much the genders have in common.
The ones for carrying firearms (male and female) believe in the constitution and taking responsibility for their own protection, understand the importance of proper training and understand the responsibilities and possible consequences involved in carrying.
The ones against carrying firearms (male and female) believe that guns are inherently dangerous and that law enforcement should have responsibility for their protection, that men who carry are using guns as a phallic symbol, that women who carry are more likely to shoot themselves in the foot than shoot a bad guy, and that the constitution meant organized governmental militia and not redneck individuals.
I have always been someone who was interested in hearing other people's positions, thoughts and ideas on a topic and consider myself pretty open minded. But after reading some of the threads on this board there really are people who will never, ever even try to understand other people's points of view, who want to impose their belief system on everyone else, who are either woefully ignorant or being deliberately obtuse.
I say again - You don't understand my position and I don't understand your position, so let's walk away acknowledging that, and be able to live with that. Give me the respect that I am due to make my own decisions about my own life and the life of my family. Leave law abiding people alone. Let them live their own lives in peace.
2 days ago this post of yours was the last thing I saw.
Since then i was off line mostly because i was winter hiking, and working.
I wanted to say i really liked this post and would have repped you too but I seem to be out..... mac
I can show you MANY posts that talk about penis that have been made in conjunction with people who own guns....I have yet to see any post that talks about anything you just posted....
I didn't deny it. I agreed with you. Maybe it is a phallic symbol.
If you were legitimately curious, you would have already read the circumstances. IIRC, I've posted the circumstances three different times now, in three different threads.
Ok, so, like a security guard, or a cop, you are carrying a gun because your life on the job consists of being on guard constantly, ready to shoot at someone. I understand that. I get it.
Ok, so, like a security guard, or a cop, you are carrying a gun because your life on the job consists of being on guard constantly, ready to shoot at someone. I understand that. I get it.
No, you don't. As is apparent in your response.
Being ready to defend yourself by shooting someone is not the same as being ready to shoot someone. I will, in the case of self-defense or defense of another human being, pull the trigger as the final option. I will not, under any circumstances, pull the trigger for no reason.
First of all, the Supreme Court has already - and recently - disagreed with you.
But I'll give you the chance to put up an argument to support your position, anyway.
"the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
Here are the other instances where "the people" appears in the Constitution. Do any of them not refer to the citizens of this country? Which one(s)? If they do all refer to the citizenry, explain why the appearance of that term in the 2nd Amendment doesn't.
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union...
The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the People of the several States...
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble...
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures...
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
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.
The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, elected by the people thereof...
That the legislature of any State may empower the executive thereof to make temporary appointments until the people fill the vacancies by election as the legislature may direct.
So there you go. Explain the logic of your position. I'm very interested to read your justification, but I won't hold my breath.
I've discussed this already so many times, I'm beginning to repeat it in my sleep, I swear. Yes, the Supremes decided to pretend the Second Amendment was about INDIVIDUALS and not the militia. Yes, the Supremes decided to pretend the Second Amendment was NOT about militias at all. Yes, the Supremes ignored what the framers of the Constitution said in the Militia Amendment. I already know this. I've already discussed this. I'm having to repeat this all over again. (groan)
HOWEVER, The Supremes do pretty much any damned thing they want. They've made horrible decisions, and they've made good decisions. They act upon what each individual justice believes. I even gave the example of Justice Scalia, an a-h who is right wing to the core, and how ALL of Scalia's (or at least nearly all) his decisions have come down to voting politically, EVEN THOUGH he is a Justice of the Supremes and he should know better, but he DOESN'T CARE. The Supremes is a group of 8 people who do whatever the hell they want. The Supreme Court, in the past, has had to reverse itself. How do the Supremes reverse themselves? Easy - by deciding DIFFERENTLY on a new case that comes before them, deciding in a way that completely contradicts the initial decision on a case that came before them prior to them reversing themselves. This has been done many times.
However, the next time a gun control case comes before them, IF they vote against individual gun rights, you'll be (once again) stuck ONLY with the MILITIA AMENDMENT, which is about militias, and says not one thing about individual gun "rights," and you'll be left whining that the word MILITIA isn't even in the Second Amendment at all, and that the framers weren't *really* talking about militias.
Being ready to defend yourself by shooting someone is not the same as being ready to shoot someone. I will, in the case of self-defense or defense of another human being, pull the trigger as the final option. I will not, under any circumstances, pull the trigger for no reason.
Of course I get it. You live like a cop, like a security guard, like a prison guard. You don't let your guard down one second.
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.
