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.
Again, no, it doesn't. It also clarifies the purpose for the Right, which is a well-regulated militia. Would a single shot .22 be adequate in the formation and preservation of a well-regulated militia? If the answer is no, then the government cannot limit us to a single shot .22.....
What the 2A does say is that a well-regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state, and the people's right to keep and bear the kind of arms essential to forming a well-regulated militia shall not be infringed.
WhipSnap-If your interpretation is correct, how is it constitutional that congress has put restrictions on ownership of certain forms of weaponry and upheld the right of states to regulate such things?
Regarding the thread, I think you misunderstood my point from the start and continued to reply within your mistaken frame of reference. However, when you went on to lecture me about what the 2A says and means (which I already knew but thanks), I pointed out that your statements were based on what you want it to mean and say, not what it actually says. It actually says exactly what I've already written and there's no point in discussing it further since you are not willing to acknowledge that fact.
Congress has put restrictions on lots of things - and has been backed up by the SCOTUS. But that doesn't mean it was constitutional.
I don't own a MSR or 'assault rifle', or any other type of rifle for that matter but I have become interested in the subject over the past couple of years. I've also become more interested in the history of firearms and today came across this video which, from a historical and political context, is very interesting to me. I thought I'd share for two reasons. First, for any history buffs out there, if you haven't seen this before, you will really like it. Second, it pretty much blows away the argument that the founders would never have allowed citizens to own semi-automatic weapons or military-style rifles, had they existed. It turns out they did exist, and existed before the 2nd amendment was written, and they were obviously not excluded. The rifle was the Girardoni and you can learn more about it here:
This country was settled by families who struck out into the wilderness, cleared a patch of land, and hoped for the best. And sometimes, with indians and bandits and other scalawags, the frontier was a very dangerous place.
So if a frontier family had to potentially deal with raiding parties by the Creeks or Comanches while helping open up the west, I'm pretty sure the Founding Fathers (Or their immediate successors) would have granted them all the firepower they needed to protect their log cabins.
This country was settled by families who struck out into the wilderness, cleared a patch of land, and hoped for the best. And sometimes, with indians and bandits and other scalawags, the frontier was a very dangerous place.
So if a frontier family had to potentially deal with raiding parties by the Creeks or Comanches while helping open up the west, I'm pretty sure the Founding Fathers (Or their immediate successors) would have granted them all the firepower they needed to protect their log cabins.
WhipSnap-If your interpretation is correct, how is it constitutional that congress has put restrictions on ownership of certain forms of weaponry
Constitutional? Who said those laws were Constituional? The federal government has no authority to make any laws that would infringe on the peoples Right to keep and bear arms. Zero. As far as the States? With the passage of the 14th amerndment, that restricted the States right to infringe on the 2A, and that's not even taking in to consideration the states almost all have language protecting their citizens right to keep and bear arms in their own Constitutions. That doesn't stop them from doing it though, does it? In fact, the ATF is unconstitutional on it's face. Whether you accept an organization like the ATF as reasonable and/or necessary is another matter, but that doesn't change the fact that it's unconstitutional.
There are a lot of UNconstitional laws on the books, for various reasons. Either they have not been challenged as of yet { if ever }, are in the process of being challenged and are making their way through the federal courts, or have been wrongly upheld by those entrusted to decide such matters. In order to determine the Constitutionality of a law, we rely on the courts, namely, the Supreme Court. They are human, they are fallible. They are capable of making mistakes just as any other human. They are expected to make a good faith effort in determining exactly what the founding fathers meant when they drafted the Constitution, their own political and personal views not withstanding. The trouble is, the SCOTUS has the final say on whether or not something is Constitutional or not. There is no check or balance on SCOTUS rulings, save, for the president who appoints them, the senators who approve the appointee, and a future body of Justices who may in time be able to reverse a wrong ruling with decisions on future cases. Those are all indirect checks and balances though. But again, even they are capable of ruling that something is Constitutional, even when it is not. Would you say that slavery is Constitutional? No? The Supreme Court did.
It's definately not a perfect system, but it's the system we have, and I suppose it's the most fair. That doesn't mean it's immune from mistakes, and so there is always the possibility that something will be upheld when it shouldn't be. The Historical record shows that the 2A protects the Right of the people to keep and bear the type of arms that are essential to forming and preserving a well-regulated militia. End of story.
Quote:
Regarding the thread, I think you misunderstood my point from the start and continued to reply within your mistaken frame of reference
I don't think that to be the case. I understand you just fine. Your point is that the type of repeating rifles beiing attacked today, did in fact exist in the time of the founding fathers, and so obviously they knew of and approved of those type of weapons. However, they didn't spell out the brand name of every rifle and the caliber of every cartridge in the Constitution, and because they didn't do that, your contention is that the government can ban each and every gun and caliber except for one. Does that about sum up your argument?
Quote:
. However, when you went on to lecture me about what the 2A says and means (which I already knew but thanks),
Eh.... well... I would say you have a pretty good grasp on what the Constitution literally says, but you seem to be struggling on what it means, and how it's supposed to be interpreted.
Quote:
I pointed out that your statements were based on what you want it to mean and say, not what it actually says.
And I, along with pretty much everyone else who has saw fit to reply to you, have pointed out that you are wrong, and backed it up with historical context and reference.
Quote:
It actually says exactly what I've already written and there's no point in discussing it further since you are not willing to acknowledge that fact.
Well, I can lead a horse to water but I cannot maketh him drink from the fountain of knowledge. If you want to go on believing in this erroneous view of the 2A which, at best, is misinformed, misguided, senseless, and dangerous, and at worst, is dishonest and intentionally deceptive, then by god I can't stop you. However, when someone puts false information out there that, left uncorrected, may one day pollute the mind of a poor soul of lesser intellect, it is my duty and obligation to respond. That, however, does not compell you to respond to my posts in any way. Feel free to ignore them, but I will continue to point out the flaws in your logic so long as you persist.
Last edited by WhipperSnapper 88; 07-20-2014 at 12:48 AM..
WhipSnap-If your interpretation is correct, how is it constitutional that congress has put restrictions on ownership of certain forms of weaponry and upheld the right of states to regulate such things?
Regarding the thread, I think you misunderstood my point from the start and continued to reply within your mistaken frame of reference. However, when you went on to lecture me about what the 2A says and means (which I already knew but thanks), I pointed out that your statements were based on what you want it to mean and say, not what it actually says. It actually says exactly what I've already written and there's no point in discussing it further since you are not willing to acknowledge that fact.
if you read the response on 1934 US v Miller, you will find that the government lied to win the case at the federal level.
short barreled shotguns have always been in use by soldiers since they have been invented, and the feds lied to win.
if you read the response on 1934 US v Miller, you will find that the government lied to win the case at the federal level.
short barreled shotguns have always been in use by soldiers since they have been invented, and the feds lied to win.
GO FIGURE!!!
Not to mention that there was no Miller by the time the SCOTUS heard the case. He had been shot to death before it went to the High Court. There was no defense attorneys present to argue the defendants case either.
WhipSnap-If your interpretation is correct, how is it constitutional that congress has put restrictions on ownership of certain forms of weaponry and upheld the right of states to regulate such things?
Regarding the thread, I think you misunderstood my point from the start and continued to reply within your mistaken frame of reference. However, when you went on to lecture me about what the 2A says and means (which I already knew but thanks), I pointed out that your statements were based on what you want it to mean and say, not what it actually says. It actually says exactly what I've already written and there's no point in discussing it further since you are not willing to acknowledge that fact.
Because Congress like all groups of tyrants think they know all..They dont, they are fools who ruin everything they touch and see...
We take it at face value, we take it as it is, we apply it as it was and how it is..
No there is a great point to discussing it further, We have the winner argument..If you have a argument based on facts, logic, reason, and have them based in reality you would have no problem discussing it..Since you don't it is of little wonder why you and your side does not want a "national discussion" that you side claims you want, you dont, you want people to submit to emtionislism and opinion over logic and facts, being victims over victors, being slaves over being free and having the ability to maintain that freedom.
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.