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.
Considering that the 2nd was written in regards to allowing citizens to protect themselves against a government, I don't think they were considering any limits. Their intent appears to be that citizens should be able to challenge government in a battle if need arises. They were doing the exact same at the time.
This is what the 2nd Amendment says - completely:
Amendment II 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 it. People need "arms" for a well regulated militia to protect the security of a free State. [our new country, since this was ratified in 12/15/1791 - 8 years after the Revolutionary War that ended in 1783]. It probably includes cannons too. Things a militia need. The militia was to protect our country, not fight our own government.
It does not say an individual can have "arms" to protect his/her private home from theft, or shoot someone who looks suspicious on the street. It says, arms are needed by a well regulated militia. It implies rules and regulations, a military order.
The North Carolina Constitution, builds on the "well regulated militia" by stating "standing armies in time of peace are dangerous to liberty..." and must be regulated: Article 1 Sec. 30. Militia and the right to bear arms. 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; and, as standing armies in time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they shall not be maintained, and the military shall be kept under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.Nothing herein shall justify the practice of carrying concealed weapons, or prevent the General Assembly from enacting penal statutes against that practice.
Neither of these two (US and NC) constitutional laws guarantee an individual can have "arms", because he/she wants one. You can check each State's constitution, but at the Federal level - the 2nd Amendment is often misquoted -often leaving out the "well regulated militia" purpose. Here is a summary from UCLA, 2006, of states laws regarding the Right To Bear Arms. http://www2.law.ucla.edu/volokh/beararms/statedat.htm
Last edited by BraveHeart01; 05-09-2015 at 10:30 PM..
Until the day a woman can pick a man up and throw him across the room, they will always be inferior.
And to keep on topic. A firearm makes a woman equal to a man, so that doesn't happen.
Strength has nothing to do with being inferior nor superior. And yes, there are women who can throw a man across a room lol
Considering that the 2nd was written in regards to allowing citizens to protect themselves against a government, I don't think they were considering any limits. Their intent appears to be that citizens should be able to challenge government in a battle if need arises. They were doing the exact same at the time.
For somebody who supposedly thought that way President Washington certainly put down the Whiskey Rebellion damn quick. President Lincoln also fought back when the southern states challenged government in a battle
This is what the 2nd Amendment says - completely: Amendment II 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.
Here we go again...... Yet another "expert" on the Second Amendment who thinks his interpretation of what it was supposed to mean is the right one, but provides no historical context or evidence to back it up
Quote:
That's it. People need "arms" for a well regulated militia to protect the security of a free State. [our new country, since this was ratified in 12/15/1791 - 8 years after the Revolutionary War that ended in 1783]. It probably includes cannons too. Things a militia need. The militia was to protect our country,
You're right up to this point.
Quote:
not fight our own government.
It's true that the purpose of the militia, made up of all able-bodied citizens, was to defend our nation from enemies, but that includes Domestic enemies as well. The founders saw the militia as a means to not only prevent a standing army from becoming oppressive and tyrannical, but in fact to lesson the need for such an army altogether....
Exhibit A:
.................................................. .................................................. ...... """It is a matter of the utmost importance that a well-digested plan should, as soon as possible, be adopted for the proper establishment of the militia
This will not only lessen the call for military establishments, but if circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little, if at all, inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow-citizens.
This appears to me the only substitute that can be devised for a standing army, and the best possible security against it, if it should exist."""
-Alexander Hamilton to the Citizens of New York in Fderalist Paper #29
"""Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed, as they are in almost every country in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops."""
- Noah Webster, An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution, October 10, 1787
"""No freeman shall ever be debarred the use of arms. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.""" Thomas Jefferson.
It does not say an individual can have "arms" to protect his/her private home from theft, or shoot someone who looks suspicious on the street.
You're right, personal self-defense was only but a secondary benefit, while national defense was the primary focus. BUT, the founders were certainly mindful of the usefulness of privately owned arms for self and home defense
"""Arms in the hands of citizens [may] be used at individual discretion...in private self-defense...""" John Adams.
Quote:
It says, arms are needed by a well regulated militia. It implies rules and regulations, a military order.
So I take this to mean that you are implying that only the militia, not individual citizens, are who the Second Amendment was referring to? Ok, but let me ask, who exactly are the militia????
.................................................. .................................................. ......
"I ask who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers." - George Mason, Address to the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 4, 1788
“A militia when properly formed are in fact the people themselves…and include, according to the past and general usuage of the states, all men capable of bearing arms… "To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them." - Richard Henry Lee, Federal Farmer No. 18, January 25, 1788
"The project of disciplining all the militia of the United States is as futile as it would be injurious. Little more can reasonably be aimed at, with respect to the people at large, than to have them properly armed and equipped -Alexander Hamilton, Federalist #29
.................................................. .................................................. .........
Have you ever looked up the current federal law in effect as we speak, that defines what the militia is today? If not, do so, it's a riot!
In truth, I can go on and on, but in the interest of expedience, I think I've made my point.
Quote:
The North Carolina Constitution, builds on the "well regulated militia" by stating "standing armies in time of peace are dangerous to liberty..." and must be regulated:
But you are likening the militia to a standing army, referring to them both as if they are the same thing, and that is not the case. By definition, a "militia" cannot be a standing army......
A militia/mɨˈlɪʃə/[1] generally is an army or other fighting force that is composed of non-professional fighters; citizens of a nation or subjects of a state or government that can be called upon to enter a combat situation, as opposed to a professional force of regular, full-time military personnel,
So the North Carolina Constitution is not referring to the militia when they say that standing armies in times of peace shall not be maintained. As I demonstrated earlier, the founders wanted the militias to be maintained in lieu of standing armies in times of peace, AND to be able to defend against a standing army if it were to become oppressive.
Quote:
Neither of these two (US and NC) constitutional laws guarantee an individual can have "arms", because he/she wants one.
Yes, they do. The Right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, because a well-regulated militia ( which is made up of all the people ) is necessary to the security of a free state. Sorry.
Quote:
You can check each State's constitution, but at the Federal level - the 2nd Amendment is often misquoted -often leaving out the "well regulated militia" purpose.
That's right. The "well-regulated militia" is the purpose for theRight, not a qualifier on the Right. And who makes up the militia? Who forms the militia? We've already covered that. Hope you were paying attention. The first clause of the amendment isn't ignored, it just isn't relevant when discussing the Rights that the 2nd enshrines, because as was held in Heller, The prefatory clause neither expands, nor limits, the Rights conveyed in the operative clause. Not to mention that the "militia only" interpretation doesn't even pass muster on a basic understanding of the English language. If I were to say to you....
" a well balanced breakfast, being necessary to a nutritional diet, the Right of the people to keep and eat food, shall not be infringed"
.....who has the Right to keep and eat food? The Breakfast? Or the people?
__________________________________________________ _____
So, all that and we didn't even begin to delve in to the implications of the Heller and McDonald decisions. Even if the "collective Right" interpretation were historically accurate ( which it isn't , as I've shown ), The H&M decisions by the Supreme Court would have nullified it anyway. Pretty much everything I discussed here was from an originalist, historical perspective. The Second Amendment is one of the most contested parts of the Constitution. Everyone seems to have an opinion on just what they think it means, or rather, what they want it to mean based on their own political proclivites, but no one can seem to back it up with facts. Honestly, that's probably because the facts never support their conclusions. You're entitled to your own opinion, but not your own facts. Who better would know what the Founders intended than the Founders themselves? your conclusions on what you believe the Second Amendment to mean do not pass historical scrutiny.
Last edited by WhipperSnapper 88; 05-10-2015 at 01:39 AM..
"The Second Front In The Fight For Your Second Amendment Rights"
Quote:
Originally Posted by mmmjv
For somebody who supposedly thought that way President Washington certainly put down the Whiskey Rebellion damn quick. President Lincoln also fought back when the southern states challenged government in a battle
"Firearms stand next in importance to the Constitution itself. They are the American people's liberty teeth and keystone under independence... From the hour the Pilgrims landed, to the present day, events, occurrences, and tendencies prove that to ensure peace, security, and happiness, the rifle and pistol are equally indispensable...The very atmosphere of firearms everywhere restrains evil interference--they deserve a place of honor with all that's good." George Washington.
Last edited by WhipperSnapper 88; 05-10-2015 at 01:23 AM..
Amendment II 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 it. People need "arms" for a well regulated militia to protect the security of a free State. [our new country, since this was ratified in 12/15/1791 - 8 years after the Revolutionary War that ended in 1783]. It probably includes cannons too. Things a militia need. The militia was to protect our country, not fight our own government.
It does not say an individual can have "arms" to protect his/her private home from theft, or shoot someone who looks suspicious on the street. It says, arms are needed by a well regulated militia. It implies rules and regulations, a military order.
The North Carolina Constitution, builds on the "well regulated militia" by stating "standing armies in time of peace are dangerous to liberty..." and must be regulated: Article 1 Sec. 30. Militia and the right to bear arms. 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; and, as standing armies in time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they shall not be maintained, and the military shall be kept under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.Nothing herein shall justify the practice of carrying concealed weapons, or prevent the General Assembly from enacting penal statutes against that practice.
Neither of these two (US and NC) constitutional laws guarantee an individual can have "arms", because he/she wants one. You can check each State's constitution, but at the Federal level - the 2nd Amendment is often misquoted -often leaving out the "well regulated militia" purpose. Here is a summary from UCLA, 2006, of states laws regarding the Right To Bear Arms. State Constitutional Right to Keep and Bear Arms Provisions, by Date
Thankfully our Fore Father's and the courts over history DON'T agree with your OPINIONS on this issue.
You make several claims of ACT that are NOT facts at all.
[quote=Vejadu;39521001]Something a lot of gun-grabbers disregard is that 1 in 5 Americans live in rural areas which do not have police and animal control within reasonable distance.
Imagine you live in an area where police response time is 45 minutes and someone is breaking into your house. Without a firearm, you're completely at this criminal's mercy.
What about those who live in areas that are threatened by dangerous wild animals? With no services available to help you, you must defend your home and family yourself. Last night, a mountain lion was killed within Omaha city limits -- luckily they had police who could quickly come to take care of the situation. Most people who live in rural areas don't have that luxury and need a firearm to protect themselves if a dangerous animal wanders onto your property.[/QUOTE]
Very true. You would be very foolish to live in rural Colorado without a firearm. Bears and mountain lions visit daily. 99% of the time they won't bother you, but if you're walking across your property with one of your children you need to be prepared, especially at night.
As for the criminals, well... they pretty much know people are armed up in the mountains so they mostly stay in the city.
Strength has nothing to do with being inferior nor superior. And yes, there are women who can throw a man across a room lol
Strength has the power to shut you up....
I guess that woman was not inferior to that man. Better bulk up women! Or get a gun.
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.
TL;DR Version = You're Wrong
Yet another "expert" on the Second Amendment who thinks his interpretation of what it was supposed to mean is the right one, but provides no historical context or evidence to back it up
