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.
While I do not think anyone's mind is ever going to be changed by these debates, I do have an intellectual question I would like to ask of the ardent 2nd Amendment folks.
Why did the FF even mention a well regulated militia in the amendment on gun ownership? Why not simply say " The right to bear arms shall not be infringed"? Why the first part, which the NRA even refuses to quote ?
If you look at the history of the 2nd, you find that the language was debated endlessly, with even the punctuation marks hotly debated, as in where the commas should go and such. It wasnt simply thrown out there in a hurry.
I did study the history of the 2nd, and in fact two of the commas were thrown in in a hurry. The amendment was passed by Congress with only one comma in it (After the word "state"), and was sent to the 15 states in existence at that time, with only that one comma. After the states ratified it, the other two commas were thrown in later, by a Committee on Prose and Style. The two later commas served to confuse the meaning very slightly, lending more weight to the first thirteen words than the people who wrote and ratified it intended.
Quote:
The 2nd says precisely what the FF meant it to say after much in depth debate, and rather than simply say " The right to bear arms shall not be infringed" , they deliberately chose to mention the need for US citizens to be allowed to carry guns so as to be able to furnish a militia, but not just any sort of militia, but rather a "well regulated militia", with armed manpower.
So, why even put the first part in the 2nd if it simply is meant to convey the understanding that everyone gets to carry a gun as they wish for any reason they wish?
To talk people out of trying to amend or repeal the 2nd. If they had left out that first phrase of 13 words, people might not have realized WHY they wanted the right to keep and bear arms so absolutely protected.
The only mistake they made, was in assuming that 21st Century liberals would (a) be able to correctly read and interpret standard English, and (b) would care what a law said when the liberals wanted something different.
Because you need more than one person to fend off an army of bullies, dead set on kidnapping or killing you.
Well regulated, just mean that you knew how to operate your weapons, and learned how to fight while not making it harder on your fellow militia.
The NRA is the compromising lobby, that has created the gun laws we have now.
Get real dude.
Well regulated means exactly what it meant in colonial days. A state militia commanded by a person with a commission from the state , who is therefore an official of the state, with the militia being answerable to the state.
I did study the history of the 2nd, and in fact two of the commas were thrown in in a hurry. The amendment was passed by Congress with only one comma in it (After the word "state"), and was sent to the 15 states in existence at that time, with only that one comma. After the states ratified it, the other two commas were thrown in later, by a Committee on Prose and Style. The two later commas served to confuse the meaning very slightly, lending more weight to the first thirteen words than the people who wrote and ratified it intended.
To talk people out of trying to amend or repeal the 2nd. If they had left out that first phrase of 13 words, people might not have realized WHY they wanted the right to keep and bear arms so absolutely protected.
The only mistake they made, was in assuming that 21st Century liberals would (a) be able to correctly read and interpret standard English, and (b) would care what a law said when the liberals wanted something different.
Nothing was rushed at all. It was debated endlessly for quite some time, and says EXACTLY what the FF intended, as they argued over every punctuation mark to make it so.
Your explanation for the first half makes no sense at all.Clearly the intent of the framers is that people be allowed to bear arms to be able to serve in militias, which was considered the ideal form of defense, as the FF distrusted the idea of a professional standing army. It was only after the militias were proven inferior for national defense that we abandoned them as the sole means of defense and created a standing army of professional soldiers.
This doesnt remove the right to own guns, as that existed in the common concept of English law. It simply means that the original purpose of the amendment was directed at providing weaponry for state or national defense.
It is a pointless question. If the Supreme Court makes a ruling, the sheep will follow it.
The only alternative is rebellion.
The Supreme Court nearly "voted" against the second amendment in Heller, and in McDonald v. Chicago. Both were "5-4" decisions. Had the decisions gone the other way, there wouldn't be a second amendment.
What is your point? It just further illustrates my point. The Supreme Court doesn't rule on the Constitution. It votes along partisan lines. It is just a form of democracy. A democracy of the elites.
The ironic thing is the largest defenders of the Second Amendment are actively trying to dismantle the First Amendment.
I've notice something much different.
I realized it was a good thing that we stood up to those trying to limit our liberty in the weapons we choose.
As we have seen with all the limp wristed liberal snowflakes, getting all butt hurt by words enough to get violent, so they can silence the words from being spoken.
Force & Punishment
Religion & Forgiveness
Education & Choice
Of the 3 ways to accomplish social goals, what works the best for Freedom & Liberty.
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.
