U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 10-20-2017, 03:21 PM
 
7,036 posts, read 1,988,547 times
Reputation: 2966

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by saturno_v View Post
", the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." the after the comma part of the Second Amendment the rabid antis love to ignore....
Works both ways. The gunnies have a propensity to ignore the last word before the comma. "Arms".

They did not pick weapons or firearms or guns. The specific refers to the weapons of war carried by a warrior. And it guaranteed the right of any freeman to carry weapons to serve in the militia. It did not however say anything about non "arms" weapons and they were routinely restricted in that time frame.

So the amendment said you could keep and bear arms to go off with the militia and take down an oppressive government. It however makes no rule that one cannot be prevented from carrying weapons in public for non "arms" purposes.

The definition of militia is however loose enough that it would appear any group could form one. I am skeptical though that would fly today. The government would just claim you were a gang not a militia.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 10-20-2017, 08:35 PM
 
Location: Florida
1,299 posts, read 226,997 times
Reputation: 369
Quote:
Originally Posted by Xpat View Post
"Well regulated militia...." the part of the Second Amendment which the yahoos love to ignore.
The militia is the people.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-20-2017, 10:09 PM
 
8,727 posts, read 7,114,923 times
Reputation: 4886
Not any more. Which is the point. It was explicitly amended out of the construction. In order to legitimately ban the possession of any military weapons by civilians, the same would need to be done with the Second Amendment, which is a political impossibility.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Retroit View Post
Slavery is Constitutional.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-21-2017, 12:18 AM
 
27,469 posts, read 20,615,116 times
Reputation: 15446
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roboteer View Post
TRANSLATION: I can't find anything wrong with what the people in the post said. My only objection is that they didn't say enough about other diverse subjects.
in other words you know i am right about the article you posted, but you dont want to admit it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Xpat View Post
"Well regulated militia...." the part of the Second Amendment which the yahoos love to ignore.
Quote:
Originally Posted by lvmensch View Post
Works both ways. The gunnies have a propensity to ignore the last word before the comma. "Arms".

They did not pick weapons or firearms or guns. The specific refers to the weapons of war carried by a warrior. And it guaranteed the right of any freeman to carry weapons to serve in the militia. It did not however say anything about non "arms" weapons and they were routinely restricted in that time frame.

So the amendment said you could keep and bear arms to go off with the militia and take down an oppressive government. It however makes no rule that one cannot be prevented from carrying weapons in public for non "arms" purposes.

The definition of militia is however loose enough that it would appear any group could form one. I am skeptical though that would fly today. The government would just claim you were a gang not a militia.
the second amendment was written specifically to prevent the government from restricting arms to the people. the first part of the amendment

"a well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state"

was written at a time when the phrase "well regulated" meant in good working order, and the term militia meant anyone old enough to be of the age of majority would be in the militia. remember at the time the constitution did not allow the federal government to raise and maintain a professional army, only a professional navy. thus any "army" would be raised at the state level, and this citizen army would drill every so often to maintain the skills of war, but not interfere with the citizens daily routine. thus when needed the citizen would grad their firearms and go out and defend the country at a moments notice, then when the war was over they would go back to their daily lives.

so a well regulated militia would be a well drilled citizen army.

the second part of the amendment

"the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"

means that the citizens can own the arms of the military, because they ARE the military.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-21-2017, 09:40 AM
 
7,036 posts, read 1,988,547 times
Reputation: 2966
Quote:
Originally Posted by rbohm View Post
in other words you know i am right about the article you posted, but you dont want to admit it.





the second amendment was written specifically to prevent the government from restricting arms to the people. the first part of the amendment

"a well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state"

was written at a time when the phrase "well regulated" meant in good working order, and the term militia meant anyone old enough to be of the age of majority would be in the militia. remember at the time the constitution did not allow the federal government to raise and maintain a professional army, only a professional navy. thus any "army" would be raised at the state level, and this citizen army would drill every so often to maintain the skills of war, but not interfere with the citizens daily routine. thus when needed the citizen would grad their firearms and go out and defend the country at a moments notice, then when the war was over they would go back to their daily lives.

so a well regulated militia would be a well drilled citizen army.

the second part of the amendment

"the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"

means that the citizens can own the arms of the military, because they ARE the military.
For the purpose of being a member of the militia. Says nothing about arms for non militia purposes. It is clear that the citizen also had rights to "keep" arms at home. But outside of that it would appear regulation was in place and allowable. So the 2nd does guarantee a right to "keep and bear" for a specific purpose - the militia. As soon though as you are outside that sphere it does not apply.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-21-2017, 09:45 AM
 
Location: USA
5,408 posts, read 4,753,646 times
Reputation: 3605
Remember, privately owned warships were legal during, and after our founding, "Privateers" with cannon, and a crew armed with small arms. So the intent was not to limit the private citizen from owning what the government owned. I am not saying people should be allowed nukes, or other large weapons, I am just showing evidence of intent.

The Constitution is a government limiting document. Why would you want to further limit your freedoms not to be able to defend yourself against violent criminals, or a tyrannical government/
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-21-2017, 09:51 AM
 
Location: PSL
3,889 posts, read 725,994 times
Reputation: 1557
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pilot1 View Post
Remember, privately owned warships were legal during, and after our founding, "Privateers" with cannon, and a crew armed with small arms. So the intent was not to limit the private citizen from owning what the government owned. I am not saying people should be allowed nukes, or other large weapons, I am just showing evidence of intent.

The Constitution is a government limiting document. Why would you want to further limit your freedoms not to be able to defend yourself against violent criminals, or a tyrannical government/
Their version of democracy and society is one that mimics European countries or Asian countries with rainbows unicorns and puppy dogs. One where the government dictates how you live and rely on an adult in the room to handle their problems for them...
It's sad really, to be dependent and live consumed by irrelevant fear...
For some strange reason they're willing to trade liberties for security, independence for dependence...
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-21-2017, 01:15 PM
 
27,469 posts, read 20,615,116 times
Reputation: 15446
Quote:
Originally Posted by lvmensch View Post
For the purpose of being a member of the militia. Says nothing about arms for non militia purposes. It is clear that the citizen also had rights to "keep" arms at home. But outside of that it would appear regulation was in place and allowable. So the 2nd does guarantee a right to "keep and bear" for a specific purpose - the militia. As soon though as you are outside that sphere it does not apply.
a couple of sites for you to check out;

The Second Amendment: The Framers' Intentions

Meaning of the phrase "well-regulated"

from the second site;

Quote:
The phrase "well-regulated" was in common use long before 1789, and remained so for a century thereafter. It referred to the property of something being in proper working order. Something that was well-regulated was calibrated correctly, functioning as expected. Establishing government oversight of the people's arms was not only not the intent in using the phrase in the 2nd amendment, it was precisely to render the government powerless to do so that the founders wrote it.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-21-2017, 01:36 PM
 
589 posts, read 513,672 times
Reputation: 714
Unless folks can come to some agreement about the meaning of words and phrases, the entire thread is virtually worthless.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-21-2017, 02:04 PM
 
7,036 posts, read 1,988,547 times
Reputation: 2966
Quote:
Originally Posted by rbohm View Post
a couple of sites for you to check out;

The Second Amendment: The Framers' Intentions

Meaning of the phrase "well-regulated"

from the second site;
All irrelevant. The exact nature of the "militia" is not important. I am inclined to believe it is whatever the citizenry put together.

The issue is that the "keep and bear arms" is referenced to the militia not a general right. So yes all have a right to keep weapons for militia service. But that confers no rights outside of militia service. So the right to carry off your property or concealed are all regulate able under the 2nd.

And that was the practice in founder father time.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2017, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32 - Top