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 Today, 04:32 AM
 
Location: NE Ohio
30,417 posts, read 16,716,288 times
Reputation: 8926

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by BentBow View Post
California Judge attempting to nullify Second Amendment rights of all citizens.


Staton, in her ruling, “cited congressional findings that semi-automatic rifles have a rate of fire, 300 to 500 rounds per minute, that makes them ‘virtually undistinguishable’ from machine guns, and that they are the ‘weapons of choice’ for gangs, hate groups, and ‘mentally deranged persons bent on mass murder,’”



https://www.naturalnews.com/2019-07-...nt-rights.html
I think the judge is wrong, and so are the "congressional findings," if what she said is true, because a semi-automatic weapon requires a pull of the trigger for each time it's fired. I don't think anyone can fire that fast.

I could be wrong, but that's my understanding. I'm not a gun owner.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old Today, 04:34 AM
 
Location: NE Ohio
30,417 posts, read 16,716,288 times
Reputation: 8926
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cida View Post
I realize that you're just repeating what the writer said, but you really you study up on what "treason" means. By the silly standard of that author, wanting to repeal Prohibition would be "treason."
This is true. This would not be treason.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Today, 08:00 AM
 
Location: Central Washington
1,079 posts, read 325,924 times
Reputation: 1817
Quote:
Originally Posted by CALGUY View Post
I do not want to start a war here, but I would like one definitive answer to a question, I have yet to have answered by anyone, pro or con on the gun issue.
This is a simple question, but yet people who have answered other post when I have asked this question, never answer the question, but counter with their beliefs about gun ownership, of no gun ownership.

Here is the question, and once again I hope someone has some sort of explanation as an answer.

We all know what the 2nd amendment says, so no need to print it out here.
Her is my question.

The 2nd states, "a well regulated militia".
Why were those words included in the 2nd if the people were the intention of the 2nd?
I have always felt the 2nd was aimed at the militia, and not the general public, so again, if it wasn't intended for the militia, then why was the militia even mentioned?
Let's not get into a discussion of how the courts have ruled, just answer why you believe the militia was mentioned in the 2nd.

Bob.
Why were the words "the right of the people to keep and bear arms" included if the amendment was strictly intended for a militia? Why were the people even mentioned?



FYI, in those days the general public were the militia. The amendment states "A well regulated" (meaning working as designed or intended) "militia, being necessary to the security of a free state" (so the militia must be a reasonably effective fighting force, if the need arose) "the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." That last part of the sentence makes it very clear what the founders intended.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Today, 11:22 AM
 
Location: Los Angeles
5,710 posts, read 7,577,242 times
Reputation: 7555
Federalist No. 36.

Hamilton states that a well-regulated (efficient) militia composed of the people will be more uniform and beneficial to the "public defense" of Americans. He argues that an excessively large militia can harm a nation's work force, as not everyone can leave their profession to go through military exercises. Thus, a smaller, but still well-regulated militia, is the answer. In the end, Hamilton concludes that the militia, as it is constituted directly of the people and managed by the states, is not a danger to liberty when called into use by other states to do things such as quell insurrections.


This statement by Hamilton serves to back up what I stated I believe the true intention of the 2nd was, to freely arm the people of a militia, not the general public.
In more understandable terms, the people(general population) could be called up to form a militia, and those people who are now a militia, would have the right to bear arms.
Again, read the paragraph, especially what he states about a "large militia".
He is talking about "people of a militia, not the general public.
The 2nd was reserved for members who would join a militia.

The second part of the amendment states "the people's right to bear arms, shall not be infringed".

Again, reading from Hamilton in the federalist papers, it is more than clear the "people" mentioned in the second sentence of the amendment were people who make up a militia.


Bob.
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
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

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, 33, 34, 35 - Top