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)
 
Old 08-05-2019, 12:15 PM
 
Location: The Republic of Texas
67,217 posts, read 34,235,576 times
Reputation: 14474

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rumann Koch View Post
The individual's Right to bear arms has been upheld by the SCOTUS (District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008)) a landmark case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that the Second Amendment protects an individual's Right to keep and bear arms, unconnected with service in a militia.
Don't forget McDonald v. Chicago, which indirectly nullified all gun laws.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 08-05-2019, 12:24 PM
 
Location: A safe distance from San Francisco
8,726 posts, read 6,231,170 times
Reputation: 8742
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roboteer View Post
Q: Why does the Constitution have a second amendment?

A: In case the government doesn't obey the first one.
I just love this one.

I'm sure many of us would enjoy hearing all about the times when you have successfully evaded or invalidated laws using your gun. The floor is yours.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-05-2019, 12:46 PM
 
Location: San Diego
35,843 posts, read 32,539,044 times
Reputation: 20205
Quote:
Originally Posted by CrownVic95 View Post
I just love this one.

I'm sure many of us would enjoy hearing all about the times when you have successfully evaded or invalidated laws using your gun. The floor is yours.
It's simple to make criminals. Just make what was lawful a crime. It happens all the time.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-05-2019, 12:54 PM
 
1,204 posts, read 1,090,332 times
Reputation: 1565
Quote:
Originally Posted by rstevens62 View Post
You are not considering the NUMBERs...sure, the US military is powerful, and you are also right, that a few guys with full autos would not stand a chance of shutting them down...but what if it was MANY MANY MANY more than a just a few guys, what if it were MILLIONS of guys?


Id have to look at the most recent census, but its safe to say there are ALOT of guys in the age range necessary to take part in something like this (MUCH more than US troops).If they are US citizens, they would be expected to stand up and fight, thats what the founding fathers expected.


Besides the numbers, its common in warfare for enemies to capture and then use the opposing sides equipment and gear when they have victories, so then its millions of guys with full autos, tanks, etc, and so on and so on.
That's an interesting thought but I don't think it's realistic for millions to overpower the US military; nuclear proliferation and the strategic response of global military bases around the world and nuclear submarines would squash any threat. Furthermore, NATO and the UN would make sure the US would be defended from itself.

You are correct that the framers expected US citizens to stand up and fight; though I would have thought they would expect foreign powers (Canada & France) to join in the fight for democracy as well.

Again, the power of the US military is self-contained with the oath to defend the Constitution. The idea of a mighty militia to overthrow a tyrant in the US government is not realistic. The Check and Balance principle was designed to safeguard against that; though we have seen a distortion in Executive Powers post-WWII and post-9/11.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-05-2019, 12:56 PM
 
11,609 posts, read 6,055,236 times
Reputation: 3720
Quote:
Originally Posted by kwong7 View Post
That's an interesting thought but I don't think it's realistic for millions to overpower the US military; nuclear proliferation and the strategic response of global military bases around the world and nuclear submarines would squash any threat. Furthermore, NATO and the UN would make sure the US would be defended from itself.

You are correct that the framers expected US citizens to stand up and fight; though I would have thought they would expect foreign powers (Canada & France) to join in the fight for democracy as well.

Again, the power of the US military is self-contained with the oath to defend the Constitution. The idea of a mighty militia to overthrow a tyrant in the US government is not realistic. The Check and Balance principle was designed to safeguard against that; though we have seen a distortion in Executive Powers post-WWII and post-9/11.
There have always been people that said some in the military would possibly turn on the government if they started doing things that were unconstitutional. I mean thats an extreme example, but its possible.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-05-2019, 01:00 PM
 
Location: Los Angeles
5,777 posts, read 7,627,279 times
Reputation: 7598
Well, it would appear ole "Pedro" never got around to answering my question, so I will ask the rest of you and see what kind of answers we get.

The question is, if the framers directed the 2nd amendment to mean the general public, why was the sentence "a well regulated militia" included in the 2nd?
The "people" mentioned in the 2nd, are people who would constitute a militia.
They are the ones who have the right to bear arms, not the general public.

If the general public were the subject of the amendment, it would have read, "the people of these united states shall have the right to bear arm", and no mention of a militia.

Again, if this is not the case, then why was the militia even mentioned in the 2nd amendment?


Bob.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-05-2019, 01:23 PM
 
Location: Fort Lauderdale, FL
689 posts, read 184,588 times
Reputation: 1110
Quote:
Originally Posted by t206 View Post
There have always been people that said some in the military would possibly turn on the government if they started doing things that were unconstitutional. I mean thats an extreme example, but its possible.
More likely that the military would join civilians (their mothers, fathers, brothers, sisters, etc) to overthrow a tyrannical government whose leadership, by and large, don't have their children serve in the military.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-05-2019, 01:23 PM
 
7,140 posts, read 2,594,782 times
Reputation: 3892
Quote:
Originally Posted by CALGUY View Post
Well, it would appear ole "Pedro" never got around to answering my question, so I will ask the rest of you and see what kind of answers we get.

The question is, if the framers directed the 2nd amendment to mean the general public, why was the sentence "a well regulated militia" included in the 2nd?
The "people" mentioned in the 2nd, are people who would constitute a militia.
They are the ones who have the right to bear arms, not the general public.

If the general public were the subject of the amendment, it would have read, "the people of these united states shall have the right to bear arm", and no mention of a militia.

Again, if this is not the case, then why was the militia even mentioned in the 2nd amendment?


Bob.
Because at the time, militia meant all able bodied, armed men not already in the military. Well regulated simply meant well equipped and competent in the use of their firearms (Hamilton explains in Federalist 29, as does Madison in Federalist 46). The whole "gun behind every blade of grass and in every home" theory of warding off would be oppressors, and what not.

That body of armed citizens, i.e. all able bodied men, being necessary to the security of the free state. This means that a free state can only exist when all able bodied men (language of the time) are armed, thus capable of defense against an armed would-be oppressor like a foreign invader or a centralized government disposed to tyranny. Read the Anti-Federalist Papers, Federalist Papers, speeches during the ratification of the Constitution, particularly in Virginia, and it is quite clear that Framers meant "all men (people)" in the sovereign states.

And they ALL agreed that the greatest threat was the centralized government oppressing them, having just fought a successful revolution against a tyrannical central government that was oppressing them. That was, is ad will always be the reason the 2nd Amendment was added to the Bill of Rights. The only way you were getting the colonies below the Mason Dixon line to sign up for a powerful central government was to acquiesce to their loud, constant and well founded cries of fear about replacing the powerful government of King George III with a new powerful King Somebody or Other. Pre-sellout Patrick Henry, Geogre Mason, James Madison, Thomas Jefferson...the folks in Virginia were fiery about all this.

And it's all a matter of recorded, verifiable history. Why it reads how it reads, what it means, who it meant to protect the people from, etc.

Shall not be infringed.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-05-2019, 01:37 PM
 
Location: Los Angeles
5,777 posts, read 7,627,279 times
Reputation: 7598
Quote:
Originally Posted by Volobjectitarian View Post
Because at the time, militia meant all able bodied, armed men not already in the military. Well regulated simply meant well equipped and competent in the use of their firearms (Hamilton explains in Federalist 29, as does Madison in Federalist 46). The whole "gun behind every blade of grass and in every home" theory of warding off would be oppressors, and what not.

That body of armed citizens, i.e. all able bodied men, being necessary to the security of the free state. This means that a free state can only exist when all able bodied men (language of the time) are armed, thus capable of defense against an armed would-be oppressor like a foreign invader or a centralized government disposed to tyranny. Read the Anti-Federalist Papers, Federalist Papers, speeches during the ratification of the Constitution, particularly in Virginia, and it is quite clear that Framers meant "all men (people)" in the sovereign states.

And they ALL agreed that the greatest threat was the centralized government oppressing them, having just fought a successful revolution against a tyrannical central government that was oppressing them. That was, is ad will always be the reason the 2nd Amendment was added to the Bill of Rights. The only way you were getting the colonies below the Mason Dixon line to sign up for a powerful central government was to acquiesce to their loud, constant and well founded cries of fear about replacing the powerful government of King George III with a new powerful King Somebody or Other. Pre-sellout Patrick Henry, Geogre Mason, James Madison, Thomas Jefferson...the folks in Virginia were fiery about all this.

And it's all a matter of recorded, verifiable history. Why it reads how it reads, what it means, who it meant to protect the people from, etc.

Shall not be infringed.







Your second paragraph explains my point quite clearly.
The amendment was for "all able bodied men who would make up a militia".
You yourself have stated this in that paragraph.

If the general population were the purpose, why were women not mentioned.
They are part of the general population,
Is it that they were considered unfit to be in a militia?
Were they not part of the general population?

Once again, the militia was the only reason for the 2nd amendment, and through out all the years, the courts have interpreted it wrong.
The amendment was never intended for the general public.


Bob.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-05-2019, 01:37 PM
 
Location: Fort Lauderdale, FL
689 posts, read 184,588 times
Reputation: 1110
Quote:
Originally Posted by CALGUY View Post
Well, it would appear ole "Pedro" never got around to answering my question, so I will ask the rest of you and see what kind of answers we get.

The question is, if the framers directed the 2nd amendment to mean the general public, why was the sentence "a well regulated militia" included in the 2nd?
The "people" mentioned in the 2nd, are people who would constitute a militia.
They are the ones who have the right to bear arms, not the general public.

If the general public were the subject of the amendment, it would have read, "the people of these united states shall have the right to bear arm", and no mention of a militia.

Again, if this is not the case, then why was the militia even mentioned in the 2nd amendment?
In 1792 Congress mandated (Militia Act of 1792) each household to have at least one gun, of military grade, plus ammunition for every able-bodied man between 18 and 45? That, my friend, is a militia.

Well-regulated? That just means in good working order, as one might say for a clock.

Organized? Means all citizens could work together to repulse a professional army with the arms that each could ‘bear’ or carry.

Finally - the operative clause: the Right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. The phrase 'to bear arms' has been interpreted by the courts to mean what one man can carry and operate, man-portable. The 2nd Amendment did not give the right to a cannon, a warship, or other large weapons of its day. Therefore it can be extrapolated that we, today, do not have a right to a tank, aircraft carrier, or nuclear weapon.

After more than 200 years these terms are still all inextricably linked together in the 2nd Amendment, and it will never be changed or repealed!

Last edited by Rumann Koch; 08-05-2019 at 01:58 PM..
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