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 08-06-2019, 07:17 AM
 
Location: USA
18,643 posts, read 9,148,600 times
Reputation: 14000

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by GoldenPineTree View Post
It's as clear as ever. No one had problems interpreting this amendment until progressives began trying to ban guns using everything short of a constitutional amendment (what it requires, but what they realize is futile).

{purpose}, {right}. The first part of the sentence is the purpose for the right. But the right is clear, it's "the right of the people" not the "right of the people in a well regulated militia."

Back then, the 2nd amendment applied to the federal government and militias were controlled by state governments. It's basically saying, the federal government cannot pass any gun laws because that will interfere with the sovereignty of the state to manage its militia.

Now a lot of things have changed since the founding fathers wrote the bill of rights. For one, states no longer manage their militias and no longer have that level of sovereignty. But the amendment is there and in effect until it's amended away.

So instead of trying playing disingenuous word-games that only a person illiterate in the English language could swallow - push for gun regulation the proper way, a new amendment. What you're doing now undermines the constitution. If you can pass an amendment and then skirt around it by playing word-games and saying things like "well, the founding fathers couldn't possibly know" undermines rule of law in this country. It's dangerous and it needs to stop.
These Progressive gun grabbers only want to remove the guns form the law abiding to allow total government control. They are STATISTS and believe in the benevolence of an all powerful government that will "FIX" everything. I don't believe in that.

They know that the Second Amendment isn't tied to being in a militia. It is a clear right of the PEOPLE. It doesn't say the Right of the Government to keep a bear arms shall not be infringed. They also know that "Well Regulated" in this sense does not mean controlled or restricted. It means practiced and WELL EQUIPPED.

They are playing erroneous WORD GAMES, and they know it. Pure deflection and dishonesty. Plus the Supreme Court which has generally been unfriendly to gun owners ruled that the Second Amendment is an INDIVIDUAL RIGHT.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 08-06-2019, 07:23 AM
 
235 posts, read 23,233 times
Reputation: 133
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pilot1 View Post
These Progressive gun grabbers only want to remove the guns form the law abiding to allow total government control. They are STATISTS and believe in the benevolence of an all powerful government that will "FIX" everything. I don't believe in that.

They know that the Second Amendment isn't tied to being in a militia. It is a clear right of the PEOPLE. It doesn't say the Right of the Government to keep a bear arms shall not be infringed. They also know that "Well Regulated" in this sense does not mean controlled or restricted. It means practiced and WELL EQUIPPED.

They are playing erroneous WORD GAMES, and they know it. Pure deflection and dishonesty. Plus the Supreme Court which has generally been unfriendly to gun owners ruled that the Second Amendment is an INDIVIDUAL RIGHT.
Progressives have been using the courts and word games to dream up new rights, and imposing their will on state governments. Abortion is a perfect example. Somehow the constitution implies a right of privacy which implies you have domain over your body but this is never extended to hard drugs (like heroin) because they realize it's ridiculous. Somehow the constitution implies there is a right to homosexual marriage.

Instead of doing things the proper way - eg passing a constitutional or just leaving it up to individual states - they want to force other states to enact their vision for the country. Truly authoritarian. Technically, both the eugenics movement in the 1920s and the National Socialist movement in 1920s were progressive movements. Advocating massive change, social engineering, and requiring compliance for their bizarre utopian fantasies.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-06-2019, 08:52 AM
 
5,368 posts, read 2,027,384 times
Reputation: 3014
Quote:
Originally Posted by HeyJude514 View Post
There, I said it.

In their defense, they had no idea what that amendment would result in some 200+ years later, no way to know the kind of advanced weaponry that would be invented and fall into hands they don't belong in, no way of knowing how Americans would misuse and abuse the amendment in ways they never intended.

But here we are.

It's time to consider amending the Constitution again.
The Second Amendment works perfectly for the majority, in a homogeneous nation.

Therefore, it is reasonable to conclude that there are no innate problems with the second amendment.

No one could reasonably argue that most of our present problems do not stem from multiculturalism, to include illicit weapon use when group conflict rises. As well as so many more. Problems with multiculturalism are defining this era.

No one can cite a historical precedent that multiculturalism would work on any significant scale. We've been sold a pack of hopes, dreams and over-emotional poems that have no bearing on the real world and we are all suffering immensely for listening to the political schemers and doe eyed dreamers.

Now we are to give up a right that has protected our freedom because multiculturalism has broken it? I say it is multiculturalism that is broken. The inter-group conflicts will continue rise with or without legal guns. Oppression will be able to be facilitated unabated without them.

It is not our constitutional freedoms that are on trial. It is the society with which they clash.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-06-2019, 01:33 PM
 
Location: San Diego
5,340 posts, read 1,463,573 times
Reputation: 3809
Quote:
Originally Posted by mike1003 View Post
The Founding Fathers knew exactly what they were doing

The 2nd Amendment protects all of the other Amendments!!
Quote:
Originally Posted by CrownVic95 View Post
Ahhh......another round of The Internet's most popular dogma. Some genius wrote it and posted it some years back and since then gun zealots are piled on top of each other trying to out-do their peers in total number of repetitions. Because they think it's so cool.

The only problem is that it is complete and utter nonsense in the environment in which we live today....and have lived for more than a century.
TRANSLATION: I can't refute it.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-06-2019, 01:36 PM
 
Location: San Diego
5,340 posts, read 1,463,573 times
Reputation: 3809
The Founding Fathers Made a Mistake With the Second Amendment


Umm, no.

The Framers of the Constitution and BOR had it right.

The 2nd means in modern English:

"Since an armed and capable populace is necessary for freedom and security, the right of ordinary people to own and carry a gun and other such weapons cannot be taken away or restricted."

Or, in other words, No government in the U.S. is allowed to have any say in who can own and carry a gun, and who can't.

The Framers had it right. Big-govt leftists have been disobeying the 2nd for decades, and as you see, mass murders etc. by people who violate the law have been increasing regardless.

We need to get the government out of the business of controlling who can and can't have a gun. So that when some criminal thinks about murdering a bunch of people, he knows that a few in the crown will probably be armed. And he won't know who they are. So some of those criminals will change their minds and not do their mass murders.

Presto, fewer law-abiding people die. And without a shot being fired.

Why do our brethern on the left keep fighting against this idea?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-06-2019, 01:36 PM
 
Location: southern california
55,909 posts, read 74,949,733 times
Reputation: 48477
Utter nonsense
They tried to pass it without gun rights -it failed -we did not trust the government then -after listening to the squad -trust them now ? lol
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-06-2019, 01:55 PM
 
Location: A safe distance from San Francisco
8,704 posts, read 6,218,483 times
Reputation: 8709
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roboteer View Post
TRANSLATION: I can't refute it.
I had to do a double take....because I couldn't believe you actually posted this and completely ignored my invitation for you to back up your laughable contention.

Talk about I can't refute it. This is priceless.

Your guns (collectively) do nothing but keep coroners and news anchors very busy.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-06-2019, 02:06 PM
 
Location: A safe distance from San Francisco
8,704 posts, read 6,218,483 times
Reputation: 8709
Quote:
Originally Posted by Huckleberry3911948 View Post
Utter nonsense
They tried to pass it without gun rights -it failed -we did not trust the government then -after listening to the squad -trust them now ? lol
Are you another with special guns engraved with "Get Out Of Jail Free" on the barrel?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-06-2019, 03:30 PM
 
Location: in my imagination
11,446 posts, read 18,668,735 times
Reputation: 7956
Quote:
Originally Posted by Leo58 View Post
Well, I agree the Founders made a mistake with the 2nd amendment. The mistake was that it is very poorly worded.

"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 is not even a coherent sentence. Grammatically incorrect. If they intended for the right to arms to be universal, they should have left out the first part. If they wanted the right to be reserved to members of the militia, they should have clearly stated that.

Instead we have this contradictory wording that allows us now to have these endless debates about what they really meant.
Well think of it like this, why would the founders make a bill of rights that is based on individual rights (other than the 10th affirming states rights mostly) but then task the 2nd as confirming rights of the government to have guns?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-06-2019, 11:07 PM
 
9,518 posts, read 4,355,455 times
Reputation: 11123
Quote:
Originally Posted by CrownVic95 View Post
Ahhh......another round of The Internet's most popular dogma. Some genius wrote it and posted it some years back and since then gun zealots are piled on top of each other trying to out-do their peers in total number of repetitions. Because they think it's so cool.
Wow you are really misguided.

Try reading the Federalist papers (published well before the internet ever came along).
Contained within those historical documents was the reasoning and rational of the Founding Fathers thoughts, beliefs, and social norms of the day.
So to try and claim some internet kook created false dogma in the last 30 years, and it has spread like fake news recently, is patently false!


`
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