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 08-04-2019, 09:08 AM
 
30,335 posts, read 15,746,630 times
Reputation: 20381

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Brave New World View Post
Nonsense they meant people could keep guns in their homes in order to defend the country in terms of a militia and this was the reason that everyone had the right to bear arms.

This however in modern America has little bearing on rightly and the problems relating to modern day shootings and weapons.
Once again, if that were true, it wouldn't appear in the Bill of Rights. You should take a course on the Constitution.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 08-04-2019, 09:09 AM
 
39,796 posts, read 41,164,039 times
Reputation: 16483
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brave New World View Post
"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."

A militia is a type of reserve force like that found in Swtzerland where the Home Guard take their guns home and are committed to defending the country, it is very well regulated and is a world away from modern day America.

Comma's create context and the term "well regualted" at the time meant in good working order.



The PA Constitution from 1776 which predates the US Constitution. I think it's pretty clear what they meant and the reason why:


Quote:
That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the state; and as standing armies in the time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; And that the military should be kept under strict subordination, to, and governed by, the civil power.
Amended in 1790 and current:

Quote:

§ 21. Right to bear arms.

The right of the citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State shall not be questioned.

§ 22. Standing army; military subordinate to civil power.

No standing army shall, in time of peace, be kept up without the consent of the Legislature, and the military shall in all cases and at all times be in strict subordination to the civil power.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-04-2019, 09:09 AM
 
24,677 posts, read 12,175,870 times
Reputation: 10528
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.
Won’t change a thing. Not with the millions of guns out there. Criminalize then and you make instant felons of 95% of the population. Try thinking with your head instead of emotions.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-04-2019, 09:10 AM
 
37,809 posts, read 16,367,633 times
Reputation: 8571
Quote:
Originally Posted by don1945 View Post
Absolutely correct. Times change and situations change. We aren't dealing with flintlocks any more, nor the need to have guns in case the English come back and try to take over the country. That was then, this is now.


What is it going to take to make people realize that you and I do not need to own guns that spew out tons of rounds, just because "we can" ?
"We aren't dealing with flintlocks any more," The semi-auto had been around BEFORE the Bill of Rights was written. Why didn't they ban them then?

Why did President Thomas Jefferson give SOME to Lewis & Clark, PRIVATE CITIZENS, when they went on their on their expedition?

Private citizens owned cannons and warships. Why weren't they banned?

Some people LACK of history when trying to discuss this is IS AMAZING!

Like I said, if you think you can get an amendment PASSED go for it. Until you try it is all nothing but HOT AIR!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-04-2019, 09:10 AM
 
30,335 posts, read 15,746,630 times
Reputation: 20381
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eli34 View Post
Right-wingers in their social media bubble echoing these talking points to each other.
Such as the founding fathers who wrote it.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-04-2019, 09:11 AM
 
4,906 posts, read 1,292,396 times
Reputation: 2294
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brave New World View Post
"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."

A militia is a type of reserve force like that found in Swtzerland where the Home Guard take their guns home and are committed to defending the country, it is very well regulated and is a world away from modern day America.

I suggest the meaning of Militia was this -

The obligation to serve in the militia in England derives from a common law tradition, and dates back to Anglo-Saxon times. The tradition was that all able-bodied males were liable to be called out to serve in one of two organisations. These were the posse comitatus, an ad hoc assembly called together by a law officer to apprehend lawbreakers, and the fyrd a military body intended to preserve internal order or defend the locality against an invader. The latter developed into the militia, and was usually embodied by a royal warrant. Service in each organisation involved different levels of preparednes

So the US is basically using something developed from Anglo Saxon times to justify it's gun laws, indeed it's so ridiculous you couldn't make it up.
SCOTUS doesn't agree with you.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-04-2019, 09:11 AM
 
30,335 posts, read 15,746,630 times
Reputation: 20381
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quick Enough View Post
"We aren't dealing with flintlocks any more," The semi-auto had been around BEFORE the Bill of Rights was written. Why didn't they ban them then?


Why did President Thomas Jefferson give SOME to Lewis & Clark, PRIVATE CITIZENS, when they went on their on their expedition?



Private citizens owned cannons and warships. Why weren't they banned?


Some people LACK of history when trying to discuss this is IS AMAZING!
So true.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-04-2019, 09:15 AM
 
37,809 posts, read 16,367,633 times
Reputation: 8571
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eli34 View Post
Yep agreed....the time that the founding fathers lived was like a different universe compared to ours. Society and technology changes with time, and the only way a nation can survive is by addressing these changes.

We can still own guns, but we need to start addressing these weapons of mass murder...weapons which never existed during the times of the founding fathers.
" but we need to start addressing these weapons of mass murder..." such as?


"weapons which never existed during the times of the founding fathers." If you are referring ti semi-autos, they WERE around BEFORE the 2nd amendment was written.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-04-2019, 09:16 AM
 
5,146 posts, read 1,015,243 times
Reputation: 2037
Not a gun-owner, but we are in need of changing some of many laws on both the state- and federal-levels. Now how we make it so that those laws are not too vague or too specific is a valid concern.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-04-2019, 09:16 AM
 
37,809 posts, read 16,367,633 times
Reputation: 8571
Quote:
Originally Posted by Winterfall8324 View Post
No. It was meant so that colonizers on the frontier could defend themselves from native tribes and push American farm land west without the need of an organized military to be at constant war spread thin along the wide border.

It also had well to do with protecting slave owners.
"No. It was meant so that colonizers on the frontier could defend themselves from native tribes and push American farm land west without the need of an organized military to be at constant war spread thin along the wide border.'


Provide historical FACTS to back this up.
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