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.
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?
Not true. Assault rifles are FULLY AUTOMATIC and banned since 1986.
Umm, a small quibble. Full auto weapons have never been banned. But huge number of obstacles have been put in the way of owning one. And in 1986 the govt passed legislation making it illegal to manufacture new ones. But you can buy an existing one, if you jump thru all the hoops. Good luck with that.
Location: New Albany, Indiana (Greater Louisville)
11,974 posts, read 25,480,204 times
Reputation: 12187
The Founding Fathers were well versed in Ancient Roman history. 2A and all it entails made a ton of sense back then. How could they have foreseen that technology in under 200 years could produced enough bombs to destroy the whole world? They also didn't want a strong federal army so a well armed militia could realistically overthrow a tyrant.
In today's world the whole premise is different. The govt has aerial fighter planes and nukes. No militia is going to overthrow that. Allowing citizens to have same weapons as military would be huge safety hazard. It would be insane to allow an 18 yr old to buy a nuclear bomb at Wal Mart. We also can't have a weak federal army, we'd be invaded tomorrow. The world is very different from 1790.
The govt has aerial fighter planes and nukes. No militia is going to overthrow that.
18 years after invading Afghanistan, a bunch of people who live in mud houses and carry simple rifles are holding their own against the best military on the planet. All the smart bombs and satellites and nukes and helicopters haven't proven all that effective against a determined insurgency armed with little more than rifles and fertilizer bombs. Soon we'll leave, and the Taliban will be back where they started - and that's after they beat the world's second-best, nuclear armed military.
Again, there is no mistake with the 2nd Ammendment!
I agree. The English is very easy to read. Unfortunately many people can't read it. Ask an English teacher sometime.......
"Read these sentences:
“Their project being complete, the team disbanded.”
“Stern discipline being called for, the offending student was expelled.”
In both cases, the initial dependent clause is not superfluous to the meaning of the entire sentence: it is integral. The team disbanded because the project was complete; the student was expelled because his offense called for stern discipline. This causal relationship cannot be ignored. Reading the Second Amendment as “A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right to bear arms shall not be infringed,” clearly shows the same causal relationship as the example sentences; in this case, that the right to bear arms shall not be infringed because it is essential to maintaining a well-regulated militia."
Very very clear to anyone with no dog in the fight.
The 2nd says what it says, it's just been interpreted wrong for far to long.
Bob.
The 2nd amendment is clear as any amendment. But even then, we have context (letters written by the founding fathers). It's not been misinterpreted. In fact, it's been violated. Many of the regulations passed would violate the spirit of the 2nd amendment.
If you want to seriously regulate guns in this country, you need to amend the constitution. If you start using USSC decisions and word-games to undermine a clearly written amendment - you undermine all the other amendments, including the 1st amendment. The purpose of the amendments was that they required overwhelming consent to change, this is what made them so important. Unlike other laws that can be passed under one administration and done away in the next.
So, you're basically saying you have no idea why they wrote the 2nd.
It wasn't about hunting. They wrote the 2nd specifically for allowing citizens to resist government aggression.
Not exactly. Read the ENTIRE amendment closely and you'll get your answer. No skipping over that first phrase because that phrase is what connects the amendment to the body of the constitution.
It was written to allow for the defense of the nation from foreign invasion and domestic rebellion. Resisting government aggression is tantamount to domestic rebellion, especially when you can vote the bastards out every four years.
Resisting government aggression is not in the constitution; resisting foreign and domestic transgressors is.
Not exactly. Read the ENTIRE amendment closely and you'll get your answer. No skipping over that first phrase because that phrase is what connects the amendment to the body of the constitution.
It was written to allow for the defense of the nation from foreign invasion and domestic rebellion. Resisting government aggression is tantamount to domestic rebellion, especially when you can vote the bastards out every four years.
Resisting government aggression is not in the constitution; resisting foreign and domestic transgressors is.
Who is skipping over the first phrase?
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?
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.
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.
