Poll on Intent/Meaning of Second Amendment (Houston, Beaumont: transporting, crime)

[BobTex]

Originally Posted by Mr. Chad

I currently live in NYC and hope to move to TX as soon as I find work. My buddy had to surrender his Winchester cowboy lever action rifle since it held more than 5 rounds. When he tried to reason with the licensing bureau they didn't budge....a 5+ round capacity is a no go.... can you believe it?

That he would turn in a vintage design weapon to the government is what I find hard to believe. Also a simple modification would have made it compliant with the unreasonable NY mandate.

Also, for anyone unsure as the intent of 2A, a reading of the Federalist Papers several times spells it out. Also there are several writings by the nation's founding fathers also with likewise info explaining their sentiments on the subject. We have gotten so far away from their intents and desires for this nation that what we have today is quite the perversion of their ideas. Those that wish to destroy 2A are just following the mold of the perverters.


The basic concepts of our founders must be preserved at all costs. An all powerful central government is the enemy of the founding precepts of the United States as is an all powerful central person at the head of government. But if the masses are ignorant of these things and the results they bring it (the perversion and destruction of our Constitution along with the Bill of Rights) is bound to eventually happen to this nation. Texas as a state is not immune also from these evils. Those in power at the state levels are to be watched carefully. Vigilant and active masses are necessary.

[War Beagle]

Politicians that favor big, statist government know that the 2A is intended to serve as the ultimate check on a tyrannical government. That is why they are so zealous in their efforts to rollback gun rights.

Originally Posted by brattpowered

What I find funny is that the people who think this amendment was meant to protect us from our tyrannical government constantly vote to arm that government to the teeth with so much advanced equipment that any citizen uprising would be instantly and absolutely squashed. In fact, it's the only thing you can faithfully depend on these people not having a problem throwing tax dollars at.

As a libertarian leaner, I agree with you 100%. It is extremely odd that the very people that are most afraid of the government are the ones who want to arm it the most. The other thing that is odd about conservatism is that conservatives seem to think that government waste and bloat stop at the door to the Pentagon, despite the fact that the military is an extremely bloated part of our government (especially since it got into the social engineering business).

[ocean2026]

The construction of laws are not to be decided by polls or Texas and the South would still be segregated. Remember all the signs "Impeach Earl Warren" because Southerners did not like his interpretation of the Constitution that minorities should have the same public school opportunities as white students.
Courts may make the wrong decisions sometimes but the law is not majority rule.

[DSL_PWR]

This says a lot.

Language.


The 2nd Amendment - YouTube

[Westerner92]

Originally Posted by TexasReb

I see your point of course, my friend, Westerner...and they are good ones! -- but would just like to counter-respond that there have been quite a few instances throughout history where an armed citizenry ultimately defeated a well-equipped, modern, army.

In our own history, the Revolutionary War would be the premier example. But ok, to bring it up to the present era? The Soviets got -- if not beaten -- so demoralized by the Afgans -- they eventually gave up. And --although it pains me to say it -- the United States eventually "lost" the Vietnam War because the enemy was armed and willing to see it thru 'til hell froze over.

Also, on a related tangent, the notion that an armed citizenry intent on protecting their(our) constitutional rights would be up against a military of the genre of a robotic sort as in the Nazi's or Communist China or North Korea? Well, -- IMHO -- is based upon the faulty premise that most of those in the United States military would actually fire upon their own family and countrymen, at all.

Most of those in the military today -- and always have, far as that goes -- come from Texas/South/rural Midwest...and would just likely as not, feel a sense of revulsion if given such and order, and support their own kin and kind...

Question, though. If the premise that the military would never fire on its citizenry is faulty, then why do people need to arm themselves against it?

[doctorjef]

I voted "other". Looking at the poll results, this is one of the reasons I would seem to fit poorly into Texas, even though I would consider moving back there after (if and when) Texas gets marriage equality. Here's my thinking. The Second Amendment is outdated in its original conceptualisation, but outright repeal is impossible in the foreseeable future. The Amendment is ambiguously worded, rather like some of the Articles of Religion of the Church of England (subsequently adopted by the Episcopal Church in the USA, albeit without any requirement that the clergy actually subscribe to them). Citizen militia have been superceded by organised National Guard that are subject to federalisation and indeed to overseas deployment. The first and second clause of the Second Amendment are not clearly related to one another in a direct way; however, the "well-regulated" adjective suggests that a militia under the understanding of the amendment is not simply an ad hoc affair - not a posse nor a citizen organisation without some form of civic oversight - but is duly established by the civil authority. Hence, it is not an anti-governmental institution (as the majority of respondents to this poll seem to be asserting).

Further, as to so-called original intent, most of the authors and defenders of the Constitution of 1787, as subsequently amended, were ardent advocates of strong federal authority. I also think it is absurd to assert that men of such high intellect and learning would have assumed that the application of constitutional principles should be stuck in a time warp oblivious to developments in technology, societal conditions, etc.

[Two4damoney]

The ultimate check without a doubt.

[TexasReb]

Let me take this in two parts...

=Westerner92;33510955]Question, though. If the premise that the military would never fire on its citizenry is faulty

Perhaps I either didn't explain it well enough, or that perhaps you misunderstood. Regardless, let me try and clarify...

I never said that the military -- as a whole -- would not fire upon fellow Americans. Certainly there are some who would (as in robotically mow down their fellow countrymen...certainly many of the Muslim persuasion in the armed forces, would...).

What I did say -- or at least intended -- was that a disproportionate number of the men and women who actually make up the ranks of those who must do the actual "dirty work", are from Texas/South/rural Midwest, and would -- or at least many if not most of them -- feel a deep sense of revulsion over the idea of firing upon their own friends and kin and fellow Americans. So I feel safe in saying there would be a very divided military when it came to carrying out orders to do just that, if necessary.

Also --and I realize personal experience is not a valid "proof of fact" -- but I can say with absolute certainty, that I have talked to quite a few both active and retired military men, who confirm the above. And that today, there are deep divisions in the military over this very question...

, then why do people need to arm themselves against it?

See above. There IS -- as acknowleged -- a formidable part of the military that would take an opposite direction. Assuming, of course, that such an order would ever be given to begin with. But the United States is not immune to patterns of history...so it COULD happen. And that is the reason for the Second Amendment.

*just grinning and reflecting a bit on a very related tangent*... I sometimes hear the -- usually delivered in a condescending tone -- from those who scoff at the notion that the 2nd serves any useful purpose in terms of protecting the citizenry from government tryranny -- with something along the lines of: "How many times has the government attempted to repeal the Bill of Rights"?

Then of course, they (behind their posts) laugh and scoff and think they are being clever and cute and insightful...

BUT? It never seems to occur to them that perhaps the reason such an overt move has not been attempted? Well, maybe it is because the 2nd exists!

[lucky4life]

The entire constitution is pretty outdated. Technology has brought us things that the founders couldn't have even dreamed of. I definitely believe in the right to own firearms, but the 2cnd amendment doesn't really apply to our society anymore. guys like Thomas Jefferson could never have envisioned things like nuclear arms, nerve gas or biological weapons. As far as gun laws go, it should be up to the states IMO. I have no problem with a guy owning an AK47 as long as he has a clean record and it's registered to him.

[TexasReb]

Ahhhh, thus speaketh "The Proscecutor"... (Perry Mason theme song, now! )

*AHEM* Honestly, no disrespect nor anything personal intended in the least (in fact, I often enjoy reading your posts just for the different point of views). No, but there is -- in reading lots of them -- yours so often ooze of a supercilious and didactic overtone. And so we proceed, piecemeal...

=ocean2026;33509507]The construction of laws are not to be decided by polls or Texas and the South would still be segregated.

Oh gawd...can you back this up with up with a single survey that says any such a thing (that Texas/South would still be segregated)?

If so, please share it. If you can't? Then your "accusation" can only be taken as one written by a person who maybe feels themselves so morally superior to others, that they can presume a lordly position among the ignorant peons...

And yeah, yeah, yeah (with apologies to the Beatles!), anyone who has the slightest bit of understanding of the workings of government (especially the checks and balances amongst the three branches know all this; that laws are not decided by polls....

Ahhh, ...but therin lies the rub...

To wit: while laws are not decided by polls -- in a direct sense -- they are -- at least in a secondary sense -- decided (or at least should be by the constitution) -- by the people working their will thru their elected representatives. Who are the ones who should -- at least in constitutional theory -- make the laws.

As I am sure you know, the judicial branch is -- again in original theory -- ONLY there to interpret them. However? It is more and more becoming an unelected branch which assumes unprecedented power and that of legislating from the bench...

Remember all the signs "Impeach Earl Warren" because Southerners did not like his interpretation of the Constitution that minorities should have the same public school opportunities as white students.

Oh gawd again The Prosecutor and Preacher to boot...Wow! What a combo! But anyway...

That was almost half a century ago...and yet some of those holier-than-thou's -- like you, apparently -- still feel a need to drag it out...and maybe even imply -- or want to convince others -- of an "early enlightenment" on your own part...

Uhhhh, wanna talk about REAL resistance to Supreme Court decisions under the Warren Regime? What about when the Swann v. Charlotte decision came out (essentially -- as you know -- to mandate "forced busing").

And where was the most violent resistence encountered? It wasn't in Texas/South. It was in the northeast and industrial Midwest (does Pontiac, Michigan, or South Boston, ring a bell...?)

Courts may make the wrong decisions sometimes but the law is not majority rule.

Thanks for that "News Flash". LOL Sooooo, should the opinion of 3 - 9 unelected judges -- depending upon the court -- with a life-time tenure have the divine right to "decide" the law? Just asking....

But ok, ok, again...where do you, personally, stand on the original intent of the 2nd....?