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.
And unlike the Constitution, the Supremes routinely modify or reverse themselves by ruling accordingly on new cases. The Supremes are wrong, have been wrong in the past, and will be wrong in the future. In this case, they completely ignored the fact that the framers wrote the Second Amendment about the MILITIA, because I suppose they felt it would be a nice thing to give ignoramus gun fondlers what they were asking for. BUT the Second Amendment is about MILITIAS, the subject word of the thing is about MILITIAS, and that's the way the framers wanted it. If they'd wanted to say that individuals were allowed to own guns without being in a REGULATED MILITIA, you'd betcha they'd have said it. But that's not what they wanted to say, so they didn't.
My statements are always informed. However, what citations are you talking about?
No it is not...
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.
Let's translate that eh?
Because a militia is necessary to ensure govt doesn't run amok, the govt will not infringe on the people's right to own and carry guns.
It doesn't say you have to be IN a militia. Just that a militia is necessary.
It also says that the fact won't touch my guns because we may just need a militia.
Period... Any attempt to state otherwise is just intellectually dishonest.
And you my friend, as smart as you think you are, are no Supreme Court Justice.
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.
Let's translate that eh?
Because a militia is necessary to ensure govt doesn't run amok, the govt will not infringe on the people's right to own and carry guns.
It doesn't say you have to be IN a militia. Just that a militia is necessary.
It also says that the fact won't touch my guns because we may just need a militia.
Period... Any attempt to state otherwise is just intellectually dishonest.
And you my friend, as smart as you think you are, are no Supreme Court Justice.
Pfftt...
Go on, translate it bit by bit. Tell me what you think it says. Get some glasses first though, your gun fondling pals are denying that the subject is militia, and are fully convinced the word, "individual" is in there hidden someplace.
Go on, translate it bit by bit. Tell me what you think it says. Get some glasses first though, your gun fondling pals are denying that the subject is militia, and are fully convinced the word, "individual" is in there hidden someplace.
"People" implies "individuals."
My post does not state otherwise...
The people is me, it is them and it is even you. The people.
The people's right to own(keep) and carry(bear) arms SHALL NOT be infringed...
Sure, and unlike the Constitution, the Supremes routinely modify or reverse themselves by ruling accordingly on new cases. The Supremes are wrong, have been wrong in the past, and will be wrong in the future. In this case, they completely ignored the fact that the framers wrote the Second Amendment about the MILITIA, because I suppose they felt it would be a nice thing to give ignoramus gun fondlers what they were asking for. BUT the Second Amendment is about MILITIAS, the subject word of the thing is about MILITIAS, and that's the way the framers wanted it. If they'd wanted to say that individuals were allowed to own guns without being in a REGULATED MILITIA, you'd betcha they'd have said it. But that's not what they wanted to say, so they didn't.
The thing is, there are two different types of militia. Organized and unorganized. My state's Constitution is specific on this:
"The organized militia consists of the following:
(i)� Such elements of the land and air forces of the national guard of the United States as are allocated to the state by the president, the secretary of defense or the secretary of the army or the air force and accepted by the state, hereinafter to be known as the Wyoming national guard; and
(ii)� Wyoming state guard forces, when organized.
(c)� The unorganized militia consists of all persons liable to serve in the militia but not commissioned or enlisted in the organized militia."
19-8-102.� Composition of state militia; age limits; physical and mental qualifications.
(a)� Except as provided by subsection (b) of this section the militia of the state includes all qualified residents of the state between the ages of seventeen (17) and seventy (70) years, and any nonresident applicants as may be enrolled or commissioned therein, and in the case of the organized militia, who are within the age limits and possess the physical and mental qualifications prescribed by law or regulations for the reserve components of the armed forces of the United States.
(b)� The following persons are exempt from militia service:
(i)� Persons exempt from military service by the laws of the United States;
(ii)� Regular or duly ordained ministers of religion, or duly elected church officials regularly conducting church services or recognized by their church as devoting the major portion of their time to the practice of religion;
(iii)� Students preparing for the ministry in recognized theological or divinity schools; and
(iv)� Persons who, by reason of religious belief, have scruples of conscience adverse to bearing arms
THAT MEANS ME as far as the State of Wyoming is concerned!!! You STILL don't know what you are talking about, Saritaschihuahua
I have a copy of the constitution of the United States because it was handed to me by one of the RWNJ's just as I was going in to vote. (didn't sway me either way)
The way I read it and this is JMO is that the 2nd amendment allows the states to form a militia and they are allowed to be armed and the Federal govt. can't take that right away.
No where does it say anything about individual right to own guns.
That being said I am a gun owner (one gun kept at home for personal protection) because the lax laws allow every bad guy in the land to purchase or steal unregistered guns from unscrupulous gun owners who don't have to register their guns.
I don't believe in CCW because it allows to many untrained gun carrying cowboys who think they are going to save the day.
It doesn't "include" the word militia. IT IS THE SUBJECT OF THE AMENDMENT.
so I guess the "people" mentioned in the 2nd Amendment only means the people as a whole, right?
if that is true according to you, then the "people" mentioned in any of the other Amendments only speaks about the people as a group and not as an individual, right?
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.
