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 US Constitution is a pretty solid document. It's time that our lawmakers and politicians get back to upholding it!
You mean uphold based on how YOU believe the Constitution should be interpreted.
Quote:
Without the 2nd amendment your 1st amendment rights are irrelevant. What makes you think that if they did away with the 2nd amendment that you'd necessarily be able to exercise your right to free speech?
As it has already been pointed out an armed rebellion (Shay's Rebellion) has failed in the US post American revolution era. Free speech and the right to assemble has been FAR more effective in getting govt change than the barrel of a gun.
Actually, you see in your history books what it leads to. Not always a criminal mob, but an orderly and organized civil uprising just like how the American revolutionaries did it. Their model is a model in how it's done.
Posted with TapaTalk
Uh..... The American revolutionaries wouldn't have been able to do it without organizing a real army (not some scattered militias) and the French.
You mean uphold based on how YOU believe the Constitution should be interpreted.
I was going to ask which parts are up for interpretation but let's just stick to the 2nd.
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.
What part of the statement above is unclear?
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, - The reason the amendment exists
the right of the people to keep and bear Arms - The natural right codified as binding law.
shall not be infringed. - The reason all federal gun laws are unconstitutional.
You mean uphold based on how YOU believe the Constitution should be interpreted.
As it has already been pointed out an armed rebellion (Shay's Rebellion) has failed in the US post American revolution era. Free speech and the right to assemble has been FAR more effective in getting govt change than the barrel of a gun.
I think it's laid out quite well. It's the progressives who want to change the interpretation of it.
I was going to ask which parts are up for interpretation but let's just stick to the 2nd.
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.
What part of the statement above is unclear?
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, - The reason the amendment exists
the right of the people to keep and bear Arms - The natural right codified as binding law.
shall not be infringed. - The reason all federal gun laws are unconstitutional.
We don't have militias anymore.... we have a federal army. That's not a different interpretation? We don't allow just anyone to bear arms either, we don't let the mentally ill to name one group. So spare me your nonsense.
Republicans need to reconcile their love of the military industrial complex, with their love of the second amendment. We don't need both. That was the point of the founders. They would be rolling in their graves with the military size and scope we have today
I'm not a Republican but I agree that our military could use some streamlining. First and foremost would be to either close all foreign bases or if an ally country wants our protection via a standing base, then we receive something of equivalent value in return. Money, natural resources, etc.
We don't have militias anymore.... we have a federal army. That's not a different interpretation? We don't allow just anyone to bear arms either, we don't let the mentally ill to name one group. So spare me your nonsense.
Where's the law that they were outlawed? They haven't been called up since the 1940's but they are still there.
Like any other revocation of rights, mentally ill would have to go through a court process to have their 2nd Amendment rights revoked.
They weren't an armed mob just shooting police and politicians as was the scenario that the poster I replied to was saying.
Posted with TapaTalk
Um.... well then you completely missed that posters point. He is wondering the age old question: Who Will Guard the Guardians?
What's to stop the freedom fighters overthrowing a tyrannical to become tyrants themselves.... Look at the history of Latin/S. America, Africa, Middle East, and some parts of Asia.... Just swapping one tyrant for another.....
Where's the law that they were outlawed? They haven't been called up since the 1940's but they are still there.
There still there but they are functionally obsolete now. IF they engaged in vigilantism, criminal behavior, or insurrection they would be swiftly dealt with.
Quote:
Like any other revocation of rights, mentally ill would have to go through a court process to have their 2nd Amendment rights revoked.
YOU SAID the 2nd amendment wasn't up for interpretation.... that is FACTUALLY incorrect. Obviously in the 18th and 19th century there was no database or screenings for gun ownership.
Just admit you are wrong and move on.
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.
