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.
wrong. the national guard was not around in the time when the constitution was being written, and even today the militia are citizens in the age range of 18-35 who are legally allowed to own a firearm. the well regulated part means the firearms are kept in good order and ready to fire.
but it always seems as if the gun grabbers look at the first part of the second amendment, and ignore the second part, "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed". as the scotus has constantly ruled, the people indicates the average citizen individually, not as a whole.
during the early united states there was neither an standing Army or a National Guard. So the term "well regulated Militia."
regardless, the Supreme Court disagrees. Along the same lines, I suspect, as famous rulings like Citizen United and Dred Scott vs Sanford. Supreme Court wrong, again. *sigh* when did it get bought out by the highest bidder I wonder?
So my push would be a updated Supreme Court calls #@#@it on this 2nd amendment being a individual right versus a protection clause put in so states don't disarm the only army of the United States.
The 2nd amendment outlived its usefulness when the United States army came into being. There is no longer a worry about a state passing a law that strips that state from being able to defend the homeland from invasion. . .
Dance around as much as you like, but we, the people, have the right to arm ourselves.
I think I'll buy some extra ammo this weekend.
I'd really like to pick up some more GemTech subsonic rounds. They are able to cycle my pistol 100% of the time. It's so cool shooting that ammo through my Spectre II silencer, and the bullet striking the target is louder than the shot.
If anyone can let me know when that ammo is back in stock, I'd appreciate it.
It seems so obvious: more guns, more bullets flying, more death.
It seems to me the reluctance of some Americans to accept the facts on guns-and-death data is the same kind of intellectual vapor lock that makes them buy lottery tickets.
I declare a holy war started
Now, if we can just rid of the automobiles after we ban guns, then move on to removing all the sharp objects from our homes...
BTW, you are badly distorting the metaphor. A person having an accident is not a bad guy with a gun, it's just a person having an accident.
you think results, studies, and data matter on this board
how delightful
We know studies and data don't matter to the anti gun nuts on this board, they're all about pushing their agenda they don't give a damn about real data, studies, history or facts. They prove that every time they open their mouths.
regardless, the Supreme Court disagrees. Along the same lines, I suspect, as famous rulings like Citizen United and Dred Scott vs Sanford. Supreme Court wrong, again. *sigh* when did it get bought out by the highest bidder I wonder?
So my push would be a updated Supreme Court calls #@#@it on this 2nd amendment being a individual right versus a protection clause put in so states don't disarm the only army of the United States.
The 2nd amendment outlived its usefulness when the United States army came into being. There is no longer a worry about a state passing a law that strips that state from being able to defend the homeland from invasion. . .
Then add a new Amendment nullifying the 2nd. The process is covered in the Constitution and worked with prohibition and then its repeal.
Are there any other Bill of Rights that have outlived their usefulness? While you are going over the first 10 Amendments, how many are collective rights vs. individual rights?
DC's murders have dropped by 75% during the period of tight gun control. Chicago's murder rate is also dropping.
During the 1980s and early '90s DC's homicide rate went up every year. Remember "Murder Capitol" and "Dodge City"? I was there. And during this time DC had the strictest gun control laws in the country.
Read the Militia Act of 1903 and get back to us when you aren't so ignorant.
10 USC 311 (Also known as the Militia Act of 1903)
Quote:
(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard. (b) The classes of the militia are— (1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.
Can you point out where it states the National Guard is the sole militia?
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChrisFromChicago
So my push would be a updated Supreme Court calls #@#@it on this 2nd amendment being a individual right versus a protection clause put in so states don't disarm the only army of the United States.
Then what? Enforced disarmament?
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChrisFromChicago
The 2nd amendment outlived its usefulness when the United States army came into being. There is no longer a worry about a state passing a law that strips that state from being able to defend the homeland from invasion. . .
But there will be a law that strips the state from being able to defend themselves from invasion. The very law you claim has outlived it's usefulness, that if removed will strip those states from choosing to defend themselves. There is no prohibition on states forming and maintaining militia for the purpose of protection (point out where it says they cannot).
While you may not consider it important, suppose for instance Hawai'i is invaded, and the US government chooses to not immediately defend it, who will defend Hawai'i? Are the people there just supposed to surrender. The US government is intended to act to the benefit of the US, at times that may mean that for the greater good US forces are not deployed to defend areas of the US, if you happen to be in one of those areas and without US protection then who will defend you? Sure the US government may charge in later like the cavalry and retake the area, but that won't help you if you're killed for being from Chicago between the invasion and the cavalry. However a local militia could make things far more difficult (even disorganized collections of people who just have guns), and that might make a pogrom against persons from Chicago infeasible.
The only implicit reason I can tell that the 2nd Amendment exists is that it was determined that the people should be armed. There's no real discussion about the entire purpose of them being armed, there's inclusive discussions about they can be militia, overthrowing tyrannic governments, and defend themselves from wild beasts and other people intent on doing harm, but it's not exclusive, and the amendment itself is not specific. Your interpretation is that people can form militia in collective defense, but that's not borne out in the commentaries of the people who wrote it and voted for it.
Lol, well owning guns isn'y likely to hurt us. Sorry, but DH and I will be keeping ours.
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.
