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 problem I have with gun rights advocates is that almost all of them have a blind spot to that first part of the Second Amendment. I have actually had people quote the Second Amendment (unnecessary because I know it word for word) to me, and totally leave off that part of it. They just start with "the right of the people", and even if they somehow can get the first part through their thick sculls, they still just dismiss it, and continue on like the entire amendment is nothing more then their right to unrestricted gun ownership. You have to either accept the entire amendment or none of it. You can't just pick and choose which parts you like.
You're problem is that you don't seem to understand what the first part of the amendment actually does. You're so hung up on it. The first part of the Amendment gives a REASON and PURPOSE for the second part. The first part neither limits, nor does it expand the Right enshrined in the second part.
Until you can get that basic concept through your skull, you'll never be able to have a productive conversation about the Second Amendment, but I think your confusion is a conscious and willing one, so.....
Thanks to the tireless efforts of the NRA to have the Second Amendment encompass an individual right, we now have more restrictive gun laws than ever before. Be wary of what you wish, for you may get more than what you would want.
Now you've really proven your ignorance on the subject. The NRA fought tirelessly to derail the Heller case, even tried to give the SCOTUS grounds to rule on other than Constitutional, because they were afraid of what the ruling might be.
But I don't think you're here to be honest or learn something, I think you, and a few others are here, only to console yourselves on the utter failure that you've experienced in passing gun control and taking peoples gun rights away. You do this, by creating an alternate reality in where you're actually winning the debate over gun control rather than losing, and losing badly.
The problem I have with gun rights advocates is that almost all of them have a blind spot to that first part of the Second Amendment. I have actually had people quote the Second Amendment (unnecessary because I know it word for word) to me, and totally leave off that part of it. They just start with "the right of the people", and even if they somehow can get the first part through their thick sculls, they still just dismiss it, and continue on like the entire amendment is nothing more then their right to unrestricted gun ownership. You have to either accept the entire amendment or none of it. You can't just pick and choose which parts you like.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rggr
Certainly true. My point is that the second part is not contingent upon inclusion in a militia by the language of the first part. The first part simply provides a reason for the second part.
rggr is right. the issue comes when the gun grabbers only look at the first part of the amendment, and forget the second part exists. it would be like reading the first amendment and only looking at the religion clause and forgetting the rest, or looking at our rights if we are arrested and the cops saying you have the right to remain silent and the right to an attorney, and forgetting to tell you that anything you say can be used against you in a court of law, or that an attorney will be provided if you cannot afford one.
we cannot look at only one part of an amendment, and forget the rest, we have to look at the whole amendment.
"I'm a republican but I can't interpret it as applying to all people" Herein is the problem.
Some want to "interpret " what the Fore Father's said rather then READ the ACTUAL words they said.
There words are VERY clear as what EXACTLY they meant.
I am amazed as to many of the "interpretations some have come up with WITHOUT doing ANY research.
It's because they don't care what the truth is, they don't like the implications of the truth when it comes to the Second Amendment, so they invent a new truth that conforms to their bias.
I'd have FAR more respect for them if they just said that they don't like the truth, instead of trying to invent a new one.
To regulate means to set rules. To set rules means to limit. Limiting is infringing. Personally, I don't mind some regulations, but it is in fact limiting/infringement.
Maybe in 2015, but in 1778, it meant well working.
A well regulated clock, doesn't have rules.
The right of the "people" shall not be infringed; however, the right of the individual is limited by law. It is a legal distinction; and one that makes a difference.
This is a bit idiotic... Militia.... Who exactly determines who is in a militia or not? The answer is YOU... Therefore, if YOU, the People, decide you are the militia, then you are granted the right to bear arms...therefore, it IS every able-body person who has the right to bear arms... During that time ANYBODY could buy a gun... Proof positive to backup that very idea....
Maybe in 2015, but in 1778, it meant well working.
A well regulated clock, doesn't have rules.
I was referring to language someone used in a post in reference to regulating guns versus the language used in the amendment. Your explanation is correct.
"""That the said Constitution shall never be construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms ... """ -- Samuel Adams, Debates
"""Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man against his own bosom. Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American...[T]he unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people.""" --Tenche Coxe, The Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788.
With quotes like these, I find it amazing that a discussion like the one we are having is even taking place! I don't know how anyone could possibly argue with a straight face that the 2A doesn't protect the individual Right of each citizen to own firearms, if they have even a modicum of appreciation and respect for the truth.
It shouldn't be surprising. Judicial activists and gun grabbing "progressives" (socialists), want to plant the seed of doubt as to what the original intent of the 2A was. When that fails their next argument is that the Constitution is a "living breathing" document, where the meaning of its words change with the time....
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.
