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.
A simple statement in answer to all the post on page #15.
The word "people" is at the crux of the intended meaning of the second amendment.
As "Americans" were mentioned in the federalist papers when discussing the amendment, those Americans were still the militia.
The militia was made up of Americans.
I see nothing here in this thread, or in any research I have done online that remotely states the intention of the ff in the adoption of the second amendment, had anything to do with granting the general public the right to bear arms, but I see much that relates to my contention that the people of the militia were the intended recipient of that amendment.
Where the militia, and people are mentioned in the 2nd, how can any one be sure just who were these people?
I can only surmise, because the militia was mentioned in the same clause, the militia must be the people referred too.
As far as I am concerned, unless someone can show me where in the 2nd amendment it states that the general public, not the militia, is the intended recipient of the amendment, case closed.
Bob.
You still haven't answered the question: Why didn't the Founding Fathers confiscate firearms from the general public, if only members of a militia were meant to have firearms?
A simple statement in answer to all the post on page #15.
The word "people" is at the crux of the intended meaning of the second amendment.
As "Americans" were mentioned in the federalist papers when discussing the amendment, those Americans were still the militia.
The militia was made up of Americans.
I see nothing here in this thread, or in any research I have done online that remotely states the intention of the ff in the adoption of the second amendment, had anything to do with granting the general public the right to bear arms, but I see much that relates to my contention that the people of the militia were the intended recipient of that amendment.
Where the militia, and people are mentioned in the 2nd, how can any one be sure just who were these people?
I can only surmise, because the militia was mentioned in the same clause, the militia must be the people referred too.
As far as I am concerned, unless someone can show me where in the 2nd amendment it states that the general public, not the militia, is the intended recipient of the amendment, case closed.
Bob.
Case closed? More like mind closed and refusing to admit when you're wrong. You clearly haven't honestly researched anything and ignore everything that doesn't fit your bias. Prime example, you trying to twist "the people" in the 2nd amendment to mean something different than it does in the rest of the document.
A simple statement in answer to all the post on page #15.
The word "people" is at the crux of the intended meaning of the second amendment.
As "Americans" were mentioned in the federalist papers when discussing the amendment, those Americans were still the militia.
The militia was made up of Americans.
I see nothing here in this thread, or in any research I have done online that remotely states the intention of the ff in the adoption of the second amendment, had anything to do with granting the general public the right to bear arms, but I see much that relates to my contention that the people of the militia were the intended recipient of that amendment.
Where the militia, and people are mentioned in the 2nd, how can any one be sure just who were these people?
I can only surmise, because the militia was mentioned in the same clause, the militia must be the people referred too.
As far as I am concerned, unless someone can show me where in the 2nd amendment it states that the general public, not the militia, is the intended recipient of the amendment, case closed.
Bob.
in other words, despite ALL the information given to you on what the founding fathers intended for the second amendment, and what the scotus has ruled regarding the terms well regulated, militia, and the people, you refuse to budge off your stance, despite being proved wrong consistently, which means you are either have no reading comprehension skills, or are mule headed and ignorant. its your choice which you choose, but please stop embarrassing yourself with what you think the second amendment means despite the evidence to the contrary.
Very simple, they have no place in society, except in the hands of the military.
The answer is simple, CALGUY. You sound like an intelligent person. Ban guns for the commoners and only leave guns in the hands of those in positions of power. This has also worked well throughout human history.
in other words, despite ALL the information given to you on what the founding fathers intended for the second amendment, and what the scotus has ruled regarding the terms well regulated, militia, and the people, you refuse to budge off your stance, despite being proved wrong consistently, which means you are either have no reading comprehension skills, or are mule headed and ignorant. its your choice which you choose, but please stop embarrassing yourself with what you think the second amendment means despite the evidence to the contrary.
I have NOT been proven wrong by anybody.
Again, show me in the amendment where it states the general public has the right to bear arms.
Matter of fact, to make it easier, show me where in the amendment the word citizens is mentioned.
Citizens would be the general public, unless of course they were members of a militia, and those people of the militia would be the ones the founding fathers were addressing in the amendment.
Problem is , you can't.
Show me where in the amendment, the well regulated militia is not given the right to bear arms.
It is not I that is the dumb one here, it is you folks that won't, or who are unwilling to read and absorb the contents of the amendment, and actually envision the times in which the amendment was adopted.
Perhaps if you go to the history channel, into the archives, and watch "America, the story of us", you will get a much better understanding of why the fathers felt it necessary to guarantee members of the militia, the right to bear arms, once the war had ended.
These were ordinary citizens that left their farms and families to join the militia to fight the British.
They were a select group of "people".
Many did not return home.
The founding fathers felt these fighting members of the militia should be protected, so they adopted the 2nd amendment, fearing the British, or some other entity could once again invade, and wanted to make sure the militia would not only be well regulated, but would have the right to bear arms, and that right would never be infringed.
Now, that is my take on the 2nd amendment.
It seems only natural the founding fathers would want to insure that the militia was protected, and the amendment did just that.
Again, if you, or anyone can show me, beyond a reasonable doubt, the intention of the amendment was to arm, and protect the general public, I will relinquish the floor.
A decision by the scotus is not considered proof.
I believe they were wrong in their interpretation, just as most posting in this thread are wrong.
If there is proof of your contention, then it shouldn't be too hard to find.
My proof of what I say is in the amendment itself.
Again, show me in the amendment where it states the general public has the right to bear arms.
Matter of fact, to make it easier, show me where in the amendment the word citizens is mentioned.
Citizens would be the general public, unless of course they were members of a militia, and those people of the militia would be the ones the founding fathers were addressing in the amendment.
Problem is , you can't.
Show me where in the amendment, the well regulated militia is not given the right to bear arms.
It is not I that is the dumb one here, it is you folks that won't, or who are unwilling to read and absorb the contents of the amendment, and actually envision the times in which the amendment was adopted.
Perhaps if you go to the history channel, into the archives, and watch "America, the story of us", you will get a much better understanding of why the fathers felt it necessary to guarantee members of the militia, the right to bear arms, once the war had ended.
These were ordinary citizens that left their farms and families to join the militia to fight the British.
They were a select group of "people".
Many did not return home.
The founding fathers felt these fighting members of the militia should be protected, so they adopted the 2nd amendment, fearing the British, or some other entity could once again invade, and wanted to make sure the militia would not only be well regulated, but would have the right to bear arms, and that right would never be infringed.
Now, that is my take on the 2nd amendment.
It seems only natural the founding fathers would want to insure that the militia was protected, and the amendment did just that.
Again, if you, or anyone can show me, beyond a reasonable doubt, the intention of the amendment was to arm, and protect the general public, I will relinquish the floor.
A decision by the scotus is not considered proof.
I believe they were wrong in their interpretation, just as most posting in this thread are wrong.
If there is proof of your contention, then it shouldn't be too hard to find.
My proof of what I say is in the amendment itself.
Bob.
Wow! It doesn't say "citizens" in any of the original amendments. It says "the people". Yes, meaning the general citizenry. By your interpretation, none of the original Bill of Rights grants us squat. Its ALL open for government to dole out. Speech, privacy, right to assemble and ask for redress, religion even. By your interpretation , we can be told how to pray. Or to not.
You're cornered ,man. You can't back out of this. You're a statist. Believing in absolute government power. You would have done well under Stalin. Or Mao.
Now, someone asked me a question in one of the earlier post, having to do with, if the militia were the ones protected under the amendment, why did the government not confiscate the guns from ordinary citizens.
The amendment addressed the militia, not the general public.
Again, one needs to go back to the time the amendment was adopted.
Non militia citizens (AT THAT TIME), were for the most part, farmers, storekeepers, teachers, ministers etc.
Those that had a need for guns for hunting were not considered a threat so there would not have been a reason to disarm those farmers .
Farmers with guns was as natural as sun in the morning.
It obviously was not an issue for the founding fathers.
I just can't envision storekeepers, teachers, ministers etc needing to be armed during those times, and again, I don't believe it was an issue to be considered one way or the other.
Their main focus was the militia.
So your obvious question would be, if it were ok for a citizen to be armed back then, why is it not ok today?
Back then, the main group that needed guns were the farmers who used them for hunting food.
I do believe there was never a law adopted then, or in the years since, to control the ownership of guns by ordinary citizens.
For lack of a better term, that was put on the back burner, right up to the present.
The founding fathers did not address arming, or disarming the general public, nor guaranteeing the right to bear arms. and so it stands today.
All these years have gone by, and because no authority has questioned the ordinary citizens being armed, it is only logical that all people would automatically believe the 2ndamendment meant everybody has the right to bear arms, when in fact it is not that way at all.
Now on to the present, or at least back to when the NRA came into being.
First and foremost, the NRA is a group of gun enthusiast through out the country.
I couldn't fathom a guess as to how many belong to the association.
I believe when they first started, some very smart people within the association realized there were no set laws pertaining to ordinary citizens owning guns.
Like me, they read and understood the true meaning of the 2nd amendment, and knew the right to bear arm was guaranteed to the militia, not ordinary citizens.
They also realized there were no definite laws regarding gun ownership by ordinary citizens, and began to capitalize on that.
Within the NRA, rules were adopted, and in an effort to gain not only power, and influence, but increased membership, they, and I firmly believe they alone, created this myth that all citizens were in fact covered under the 2nd amendment.
So here we are in present day America, and those who want guns feel they do not have to look any further than the 2nd amendment to quench their desire.
They do this with perhaps never knowing that in all probability they have been led under false pretense.
The NRA is a super powerful lobby, and it most assuredly dictates law as it pertains to gun ownership.
I do firmly believe no politician, of sitting judiciary has, or ever will go up against them.
They are deeply embedded into our culture and society, and if one believes as they would want you too, as an ordinary citizen, you are covered under the terms of the 2nd amendment, when in fact you are absolutely not.
Wow! It doesn't say "citizens" in any of the original amendments. It says "the people". Yes, meaning the general citizenry. By your interpretation, none of the original Bill of Rights grants us squat. Its ALL open for government to dole out. Speech, privacy, right to assemble and ask for redress, religion even. By your interpretation , we can be told how to pray. Or to not.
You're cornered ,man. You can't back out of this. You're a statist. Believing in absolute government power. You would have done well under Stalin. Or Mao.
If you read my post, I stated the 2nd amendment did not mention citizens.
I am not concerned with other amendments, only the second, which is the topic of this thread.
Now little boy, kindly show me where citizens is mentioned in the 2nd amendment.
If you read my post, I stated the 2nd amendment did not mention citizens.
I am not concerned with other amendments, only the second, which is the topic of this thread.
Now little boy, kindly show me where citizens is mentioned in the 2nd amendment.
Bob.
"Little boy"? Umm OK. Wtfe. Your turning YOUR words to mine. My rebuttal asks YOU where " citizens" are mentioned ANYWHERE in the Bill of Rights. Reference is to the PEOPLE. In every single one of the amendments. Second included. Now, the purpose and make up of the militia is quite broad. It goes from community on up to galvanizing with regular forces. A community may form militia to stand against bandits and raiders, or go en cadre with regular forces, against st a foreign invader. The militia have a wide mission.
Your insults aside, you are still cornered, a d have opened your yap on something you know nothing about. From historical and press t day perspective, your ship is in the surf and spray. From there, where does it go, oh King of Ithaca. ? You may well call me "little boy", but your own maturity is what's in question, as you reference history with no knowledge of it. Or, at least, no relevant reference to it. Good day....
One more time, and maybe you'll answer: If the Founding Fathers wrote the 2nd Amendment to ban the ownership of firearms by average citizens, why didn't they confiscate firearms from the average citizen as soon as the Constitution was ratified?
Don't worry. He wont answer it because he has no answer.
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.
Now, the purpose and make up of the militia is quite broad. It goes from community on up to galvanizing with regular forces. A community may form militia to stand against bandits and raiders, or go en cadre with regular forces, against st a foreign invader. The militia have a wide mission. 
