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 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."
Seems pretty cut and dry to me. I don't know why people think every private citizen has a right to own firearms free of regulation, education and other protective measures.
It's a classic case of do we go by the letter of the law or the intent of the law. It seems pretty clear that the intent of the Founders was regarding militia. In those days, the US army was fairly small, so in case we got invaded they needed to call up the militia, everyday citizens, to defend us. Those guys had to supply their own weapons.
Today the whole idea of a militia seems obselete. Nevertheless, if we follow the letter of the law people have the right to own guns. What we need is a rewrite of the 2nd amendment, but that ain't gonna happen.
Damn straight. Without those guns, we'd a kicked your asses back into the sea where you came from.
Maybe. Maybe not. Gun against gun doesn't work nearly as well as gun against bow and arrow. That is why the whole gun culture in America makes little sense. It is based on disarmingor disallowing arms the Americans that gun adherents don't want to have guns, so they have the armament advantage. That violates the 2nd Amendment right there.
Actually, they are very close to calling a constitutional convention. They likely only need two more states to call it, and liberals have new constitutions waiting. If you do want your state to rescind its call, you need to get involved and ask your state legislature to rescind it.
the security
you have proof of this?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Magritte25
"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."
Seems pretty cut and dry to me. I don't know why people think every private citizen has a right to own firearms free of regulation, education and other protective measures.
why are you only highlighting the first part, which only acknowledges the fact that a militia is necessary for the security of a free state, and then ignore the last part where is says "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed". and one more time i will post this;
The phrase "well-regulated" was in common use long before 1789, and remained so for a century thereafter. It referred to the property of something being in proper working order. Something that was well-regulated was calibrated correctly, functioning as expected. Establishing government oversight of the people's arms was not only not the intent in using the phrase in the 2nd amendment, it was precisely to render the government powerless to do so that the founders wrote it.
i supported snowdens whistle blowing actions, i did NOT support him going to china and russia to do it though.
as for the constitution, it is simple enough to read, and understand, for the average person if they are willing to put in the time.
True. Easy to read, easy to understand but very, very difficult to interpret the meaning as is demonstrated by this very thread.
That's why the founding fathers, in their magnificent understanding of human nature and the duplicity therein, devised a Supreme Court composed of the brightest legal scholars and judges the nation could produce to be the final arbiters of What, exactly the constitution means.
The founders said, in effect, "The constitutional buck stops at the Supreme court". "What they say is final." Otherwise the argument of what "is" actually "Is" would go on forever.
The Supreme Court has ruled In Heller vs. DC. that the 2nd amendment confirms an individual right to possess and use firearms. Furthermore, the ownership and use of firearms are subject to reasonable restrictions.
Period!........end of story........The buck has stopped.
Those who pick a single phrase and hang their entire constitutional hat on it are flat out wrong. the 2nd amendment must be read as the whole and The Supreme Court has interpreted the meaning according to the dictates of the founding fathers.
The 2nd absolutists would convince you that any restrictions, anywhere, anytime, for any reason, for any type of firearm whatsoever, is contrary to the meaning of the 2nd and if they had sway, all gun law currently on the books would be repealed as unconstitutional.
This is what they're selling.
It's a classic case of do we go by the letter of the law or the intent of the law. It seems pretty clear that the intent of the Founders was regarding militia. In those days, the US army was fairly small, so in case we got invaded they needed to call up the militia, everyday citizens, to defend us. Those guys had to supply their own weapons.
Today the whole idea of a militia seems obselete. Nevertheless, if we follow the letter of the law people have the right to own guns. What we need is a rewrite of the 2nd amendment, but that ain't gonna happen.
How do you figure? Why do private citizens - who are not part of a well regulated militia - have the right under the second amendment?
why are you only highlighting the first part, which only acknowledges the fact that a militia is necessary for the security of a free state, and then ignore the last part where is says "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed". and one more time i will post this;
True. Easy to read, easy to understand but very, very difficult to interpret the meaning as is demonstrated by this very thread.
That's why the founding fathers, in their magnificent understanding of human nature and the duplicity therein, devised a Supreme Court composed of the brightest legal scholars and judges the nation could produce to be the final arbiters of What, exactly the constitution means.
The founders said, in effect, "The constitutional buck stops at the Supreme court". "What they say is final." Otherwise the argument of what "is" actually "Is" would go on forever.
The Supreme Court has ruled In Heller vs. DC. that the 2nd amendment confirms an individual right to possess and use firearms. Furthermore, the ownership and use of firearms are subject to reasonable restrictions.
Period!........end of story........
Those who pick a single phrase and hang their entire constitutional hat on it are flat out wrong. the 2nd amendment must be read as the whole and The Supreme Court has interpreted the meaning according to the dictates of the founding fathers.
The 2nd absolutists would convince you that any restrictions, anywhere, anytime, for any reason, for any type of firearm whatsoever, is contrary to the meaning of the 2nd and if they had sway, all gun law currently on the books would be repealed as unconstitutional.
This is what they're selling.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Magritte25
Because most people ignore that part and highlight the second part, which doesn't mean what people think it means.
Who is the editor and publisher of the Constitution Society website?
the founding father did not want the government placing restrictions on the peoples right to keep and bear arms. you can ascertain this from their writings on the subject. and they have been put forth in a number of threads on gun control.
the founding father did not want the government placing restrictions on the peoples right to keep and bear arms. you can ascertain this from their writings on the subject. and they have been put forth in a number of threads on gun control.
The door swings both ways on those writings. We can have a contest and each put up a writing from Jefferson, Madison, Hamilton, et. al. And for every writing that claims totally unrestricted firearm rights to citizens, there are writings defending reasonable restrictions. the founder's private writings on the subject are mixed, at best.
True. Easy to read, easy to understand but very, very difficult to interpret the meaning as is demonstrated by this very thread. That's why the founding fathers, in their magnificent understanding of human nature and the duplicity therein, devised a Supreme Court composed of the brightest legal scholars and judges the nation could produce to be the final arbiters of What, exactly the constitution means.
The founders said, in effect, "The constitutional buck stops at the Supreme court". "What they say is final." Otherwise the argument of what "is" actually "Is" would go on forever.
The Supreme Court has ruled In Heller vs. DC. that the 2nd amendment confirms an individual right to possess and use firearms. Furthermore, the ownership and use of firearms are subject to reasonable restrictions.
Period!........end of story........
Those who pick a single phrase and hang their entire constitutional hat on it are flat out wrong. the 2nd amendment must be read as the whole and The Supreme Court has interpreted the meaning according to the dictates of the founding fathers.
The 2nd absolutists would convince you that any restrictions, anywhere, anytime, for any reason, for any type of firearm whatsoever, is contrary to the meaning of the 2nd and if they had sway, all gun law currently on the books would be repealed as unconstitutional.
This is what they're selling.
Article III. Section. 1.
The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services, a Compensation, which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office. Section. 2.
The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;—to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;—to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;—to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;—to Controversies between two or more States;— between a State and Citizens of another State,—between Citizens of different States,—between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.
In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.
The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury; and such Trial shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any State, the Trial shall be at such Place or Places as the Congress may by Law have directed. Section. 3.
Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.
The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.
This has nothing to do with race: we have a conservative black justice on the supreme court who was appointed by a Republican. If your argument is that mentally ill people should not have guns, who defines mental illness? We are close now with this administration to conservatism being defined as mental illness, and liberals are unable to have civil conversations with people who oppose your views because you ridicule us and deem us dangerous. Would you want a Republican president defining mental illness? Would you want to be considered mentally ill because of your political views? Would you want a Republican president signing executive orders on issues with which you disagree? If you are for a Democratic president signing executive orders but against a Republican president doing the same, you are a hypocrite. If you do not like the Constitution, you are the extremist. Republicans strictly interpret the Constitution, and Democrats thwart the Constitution every time they have opportunities. Americans who appreciate our system and whose views align with limited government are not extremists in our views. Liberals need to stop that kind of rhetoric against conservatives because that is what is dangerous and eventually leads to genocide.
Chance and Change, you said, "Anything in this society that harms people, should be managed under stern regulations." If you think that, does that apply to cars, pressure cookers, and knives? All three of those objects have been used in attacks or have injured people.
Would you like to be told to sit down for your views? If you would not like that, please do not belittle people who disagree with your views. Agreement with the second amendment is not a Confederate idea, it is American.
I am all for the Constitution, and it has been amended many times to address various issues, simply because people don't want to comply with what exist. As I said, the Brady Bill and many other have long been addressing Gun Control. We also have many methods to determine "mental illness", its a whole profession dedicated to exactly that aim.
Quote:
Would you want a Republican president signing executive orders on issues with which you disagree?
let the many factors speak, we've certainly seen attacks on women, civil rights in various sectors, wanting to rush to war with others at the drop of a pin, a systemic pledging to oppose the President even before he could sit down in the seat of office. followed by some out of space comment of "We want our Country Back".
I oppose any claim by Republican as to their being Fiscal Conservative, and I am not for any generalized concept of Conservationism, which seeks to Conserve Manners and Attitudes of the past when it was a past that assaulted, so many for so long; we have no need to conserve that system nor mentality which supported that system.
GWB signed executive orders, pushed the agenda which invaded the constitution with his Patriot Act, It was a Republican system which created and set in motion the things Snowden complained about.
I'm not fan of Snowden, as he damaged the nation and its tools utilized for information necessity. I don't hold it again Bush for setting up the information system to gather info. I do blame Bush for everything that led up to and including the Iraq mess and all that is within its aftermath. I don't agree with the Republican aims to attack ACA, when many poor republican benefit from the system as well as many poor Democrats, I also don't agree with the Republican mentality of Austerity when it comes to social programs, nor the propaganda they push as if its only one ethnicity utilizing it, when we have more than estimate of 170 Mil. whites which include a mass of Republicans across the country. I think its pathetic to try and pretend often as many republican utter as if its a single ethnic groups using benefits.
I don't like the Anti-Union mentality, nor the Give another Tax break to the wealthy activity, and I certainly don't like the block and tackle mentality of the Republican Congress, which damages all American in their means and methods of trying to block bills and measure, then burying their earmarks in then claiming they will pass if only if their earmarked items are first funded.
I'm not for anyone ripping off the public service benefits, regardless of their party or skin tone.
I'm not for the non actions on either party, being hesitant about pushing for re-industrialization of America. I think both parties are crazy when it comes to the economy, by not understanding that a strong nation must produce at least 40% of what it consumes.
No problem helping other countries grow, but not at the tune and clip of the craziness we engage with China of giving them $30+ Billion EVERY month, for far more than a decade +. I don't care for Democratic or Republican Economist, who push paid for mis information to support corporate raping of this nation, outsourcing and burying money offshore, and then want to export the stuff back here duty free. I think its absurd, and Ignorance on the part of both parties to sit looking for campaign contributions while ignoring the economic treasonous activity of such things.
When it comes to guns, Yes, there needs to be some further legislation, the Brady Bill and other measures need to be clarified, expanded and promoted to do something about the massive weapon proliferation in American, and we certainly need to do something about 'Global Weapon Sellers" which is a whole other aspect we have yet to tackle.
Republican have to realize America is not going back to the 1950's, we are not going to have a white run system, but we will have a diverse of ethnic groups driving this system. Its not going to be some mass deportation, when there are many nationality groups and ethnicities from so many places who are here illegal, whom we don't even see being discussed.
We should have long ago, had regulation in place that 'non citizens" cannot own guns !!!!
When people talk about the Republican SYSTEM, it is a broad subject when the world "SYSTEM" is added, because there are many Republican "INDIVIDUALS" who are not extremist, and there are many who are interactive. But that group does not get any play in the Party, because the party front runner, play to the extremist of the right, and by act and fact, insult the more open minded republicans who are not extremist.
If someone wants to do something to improve the party image, then speak about the more open minded republicans, and not direct all media and media leading candidate to stop pushing far right, to the level of extremist blotter all over the media. If they want to shed some commentary labels, then let the more open minded and non extremist have air time to speak in ways and terms and means where there can be an interactive engagement. There is a whole mass of republican who support gun reforms, but republican base does not want to hear from them, and they certainly don't want them to become a voice that works with bi-partisan motivations.
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.
