Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
View Poll Results: Does the Wording of the 2nd Amendment match the Framers' INTENT?
Yes 38 77.55%
No 11 22.45%
Voters: 49. You may not vote on this poll

Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 05-04-2018, 03:53 PM
 
Location: San Jose
2,594 posts, read 1,234,535 times
Reputation: 2590

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by rbohm View Post
extremely poor analogy at best. there is a huge difference between a police officer being able to take home his patrol car, and not grant him ownership since the department holds the title to the vehicle, not the officer. but when it comes to things like firearms, the government is not loaning firearms to the people, the people have to buy their own guns. and that means they can keep them, AS WELL AS bear them, meaning they can carry their firearms with them. once again you need to acquiesce to the ruling of the supreme court which has consistently held that when the constitution talks about the people they mean the individual and not the collective.
My point which you misunderstood was that the word "keep" does not automatically imply individual ownership. If the intent of the founding fathers was militia via individual gun ownership then they did not specifically call for it. Nor did they act upon it, since very few people in those days owned guns (about 10% of white males) and even if an individual wanted to buy a gun it was hard to come by since there was only one firearm manufacturer in the entire country. When you take into account wording and the circumstances at the time its clear they wanted organized well regulated militias, not just random citizens with firearms.



Off topic: Notice how from 1800-1845 firearms, which were uncommon, were rarely used in crimes. It was only after they became abundant within the citizen population did their use in murder skyrocket. Food for thought.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 05-04-2018, 04:44 PM
 
9,329 posts, read 4,125,410 times
Reputation: 8224
Quote:
Originally Posted by Corvette Ministries View Post
Just want to poll faithful posters of P&OC to see if YOU feel that the wording of the Second Amendment to the US Constitution matches the intent of the framers.
Of course it does. Why wouldn't it?

They intended that, in the absence of a standing army, men who were willing to be in a militia to be called up on short notice to defend the country would be allowed to use weapons for that purpose.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-04-2018, 04:59 PM
 
Location: Kansas City, MISSOURI
20,794 posts, read 9,435,750 times
Reputation: 15522
Quote:
Originally Posted by wutitiz View Post
Again, you're making this way too complicated. We have two sentences of identical structure, but you want to interpret them as structurally different.
I have no idea where and why you're saying that I'm saying they're structurally different, because I've been saying they are structurally identical. Once again ...
Quote:
Originally Posted by James Bond 007 View Post
That is not how gun-controllers interpret the 2nd amendment. Here is your passage:

"[Because] Religion, morality, and knowledge being necessary to good government and the happiness of mankind, [then] schools and the means of education shall forever be encouraged."

That is saying that schools and education should be encouraged because religion, morality and knowledge are necessary for the happiness mankind and for good government. IOW, it says a means (education and schools) justify an end (happiness and good government). Likewise ...

"[Because] A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, [then] the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

... says that the right to bear arms should not be infringed because that right is necessary for a militia and, thus, security of the state. That is, the means (bearing arms) justifies an end (militia to protect the state).

In the first one, the end goal is happiness and good government. In the second one, the end goal is security of the state, which is accomplished via a militia.

Which is exactly what gun-controllers are saying: The 2nd amendment pertains to maintaining a militia.
They are both: "Because X, then do Y.", or, "Because of the desirability of an end, then we justify a means."

Last edited by James Bond 007; 05-04-2018 at 06:09 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-04-2018, 05:12 PM
 
33,387 posts, read 34,745,522 times
Reputation: 20030
Quote:
Originally Posted by KenFresno View Post
My point which you misunderstood was that the word "keep" does not automatically imply individual ownership. If the intent of the founding fathers was militia via individual gun ownership then they did not specifically call for it. Nor did they act upon it, since very few people in those days owned guns (about 10% of white males) and even if an individual wanted to buy a gun it was hard to come by since there was only one firearm manufacturer in the entire country. When you take into account wording and the circumstances at the time its clear they wanted organized well regulated militias, not just random citizens with firearms.



Off topic: Notice how from 1800-1845 firearms, which were uncommon, were rarely used in crimes. It was only after they became abundant within the citizen population did their use in murder skyrocket. Food for thought.
ok fine then, you are right an everyone else is wrong. the government can take your firearms away from you anytime they wish and the second amendment doesnt mean what it says, and what the supreme court has consistently ruled.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-04-2018, 05:59 PM
 
4,337 posts, read 1,543,642 times
Reputation: 2279
Quote:
Originally Posted by Corvette Ministries View Post
Just want to poll faithful posters of P&OC to see if YOU feel that the wording of the Second Amendment to the US Constitution matches the intent of the framers.
If you use the meaning of the words and sentence construction and manner of "speaking" of that period, then the answer is YES.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-11-2018, 05:14 PM
 
4,278 posts, read 5,167,428 times
Reputation: 2375
The framers were worried about a coup by deep state. That is what is happening now.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 05:39 AM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top