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.
Well just look at all the confusion and misunderstanding about the simplest of things forever evident in this forum, between a whole lot of average folks...
Of course we all think we're right for all our self-determined reasons, but also of course we can't all be right. So how do we judge? For me, I try to consider all the arguments from all sides, generally here they are layman arguments, and then I cross-check with what our legal and/or court system has decided. Though I might be inclined to think I know better than everyone, even people with legal backgrounds, I try to keep my ego in check when it comes to that sort of thing.
Seems to me that lots of people with their handy pocket sized copy of the Constitution let their egos get the better of them as they pretend they "understand simple words and sentences" better than everyone else.
What part of, Shall not be infringed, needs 9 opinions to determine exactly what that means?
You might, but the intellectuals don't.
Well just for starters, consider the simple words used by Trump and how differently millions of people interpret what he is saying, what he means. Same with Obama.
What part of, Shall not be infringed, needs 9 opinions to determine exactly what that means?
You might, but the intellectuals don't.
AMENDMENT II
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.
"Shall not be infringed" is pretty simple to understand as explicitly stated in the 2A.
At the same time we all know that at the time the 2A was written and ever since, there have been Americans who have had their guns taken away (and they often thrown in jail). Countless examples of people who have had their right to bear arms infringed upon for all variety of reasons, and deemed constitutional without a whole lot of intellectual head scratching. Any of those people can point at the 2A and rightly argue their right to bear arms has been infringed upon. Right? Yet...
So the question is not whether anyone doesn't know what "shall not be infringed" means. Any dictionary can help with that, but suggesting this is the simple issue is a little TOO simple all considered. The question is when and how the 2A applies to all Americans. Does a background check, for example, infringe on an American's right to bear arms? I argue no, because with a background check, I can buy a gun no problem. Thereby my RIGHT to bear arms is NOT infringed upon. Others argue differently and again the courts have rendered legal opinion same as mine.
Never mind if the idea is still as relevant today, to maintain a "well regulated Militia." For some it doesn't matter, but that is the explicit purpose as stated in the 2A. Pretty sure most Americans also know we've got a pretty "well regulated Militia" AKA military force. Easy to look that up too.
Not a question of understanding simple English in any case...
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.
"Shall not be infringed" is pretty simple to understand as explicitly stated in the 2A.
I know, it is hard to argue, that it says militia is illegal. But let the feds catch wind, you and your buddies are training in domestic tactical warfare!
I know, it is hard to argue, that it says citizens 21 years and older who are non-fellons and mentally sane. But there it is in it's full glory inserted right in there.
I know, it is hard to argue, that keep does not mean where an individual wants to keep it. After all they are not individual rights.
I know, it is hard to argue bearing arms actually means filling your hand. after all, we have them but can never use them for the intent they were created.
I know, it is hard to argue that it says the small arms government gets to decide. After all, get caught with a sawn off barrel, or a rapid fire weapon and see if your masters agree.
I know, it is hard to argue, that shall be altered when emotions run high or government feels threatened, actually means shall not be infringed.
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.
"Shall not be infringed" is pretty simple to understand as explicitly stated in the 2A.
At the same time we all know that at the time the 2A was written and ever since, there have been Americans who have had their guns taken away (and they often thrown in jail). Countless examples of people who have had their right to bear arms infringed upon for all variety of reasons, and deemed constitutional without a whole lot of intellectual head scratching. Any of those people can point at the 2A and rightly argue their right to bear arms has been infringed upon. Right? Yet...
So the question is not whether anyone doesn't know what "shall not be infringed" means. Any dictionary can help with that, but suggesting this is the simple issue is a little TOO simple all considered. The question is when and how the 2A applies to all Americans. Does a background check, for example, infringe on an American's right to bear arms? I argue no, because with a background check, I can buy a gun no problem. Thereby my RIGHT to bear arms is NOT infringed upon. Others argue differently and again the courts have rendered legal opinion same as mine.
Never mind if the idea is still as relevant today, to maintain a "well regulated Militia." For some it doesn't matter, but that is the explicit purpose as stated in the 2A. Pretty sure most Americans also know we've got a pretty "well regulated Militia" AKA military force. Easy to look that up too.
Not a question of understanding simple English in any case...
A "well regulated militia" at the time was the people. If you read history, you know that many of the founders wanted no standing army. They expected the people to be armed and to become the army again if needed or at least supplant the army. It is in American history books.
I know, it is hard to argue, that it says militia is illegal. But let the feds catch wind, you and your buddies are training in domestic tactical warfare!
I know, it is hard to argue, that it says citizens 21 years and older who are non-fellons and mentally sane. But there it is in it's full glory inserted right in there.
I know, it is hard to argue, that keep does not mean where an individual wants to keep it. After all they are not individual rights.
I know, it is hard to argue bearing arms actually means filling your hand. after all, we have them but can never use them for the intent they were created.
I know, it is hard to argue that it says the small arms government gets to decide. After all, get caught with a sawn off barrel, or a rapid fire weapon and see if your masters agree.
I know, it is hard to argue, that shall be altered when emotions run high or government feels threatened, actually means shall not be infringed.
I rest my case...
One man's simple is another man's diatribe about what's "hard to argue." And no doubt everyone will understand every word written as it's all plain English after all.
One man's simple is another man's diatribe about what's "hard to argue." And no doubt everyone will understand every word written as it's all plain English after all.
And very smart people wonder why no gun laws are ever followed.
A "well regulated militia" at the time was the people. If you read history, you know that many of the founders wanted no standing army. They expected the people to be armed and to become the army again if needed or at least supplant the army. It is in American history books.
I suspect you are being serious, but really?
I know there are Americans who don't know this simple history, but I do. I know what happened then and why, and I also know the history of what has happened since and why. How our military was begun and put to use going forward. Should I reply in kind by suggesting you need to learn more of this history since the American revolution? We're not frozen in time I don't think. Not most of us anyway.
America today is not the America of 1776 anymore, though I know there are some Americans who don't seem to understand that too well...
Maybe California should enact strict gun laws, and laws on ammunition? Oh wait...………………………..
Or maybe have no laws at all if they don't work to everyone's delight! Oh wait...
Better reason and logic ought to prevail over these cutsie attempts at being clever I think.
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.
