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.
I'll just reiterate that the Bill of Rights as originally adopted did not limit the powers of the states, only those of the federal government. It took legal maneuvering by the Supreme Court to apply most (but not all) of the Bill of Rights to the states via the 14th Amendment. Thus I have a problem with people using the 2nd Amendment as originally written to claim that the text has always limited states power. Given that the 14th Amendment was ratified more than 100 years after the 2nd Amendment was, such an argument ignores historical reality.
You do realize that the States signed on to abide by the Constitution when they became States, right? They can not legally ignore the Constitution or Federal law.
It doesn't mean that, it's up to the individual state.
It doesn't mean that. It's up to the individual state.
It doesn't mean that.
It doesn't mean that. Or are small, frail cooks and uniform-sewers suddenly not allowed in militias?
Hmm, let's see.
0 for 5.
That's about average for a liberal trying to tell normal people about guns, militias etc.
BTW, have you noticed that the 2nd amendment's ban on government restricting or forbidding the people's right to KBA, is not dependent on whether the individual is in a militia at all, and not even on what a militia is or whether it's well regulated?
It means what I said. Feel free to disagree.
I am telling you that 'well regulated' means well functioning, and you are just parroting "no, it doesn't mean that".
Last edited by Finn_Jarber; 03-10-2020 at 08:04 PM..
"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."
In modern language it would read:
"Since an armed and capable populace is necessary for security and freedom, the right of ordinary people to own and carry guns and other such weapons cannot be restricted or taken away."
Like I indicated it was much different in 1790 than today, without a standing army they needed to rely on militias. It has much to do with not having a standard army at the time it was written, you are voicing an opinion claiming they were to protect from our own governments tyranny. We are not relying on a militia to ward off a foreign government today in 2020.
I can see that my post went way over your head? I provided enough proof as to why the founders of this nation incorporated the 2nd Amendment into the Bill of Rights and our Constitution. You just choose to ignore it. But facts are facts and opinions don't matter. It was indeed to ward off tyranny from their own government which was the British at that time. It has nothing whatsoever to do with tyranny by an invading foreign government. How could it be if the British were the governing force and ruling its OWN 13 colonies at that time?
The U.S. War of Independence (Revolutionary War) was the insurrection* fought between 1775 and 1783 of which 13 of Great Britain’s North American colonies fought the British to establish a sovereign nation, The United States of America. At that time Great Britain was indeed governing the 13 colonies. They didn't just come over here as an invading force. THEY WERE THE GOVERNMENT OF THE 13 COLONIES. Of course we didn't have a standing army at that time. Do you honestly believe that the British would have allowed that?
Can you really be that dense? Obviously you have absolutely no understanding of American history or the principles of which this country was founded. The 2nd Amendment was indeed intended to ward of tyranny from our own government. Which was the whole reason behind the Revolutionary War in the first place. How many times does that have to be drilled into your head? This is not just my opinion.
Insurrection* | Definition of Insurrection at Dictionary.com www.dictionary.com/browse/insurrection
noun an act or instance of rising in revolt, rebellion, or resistance against civil authority or an established government.
"An established government" couldn't be more clear than that.
You do realize that the States signed on to abide by the Constitution when they became States, right? They can not legally ignore the Constitution or Federal law.
Not to mention when some people are sworn into any public office and take the oath, the words ".. preserve, protect and defend the constitution.." goes in one ear and out the other and they'll do everything they can to tear the 2nd Amendment out of the constitution.
I can see that my post went way over your head? I provided enough proof as to why the founders of this nation incorporated the 2nd Amendment into the Bill of Rights and our Constitution. You just choose to ignore it. But facts are facts and opinions don't matter. It was indeed to ward off tyranny from their own government which was the British at that time. It has nothing whatsoever to do with tyranny by an invading foreign government. How could it be if the British were the governing force and ruling its OWN 13 colonies at that time?
The U.S. War of Independence (Revolutionary War) was the insurrection* fought between 1775 and 1783 of which 13 of Great Britain’s North American colonies fought the British to establish a sovereign nation, The United States of America. At that time Great Britain was indeed governing the 13 colonies. They didn't just come over here as an invading force. THEY WERE THE GOVERNMENT OF THE 13 COLONIES. Of course we didn't have a standing army at that time. Do you honestly believe that the British would have allowed that?
Can you really be that dense? Obviously you have absolutely no understanding of American history or the principles of which this country was founded. The 2nd Amendment was indeed intended to ward of tyranny from our own government. Which was the whole reason behind the Revolutionary War in the first place. How many times does that have to be drilled into your head? This is not just my opinion.
Insurrection* | Definition of Insurrection at Dictionary.com www.dictionary.com/browse/insurrection
noun an act or instance of rising in revolt, rebellion, or resistance against civil authority or an established government.
"An established government" couldn't be more clear than that.
Yes that was the intention in 1790, dis you miss the fact that it is 2020 in addition to Supreme Court rulings. A militia in this day and age is nonsensical.
I'll just reiterate that the Bill of Rights as originally adopted did not limit the powers of the states, only those of the federal government. It took legal maneuvering by the Supreme Court to apply most (but not all) of the Bill of Rights to the states via the 14th Amendment. Thus I have a problem with people using the 2nd Amendment as originally written to claim that the text has always limited states power. Given that the 14th Amendment was ratified more than 100 years after the 2nd Amendment was, such an argument ignores historical reality.
Besides rights for former slaves, what exactly, do you read in the 14th that says States can remove from Federal rights?
Yes that was the intention in 1790, dis you miss the fact that it is 2020 in addition to Supreme Court rulings. A militia in this day and age is nonsensical.
The Supreme Court has ruled the Second Amendment is an individual right. You lose.
Like I indicated it was much different in 1790 than today, without a standing army they needed to rely on militias. It has much to do with not having a standard army at the time it was written, you are voicing an opinion claiming they were to protect from our own governments tyranny. We are not relying on a militia to ward off a foreign government today in 2020.
It doesn't' matter if it was 1790 or today, the principles behind the 2nd Amendment still apply today, except today you're more likely to be attacked by a home invader than a foreign government. also look at what happened in Virginia recently when Northam and Democrats decided to ban semi-automatic weapons, a lot of law abiding gun owners said they will not comply with the ban and hand their guns to the tyrannic legislators, who are all Democrats, and the governor, and I don't blame the militia of Virginia. That's why those laws that were rushed through the state's House and Senate have been set aside until 2021.
The clause: "the right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" refers to us, the people, and that was what kept the Japanese from invading the west coast during WWII.
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.
