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.
"that the Bill of Rights as originally adopted did not limit the powers of the states,"
In order to BECOME a state they took an oath to "faithfully support and defend the CONSTITUTION of the United States"
I know most, probably ALL, public officials oaths of office have this phrase in it.
The can pass all the state, county, city, town laws they wish as long as they do NOT go against the Constitution.
For the millionth time, "well regulated" meant at the time the 2nd was written meant, "in good working order".
I know. You know. They know, but won't admit it. Posting a photo of the definition out of a dictionary from the time the Constitution was written forces the issue and demands acknowledgement.
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.
"the founders of this nation incorporated the 2nd Amendment into the Bill of Rights" and it was so important to them, they made it the 2nd amendment after Freedom of Speech!
And now we see arguments from anti 2A types claiming that states can do what they wish in regards to Constitutional rights. The limits imposed on government apply only to Congress and not state governments.
Oh my. LOL. So states rights are suddenly sacrosanct. That being the case secession is fully allowable and can be done at a whim. Yes?
The federal government has no power over the states to prevent it. Just as states can enact laws contrary to the Bill of Rights. So if CA decides it will kick in peoples doors to confiscate guns it may do so.
If DC doesn't like that CA can then secede. And do whatever they want. Leftists ranting about states rights. Isnt that just a peach though.
But they forget it seems if the Constitution can be disregarded by the states for this it can for all other issues of federal power as well. And individual rights. So when a state comes for personal firearms it can put personal computers on the list as well.
And force everyone to erect religious shrines. We all know how much states rights would mean to leftists then.
And now we see arguments from anti 2A types claiming that states can do what they wish in regards to Constitutional rights. The limits imposed on government apply only to Congress and not state governments.
Oh my. LOL. So states rights are suddenly sacrosanct. That being the case secession is fully allowable and can be done at a whim. Yes?
The federal government has no power over the states to prevent it. Just as states can enact laws contrary to the Bill of Rights. So if CA decides it will kick in peoples doors to confiscate guns it may do so.
If DC doesn't like that CA can then secede. And do whatever they want. Leftists ranting about states rights. Isnt that just a peach though.
But they forget it seems if the Constitution can be disregarded by the states for this it can for all other issues of federal power as well. And individual rights. So when a state comes for personal firearms it can put personal computers on the list as well.
And force everyone to erect religious shrines. We all know how much states rights would mean to leftists then.
No clue what you are talking about. I think you're better off presenting your own views rather trying to present the views of others.
No clue what you are talking about. I think you're better off presenting your own views rather trying to present the views of others.
I was just commenting on another post. It back there a couple pages. I dont know what you're talking about at least half the time so I reckon we're even. Carry on.
The Federalist Papers, the Anti-Federalist Papers and the 9th and 10th Amendments to the US Constitution give you everything you need to know for reading the 2nd Amendment properly.
"The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" is absolute.
The 9th Amendment tells you that just because a right, like absolute private property rights, isn't mentioned specifically does not mean that the people don't have it. The 9th is your guide to "how" you read the Constitution. It is a document that explains specifically what the government is, what it can do and what it cannot do. It does not define the people or the states, minus state government structure and the people's rights in courts. It only dictates to government. It does not grants rights to people, it takes away power from government.
The 10th Amendment tells you that if you do not see the power specifically enumerated as part of the federal purview, then whatever that is, it belongs to the States and the People. There is no enumeration anywhere in the Constitution that give power to the federal government to infringe upon the right to keep and bear arms. The only mention of the federal government and the right to keep and bear arms is in the 2nd Amendment, where they are specifically prohibited from messing with the right.
The reason I know this about the 9th and 10th Amendments is because I have read the Federalist and Anti-Federalist Papers. This is all explained, quite clearly and extensively, by the people writing it all down at the time.
That's why the 2nd Amendment survives, even in its bruised, battered and often disregarded form. There's simply too much actual evidence of what exactly the Founders intended, specifically where preventing future tyranny was concerned.
And more than anything else, the right to keep and bear arms indeed preserves all the others. When you watch the people of whatever 3rd World craphole is currently switching over to dictatorship, what do you actually see? You see men with guns oppressing men/women/children WITHOUT guns. Since the dawn of time, the people with weapons oppress the ones without them. Oh sure, you can have hundreds of years of relative peace/stability/democracy/etc, but even in the greatest empire the world has ever seen - the Romans - when it went south, it was centurions and praetorians with weapons carrying out the will of a tyrant.
Americans like to think we have evolved beyond such things, but in "even more civilized" Europe, when the government wants obedience, they have men with guns slap around those without them until obedience is achieved. It takes the smallest nudge to go from quieting down separatists in Catalonia and ending up at Iran's Guardian Council and its Supreme Leader. The...smallest...nudge. And all that stands between a free people and abject tyranny is the people possessing a legitimate threat to those who would oppress them.
Sure, our military possesses all manner of superior firepower and tech, but ask the US military how hard it has been to defeat lone riflemen in Afghanistan. Oh wait, they never have defeated those lone riflemen, that's right. Turns out a single person with a gun can actually do pretty well for themselves holding off a would be oppressor. Now just imagine if that person is well trained...and has ammo stores...hmmm...
While the 1st amendment DID only apply to congress (It specifically says in its text "Congress shall make no law..."), the 2nd made no such confinement of its command to only Congress. The 2nd said "Since X is true, the right shall not be restricted or taken away." Since it didn't mention WHO shall not take it away, that meant that the command applied to EVERYBODY. Including Fed govt, states, and local.
Next thing you know, you'll be telling us that while an accused person gets a jury trial if he breaks a Federal law, he DOESN'T get one if he breaks a state or local law (6th amendment).
And while the Fed govt isn't allowed to beat a confession out of a suspect, a state or local govt CAN (5th amendment).
And while A Fed govt agent must get a warrant before entering your house and searching it, a state cop can just walk in any time and search it from top to bottom, whenever he wants, for any reason or no reason (4th amendment).
And on and on.
Are you sure you want to continue this ludicrous dream that the entire BOR originally only applied to the Fed govt?
It didn't... except for the parts that specifically said so, like the 1st amendment.
And later adoption of the 14th amendment changed that, too.
And now we see arguments from anti 2A types claiming that states can do what they wish in regards to Constitutional rights. The limits imposed on government apply only to Congress and not state governments.
Oh my. LOL. So states rights are suddenly sacrosanct. That being the case secession is fully allowable and can be done at a whim. Yes?
The federal government has no power over the states to prevent it. Just as states can enact laws contrary to the Bill of Rights. So if CA decides it will kick in peoples doors to confiscate guns it may do so.
If DC doesn't like that CA can then secede. And do whatever they want. Leftists ranting about states rights. Isnt that just a peach though.
But they forget it seems if the Constitution can be disregarded by the states for this it can for all other issues of federal power as well. And individual rights. So when a state comes for personal firearms it can put personal computers on the list as well.
And force everyone to erect religious shrines. We all know how much states rights would mean to leftists then.
Excellent points!
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.
Leftists ranting about states rights. Isnt that just a peach though. 
