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.
New Flash!! Slavery in the United States of America has been over for over a 150 years now!!
So, what the heck does the 2A have to do with slavery, today in 2021?? The last time I checked, anybody regardless of Color and doesn’t have a felony criminal record, can buy firearm in America today, if they choose to. I’m a descendant of African slaves in the United States and I bought firearms before…. Even after checking the race box as Black!!
If we’re going to travel down the road to stupid-ville, than the Democrat Party is STILL the party of slavery AND even went to war over it!!
That in addition to not supporting the Civil Rights Acts, Jim Crow Laws , and of course the KKK.
Now their racist history has gone from overt to covert.
But since the 2A is referencing "well-regulated militias" that fact cannot be ignored or glossed over in an effort to pervert the purpose of the amendment. The lack of a standing national army of any consequence in 1791 is the issue being addressed. The right to private ownership of weapons was not being granted by the 2A as it already existed and was not in question. States could conscript men into the militia in times of emergency, and it was assumed that they would be armed. They were concerned with defense. The federal government wanted to be sure that they could call up effective (well-regulated) state militias as happened during the Whiskey Rebellion. The wording "...the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" does not grant that right, it merely recognizes that it already exists and cannot be invalidated or abolished.
That is as far as it goes. It does not protect or establish rights to own a grenade launcher or machine gun or bump-stock weapons or anything that you decide to have based on some willy-nilly whim.
I think that people claiming that the government wants to take everyone's gun is silly and is contrary to the constitutional protection. At the same time, I think the government has the authority to restrict possession of certain guns and impose rational limits on who can own a gun (as it has done) while not establishing an absolute prohibition of gun ownership. Gun ownership is a done deal in this country but that does not mean the government does not have the duty and right to impose rational restrictions.
But since the 2A is referencing "well-regulated militias" that fact cannot be ignored or glossed over in an effort to pervert the purpose of the amendment. The lack of a standing national army of any consequence in 1791 is the issue being addressed. The right to private ownership of weapons was not being granted by the 2A as it already existed and was not in question. States could conscript men into the militia in times of emergency, and it was assumed that they would be armed. They were concerned with defense. The federal government wanted to be sure that they could call up effective (well-regulated) state militias as happened during the Whiskey Rebellion. The wording "...the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" does not grant that right, it merely recognizes that it already exists and cannot be invalidated or abolished.
That is as far as it goes. It does not protect or establish rights to own a grenade launcher or machine gun or bump-stock weapons or anything that you decide to have based on some willy-nilly whim.
I think that people claiming that the government wants to take everyone's gun is silly and is contrary to the constitutional protection. At the same time, I think the government has the authority to restrict possession of certain guns and impose rational limits on who can own a gun (as it has done) while not establishing an absolute prohibition of gun ownership. Gun ownership is a done deal in this country but that does not mean the government does not have the duty and right to impose rational restrictions.
Does the inconsistency of the two highlights above bother you?
But since the 2A is referencing "well-regulated militias" that fact cannot be ignored or glossed over in an effort to pervert the purpose of the amendment. The lack of a standing national army of any consequence in 1791 is the issue being addressed. The right to private ownership of weapons was not being granted by the 2A as it already existed and was not in question. States could conscript men into the militia in times of emergency, and it was assumed that they would be armed. They were concerned with defense. The federal government wanted to be sure that they could call up effective (well-regulated) state militias as happened during the Whiskey Rebellion. The wording "...the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" does not grant that right, it merely recognizes that it already exists and cannot be invalidated or abolished.
That is as far as it goes. It does not protect or establish rights to own a grenade launcher or machine gun or bump-stock weapons or anything that you decide to have based on some willy-nilly whim.
I think that people claiming that the government wants to take everyone's gun is silly and is contrary to the constitutional protection. At the same time, I think the government has the authority to restrict possession of certain guns and impose rational limits on who can own a gun (as it has done) while not establishing an absolute prohibition of gun ownership. Gun ownership is a done deal in this country but that does not mean the government does not have the duty and right to impose rational restrictions.
Perhaps it is the actions and attempts by many in Office that brings that about.
The types of firearms not restricted to the People must be sufficient to defend against tyranny as well.
Right now, everything is racist. The highways are racist, math is racist, exams are racist, stopping looters is racist, and of course, now the 2nd Amendment is racist. It's simple really. Try to keep up or you risk being labeled a racist yourself.
Yes the founding fathers were racist, as they all owned hundreds of slaves and fought against the British to preserve slavery as Britain had banned it, but I don’t think the 2nd amendment itself was racist. They simply needed a militia, even if the indirect reason was to stop slave rebellions.
If the North does not accept America as a slave nation, the South never joins them to fight against the British.
Either way, we can rest assured liberals will skip this alarming part of American history. They only want to attack confederate statues because they’re too clueless to examine how everyone had blood on their hands back in the day, especially the founding fathers.
But since the 2A is referencing "well-regulated militias" that fact cannot be ignored or glossed over in an effort to pervert the purpose of the amendment. The lack of a standing national army of any consequence in 1791 is the issue being addressed. The right to private ownership of weapons was not being granted by the 2A as it already existed and was not in question. States could conscript men into the militia in times of emergency, and it was assumed that they would be armed. They were concerned with defense. The federal government wanted to be sure that they could call up effective (well-regulated) state militias as happened during the Whiskey Rebellion. The wording "...the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" does not grant that right, it merely recognizes that it already exists and cannot be invalidated or abolished.
That is as far as it goes. It does not protect or establish rights to own a grenade launcher or machine gun or bump-stock weapons or anything that you decide to have based on some willy-nilly whim.
I think that people claiming that the government wants to take everyone's gun is silly and is contrary to the constitutional protection. At the same time, I think the government has the authority to restrict possession of certain guns and impose rational limits on who can own a gun (as it has done) while not establishing an absolute prohibition of gun ownership. Gun ownership is a done deal in this country but that does not mean the government does not have the duty and right to impose rational restrictions.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SunGrins
There is no inconsistency to be bothered about.
To be fair, that is an inconsistency. If one already owned a grenade launcher and bump stocks before such legislation, does the government have the right to take those arms away?
If the government recognizes that it's citizens bear arms and that cannot be invalidated or abolished, but in the next line it doesn't protect the right or establish the right to own a grenade launcher, wouldn't this be the government "granting" a right?
If you think the government has authority to restrict possession of certain guns, therefore you would need to admit that the government has "granted" this right. They can't abridge something that they haven't granted, and something that in your words, "merely recognizes that it already exists and cannot be invalidated or abolished".
No, I'm not discounting that the founding fathers wanted personal gun ownership.
What has baffled me - for decades - is the wording of this amendment. Why not just say "For the security and safety of our citizens, private gun ownership and the right to carry arms will not be infringed"?
Why not say that? I know now why. Because they wanted state militias specifically to be able to be regulated by the state, and no one else, and the militia's ability to take up arms together against a common foe wouldn't be curtailed. They wanted to be SURE the state could decide to quell a slave uprising, using the state militia.
because something has baffled you doesn't mean it baffles many or most.
because you, in 2021/2022 choose to disagree with the language of one of the 10 Bill of Rights doesn't meant they should have "just said that".
because you now digest a one-sided, inaccurate (aka dates of Haitian Revolt vs dates of Amendment) interpretation doesn't mean you "now know why".
It means you're an ________.
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.
