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.
For a student of history that individual has absolutely no idea of what they are talking about? All they have to do is read the writings of the founder's themselves to find out the true meaning of the 2nd Amendment and what the founder's intentions were for incorporating it into the Bill of Rights. Not what their own personal opinion or interpretation of the 2nd Amendment is.
At any rate the Supreme Court has already reached the conclusion based on facts that the 2nd Amendment is indeed an individual right unrelated to service in a militia and applies to weapons that are in "common use".
Liberals are too dense to understand that the totalitarians of history have gained power by disarming the populace first. Unlike a liberal, they tyrants understand that it is impossible to defeat a well armed nation, armed with firearms, not umbrellas and soup cans.
Why is it then that many BLM members began carrying firearms? Isn't that verboten among the left?
Status:
"I don't understand. But I don't care, so it works out."
(set 4 days ago)
35,613 posts, read 17,940,183 times
Reputation: 50640
Quote:
Originally Posted by ecko_complex24
It is interesting to think about, but it isn't embarrassing to me as a second amendment supporter. The second amendment has nothing to do with that these days, and it was in fact some former Union soldiers that put the NRA together, and as a result this ruffled some feathers with the racist southerners who didn't want Black people to gain access to firearms.
There are beneficial things that came out of a sordid history. This doesn't mean that we should throw the baby out with the bathwater. I'm a liberal, but I am a strong advocate for right to self defense.
My OP wasn't a post calling for the abolition, or even a slight changing of the rights to keep and bear arms.
The entirety of my opinion here, is that thank god now we know what in the world the amendment was referring to a well-regulated militia for.
There are beneficial things that come out of darkness, or accidental positives that come out of mistakes, certainly. And I'm not opining on whether 2A is one of those results.
Merely having a Nancy Drew moment. AHA! THAT'S why the militia, and not private property owners, are referenced in 2A.
Wow, just wow. The stupidity of liberals never ceases to amaze me. The Founding Fathers prohibited a standing army in the Constitution. Reason: the King of England used the standing army against the colonists and they didn't want the federal government of the US to do the same In place of a standing army, the Constitution provides for militias, i.e. armed citizens that could be called upon in the event of foreign invasion, or possibly to overthrow a domestic tyranny.
If the Founding Fathers were concerned about an imminent slave rebellion, they could have established a standing army. There would have been no necessity for a militia. The militia was an alternative to a standing army, not an contrived provision for defense against a slave rebellion.
You know Clara C and NPR, a lot of this embarrassing display of ignorance could be remedied by simply reading some original writings from that period. Or read some old history books from the pre-politically correct era.
My OP wasn't a post calling for the abolition, or even a slight changing of the rights to keep and bear arms.
The entirety of my opinion here, is that thank god now we know what in the world the amendment was referring to a well-regulated militia for.
There are beneficial things that come out of darkness, or accidental positives that come out of mistakes, certainly. And I'm not opining on whether 2A is one of those results.
Merely having a Nancy Drew moment. AHA! THAT'S why the militia, and not private property owners, are referenced in 2A.
You realize that there can be more then one reason for an event, dont you? It has been shown that the founding fathers wanted private firearm ownership. So even if you are correct in what you are saying, that doesnt mean its the only reason they wanted it.
Status:
"I don't understand. But I don't care, so it works out."
(set 4 days ago)
35,613 posts, read 17,940,183 times
Reputation: 50640
Quote:
Originally Posted by hawk55732
You realize that there can be more then one reason for an event, dont you? It has been shown that the founding fathers wanted private firearm ownership. So even if you are correct in what you are saying, that doesnt mean its the only reason they wanted it.
I've always wondered - since high school when my civics teacher marveled at the beauty of the constitution, at how very clear and concise it is, EXCEPT this one amendment. (BTW, he was a former cop, and a strong believer in the right to own and bear arms).
But he was truly baffled at the language in that amendment. It's not clear. It's not only unclear, it's actually not grammatically correct. It's obfuscating what it's trying to say, on purpose, and I never knew why until now.
Now I know.
Now I know what that one phrase is the only unclear one in the entire document, was trying to accomplish.
Because they were trying to hide the purpose of the amendment, while making darn sure the intent would allow for the result they wanted. The ability of slaveowners to be able to quash their attempts to free themselves.
I've always wondered - since high school when my civics teacher marveled at the beauty of the constitution, at how very clear and concise it is, EXCEPT this one amendment. (BTW, he was a former cop, and a strong believer in the right to own and bear arms).
But he was truly baffled at the language in that amendment. It's not clear. It's not only unclear, it's actually not grammatically correct. It's obfuscating what it's trying to say, on purpose, and I never knew why until now.
Now I know.
Now I know what that one phrase is the only unclear one in the entire document, was trying to accomplish.
Because they were trying to hide the purpose of the amendment, while making darn sure the intent would allow for the result they wanted. The ability of slaveowners to be able to quash their attempts to free themselves.
Its actually very clear but ok, besides that, are you stating that you are just ignoring all of the supporting evidence of the founding fathers wanting personal firearms ownership?
Its actually very clear but ok, besides that, are you stating that you are just ignoring all of the supporting evidence of the founding fathers wanting personal firearms ownership?
yes, she is.
Because she claims her HS civics teacher said the 2A was unclear and must have had some hidden meaning. Because all the other amendments in the Bill of Rights, nay the entire wording of the Constitution were crystal clear!
That despite the rather clear "3/5 of a person" in referring to slaves, they still needed to slip something in to obfuscate slavery.
And that because a Black professor, an expert in "African American Studies", that writes books centered on racism in the US and world, had deemed the 2A was created in advance of the Haitian Revolution in ANTICIPATION of the slave rebellion 2 years later
This makes SUCH PERFECT SENSE. Everyone has wondered what was the deal with militias - why was that mentioned in this amendment? Why is it so confusingly written? Surely, the founding fathers who were flush with pride in their brand new government, weren't trying to arm citizens against the government they worked so very hard to carefully create?
Turns out, no, they weren't trying to arm citizens against the US government. But rather, Virginia wanted to make sure they had the ability to regulate their own state militias, without interference from the federal government, to extinguish slave rebellions that they predicted would happen.
The 2nd amendment was added in 1791. The very year the Haitian Rebellion began, where slaves in Haiti rebelled (successfully) against their masters. At that moment, white people were fleeing Haiti with their slaves, and coming to Virginia. The Virginians were rightfully worried that these new Haitian slaves being brought in would organize a rebellion and overthrow the state.
Makes such crystal clear, perfect sense. Like the police forces in the south that were begun with the entire focus of locating and returning runaway slaves, 2A was designed to extinguish a slave rebellion.
Pure rubbish.
Read the Federalist Papers for a proper understanding of the purpose of the 2nd Amendment, and how the FF's defined terms like militia.
I will give you a little hint, every able bodied man was considered part of the militia to be able to fight against a threat if called to action.
The main reason is because they never wanted the Federal government to have a standing army, in case it ran amok, and tried to destroy the republic. Thus all citizens had that responsibility as part of their citizenship.
(Pardon me for having to edify the same people once again)
Status:
"I don't understand. But I don't care, so it works out."
(set 4 days ago)
35,613 posts, read 17,940,183 times
Reputation: 50640
Quote:
Originally Posted by hawk55732
Its actually very clear but ok, besides that, are you stating that you are just ignoring all of the supporting evidence of the founding fathers wanting personal firearms ownership?
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.
Its actually very clear but ok, besides that, are you stating that you are just ignoring all of the supporting evidence of the founding fathers wanting personal firearms ownership?
Yes, it is crystal clear.
Those that dispute the Right(s) of the People like to confuse matters to push teir anti-American ideas.
I wrote "Right(s)" above as it involves more than this Amendment this that protects, not gives a Right.
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.
