The second amendment discussion

D

DannyMotorcycle

Active Member
I'm so pissed off at the liberal stupidity and the ignorance of most americans (especially including within the 3 branches of government). Seriously, cops, judges, lawmakers, don't understand the second amendment. smh

The British enacted gun control within the colonies. The founding fathers wrote the 2nd amendment
specifically to bar our new gov't (federal and local) from enacting gun control and to be able to
take up arms against our government as needed to revolt and take back our country from our gov't.
If i'm not mistaken Jefferson thought it (revolution) might need to happen every 20 years.

The second amendment is there to recognize our human rights to self defense against against
dangerous beasts including, and especially our own governments. The second amendment does not
"give us" the right to carry guns, the second amendment recognizes and serves to protect the fact that it's
our innate rights as human beings. If the U.S. gov't or any gov't didn't exist, we would still have the human rights to self defense especially in the most deadly of events. Your right to defend yourself is equal to your to be free.

The second amendment is there so we can take up arms against our (or any) government, therefor it's idiotic to believe that the gov't has the right to disarm us, to say who can be armed when, where, or with what.
It's moronic to say that the potential, or eventual, enemy should make the rules or choose that we must be disarmed. Of course they are going to say we should be disarmed. The founding fathers must be turning in their graves, or looking at us from the afterlife and realized everything they've done was for eventual naught,
if we don't put an end to our public servants serving as our personal masters.

The founding fathers did not want a standing army. They believed that it would empower and temp the government to corruption. They wanted we the people to be able to be called to arms at a moments notice to instantly become the army to fight off any group of men who came to oppress us, or take our lives, or our liberty.

At this point the public is so uneducated, even voting out the incumbents won't resolve the problem of idiotic rule. Just a new set of idiots, although less powerful, less corrupt. The first thing we must do is spread this information to everyone. The second thing we must do is elect people who understand it.

A well educated government, being necessary to the liberty of a free state, the right of the people
to have and share information shall not be infringed. Note this does not mean only the gov't should be
well educated, just as the second amendment does not mean only a militia should keep and bear arms.
The right of the people, is what it's all about.

All the crimes of violence are illegal, there is no need
to have laws to prevent carrying of guns. No one is a criminal until they themselves have engaged in a harmful or illegal act.

Say Yes to the 2nd amendment, Say yes to training and being armed, and say NO to gun laws and those who are for gun laws. Guns don't make people criminals, sexual organs don't make people prostitutes,
eating utensils don't make people fat.

I leave you with this ladies and gentlemen, all gun control laws against non criminal, free citizens are immoral, corrupt, nefarious, ignorant, oppressive, and most of all illegal.
 
T

tommyjo

New Member
Well, you certainly will be welcomed on here...

Since you seem to be as ignorant as those who you claim to oppose...I am wondering exactly what is your legal, educational and Constitutional background to make such claims?

I am also wondering if you have ever read the 2nd amendment?

The founding fathers didn't want an army? Why did we have a Dept of War? Why did we have a Secretary of War? Both established at the founding of the country. Why was West Point established in 1802? Oh and why does Article 2 Sect 2 Clause 1 of the US Constitution provide that the President is the "Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States"

The 2nd Amendment is for self defense? What words say that? You are right that every citizen has the right to defend themselves. The 2nd amendment does not grant that right nor does it state that the only means by which you have to defend yourself is with a gun. Nor does it say you may own any type of weapon you choose.

If you believe the govt of the United States is or "potentially" will be your enemy, I suggest you leave...you are free to do so.

Since you are unaware of how our political system works, the power of our form of govt is not held not a weapon strapped to your hip...it is held in the ballot box. Have you ever voted?

You don't seem to be very bright. For one thing, all crimes are illegal (not just the violent ones)...that is the definition of crime...

For another if you think you and your 2a pavlovian buddies can defeat the US Army, you are really, really stupid. Our young men and women are the best equipped best trained fighting force this world has ever seen. They, unlike you, take an oath to uphold the Constitution. In fact, their duty to defend and uphold the Constitution takes priority in their oath over their duty to obey the orders of the President and officers appointed over them.

The ignorance of people like you is astounding. The ignorance of people on the far left is just as astounding. There are reasonable and rational methods by which a civil society can manage this issue. As long as we have people like you on both sides who act unreasonably and think irrationally, we will never settle this issue. Which of course is the goal of the special interests. For once people start acting reasonably and thinking rationally, the special interests lose their reason to exist...and all that money that is contributed "to the cause".
 
D

dan0623_2000

Active Member
For another if you think you and your 2a pavlovian buddies can defeat the US Army, you are really, really stupid. Our young men and women are the best equipped best trained fighting force this world has ever seen.

Me thinks this was being said about the British army back in 1776. (well minus the women part)


As long as we have people like you on both sides who act unreasonably and think irrationally, we will never settle this issue.

Talk about the pot calling the kettle black. LOL I always look forward to Tammyjo's posting. They always make me laugh.
 
B

barsook8

Guest
Some random thoughts generated in response to reading TJ's thoughts....

That the government dislikes the Second Amendment has been clear from the day of its very inclusion in the Nation's Canon with the adoption of the Bill of Rights ("The Federalist Papers" and early American history demonstrate both theory and practice of government's dislike of an armed citizenry). That's reason enough to keep the 2A and the tensions that come with it: it's a primary safeguard to individual liberty. We are not drones/property of the State; the State is employed by us, not the other way around (like in China, the former Soviet Union, etc.). The 2A helps to keep this so.

The Founding Fathers (and the majority of the American population) didn't want a large STANDING army (or navy), but understood the need to sometimes have one. So on one hand we had numerous militias that banded together at the State level to contribute units to supplement the very small Federal army as necessary (this tradition remained in force until only relatively recently where an officer serving in the U.S. Army was actually serving in the "Army of the United States." An officer who was "U.S. Army" was an officer in the Regular Army, while Guard and Reserve officers were "USAR" and "ARNG" respectively). Anyway, the way we stayed out of needing the larger army was to stay out of international conflicts. The Navy likewise was kept small. In both cases, the Founding Fathers felt a large Army and/or large Navy would be too tempting for the President not to use (and haven't we seen this happen of late?). BTW, for this reason a draft remains far more preferable than the current, professional military we now have, but I wonder how many Americans (men and women) these days would be willing to put aside 2-3 years of their life in part because a draft (and the tensions it brings) helps to counter a greedy Chief Executive...?

With regard to the U.S. Military Academy, West Point was founded with two hand-in-hand purposes in mind: 1) to train a SMALL cadre of professional officers to officer the small standing Federal force and to be the nucleus of a larger expanded army and 2) to serve of engineers who could professionally manage the growth/expansion of the country as it spread (westward) during the majority of time when the military experience and prowess was not needed. The Army Corps of Engineers is a continuing legacy of this tradition.

We had a War (and Navy) Department because a responsible Executive was one where we acknowledged the need for an army (and navy) and as such created departments for their management and to plan for occasional expansion during national emergencies. That we had these departments in no way pointed to some large love of them, only a necessity borne of responsible government....

I would suggest "For the Common Defense" (http://www.amazon.com/Common-Defense-Military-History-United/dp/1451623534) as essential reading on the subject of America's historical love-hate relationship with the military (and one could reasonably argue, guns and the 2A). With regard to the discussion of the need for a navy, see "Six Frigates" (http://www.amazon.com/Six-Frigates-Epic-History-Founding/dp/039333032X).

In the end, guns are dangerous and frighten folks. I get that. It's not hard to understand that they scare folks and as a result folks want them limited/controlled. But this misses the point: guns are valuable/necessary precisely because they are dangerous and frighten. If we want to keep our freedom (from criminal activity, an over-bearing government, etc.), I believe we must be willing to live with the tension (anxiety?) guns generate. I think this is a small price to pay as "gun control" is about "control" first and only secondarily about "guns." Do you really believe the government is your friend? I don't; government's only friend (or friends) is the person who helps it stay (or grow) (the prime directive of bureaucracies is to protect and preserve the bureaucracy). So "disarming the other" is always a first/primary goal of all governments/bureaucracies/organizations seeking to establish control. It's ALWAYS about power. It's been that way forever in every society: disarm your opponent and over-power them. French revolutionaries were happy to arm the peasantry until the monarchy was overthrown; then the peasantry was quickly ans ruthlessly disarmed. Same during the Russian Revolution. Same in 1948 China. Same in North Korea. The list from both history and current geography goes on and on. Closer to home, think back to American slavery: do you think slave owners wanted their slaves armed? Of course not! So while the slave owners feared an armed slave population (and thus kept the slaves disarmed) the reason they gave for keeping their slaves disarmed was always phrased/framed as "Christian charity": "why do you need guns? We'll protect you." We all know how that worked out. While it is true that not all societies where there is gun control are totalitarian regimes it is true that ALL totalitarian regimes enforce strict gun control (the corollary is that societies where gun controls are enacted, but are not currently totalitarian, are on the road to becoming so). Why? BECAUSE IT IS ABOUT CONTROL. ALWAYS. EVERYWHERE. FOR ALL TIME.

That a self-armed group of citizens could hardly defeat concerted efforts by the police, military, etc. (i.e., the State) to disarm them also misses the point; an armed citizenry gives the criminal or the government (sometimes history shows they are one in the same) at least some pause. An unarmed citizenry isn't even a speed bump on the road to totalitarian enslavement.

Speaking of the Founding Fathers, I was taught the following in school way back when (during a time when we weren't so scared of everything) and still believe it to be true today; to paraphrase Ben Franklin: those who would trade liberty for security deserve neither.

Okay. I've said my peace. Bring on the haters....
 
B

BlueSunday

New Member
If I'm not mistaken the Second Amendment was widely interpreted to apply not to individuals but to state militias,as it actually said in the language of the amendment.I think it was around 2008 that the SCOTUS ruled it applied to individuals .I understand the responses but the assumption is all killers obtain their weapons illegally and that is not true.While I am not anti gun I will admit to not understanding the objections to stronger regulating of fire arms.
 
Merlin99

Merlin99

Visualize whirled peas
PREMO Member
BlueSunday said:
If I'm not mistaken the Second Amendment was widely interpreted to apply not to individuals but to state militias,as it actually said in the language of the amendment.I think it was around 2008 that the SCOTUS ruled it applied to individuals .I understand the responses but the assumption is all killers obtain their weapons illegally and that is not true.While I am not anti gun I will admit to not understanding the objections to stronger regulating of fire arms.
Click to expand...

No, you are in fact mistaken. As for the reason for the objection to stronger regulations, not only are they not needed, but the progressive left is satisfied with taking our rights away in little bites so each and every bite has to be fought.
 
B

BlueSunday

New Member
Merlin99 said:
No, you are in fact mistaken. As for the reason for the objection to stronger regulations, not only are they not needed, but the progressive left is satisfied with taking our rights away in little bites so each and every bite has to be fought.
Click to expand...

What am I mistaken about?
 
B

BlueSunday

New Member
Gilligan said:
"stronger", in what ways, specifically?
Click to expand...

Better background checks,no gun sales at gun shows and registration for all guns.Better enforcement of existing gun laws .Licenses to sell or buy a gun.Better mental health evaluations to determine gun ownership.JMO.
 
D

DannyMotorcycle

Active Member
don't have time to thoroughly respond, and will do so later, but quickly..
"they have ruled it means militia's" i already covered that.. of course the gov't would rule to disarm us..

"it means militiias" already covered that with the well educated gov't analogy.. doesnt' mean the govt it means "the people's right shall not be infringed"

And my background is irrelevant but i'm confident I do in fact have more collegiate legal courses with A and B grades than you. I have been taught law by lawyers, a chief of police, and a judge on college campuses. Have you?

And of course i already stated that the second amendment doesn't' give rights it recognizes rights, human rights, including self defense to which you agreed with. Go easy with the word twisting and straw man arguments.

I don't care what any gov't says, or any person says. your right to self defense even in the most deadly of situations is your human right. No matter what country you are in, no matter what gov't exist or does not exist there. gov't doesnt' give you rights, your human rights precede government.
 
B

BlueSunday

New Member
Merlin99 said:
That the second amendment was interpreted as a state militia right and not an individual right.
Click to expand...

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.

In United States v. Cruikshank (1876), the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that, "The right to bear arms is not granted by the Constitution; neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence" and limited the applicability of the Second Amendment to the federal government.[9] In United States v. Miller (1939), the Supreme Court ruled that the federal government and the states could limit any weapon types not having a "reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia."[10][11]

In the twenty-first century, the amendment has been subjected to renewed academic inquiry and judicial interest.[11] In District of Columbia v. Heller (2008), the Supreme Court handed down a landmark decision that held the amendment protects an individual right to possess and carry firearms.[12][13] In McDonald v. Chicago (2010), the Court clarified its earlier decisions that limited the amendment's impact to a restriction on the federal government, expressly holding that the Fourteenth Amendment applies the Second Amendment to state and local governments to the same extent that the Second Amendment applies to the federal government.[14] In Caetano v. Massachusetts (2016), the Supreme Court reiterated its earlier rulings that "the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding" and that its protection is not limited to "only those weapons useful in warfare".[15]


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution
 
Gilligan

Gilligan

#*! boat!
PREMO Member
BlueSunday said:
"The right to bear arms is not granted by the Constitution; neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence"
Click to expand...

Bingo. The right to bear arms (more to the point..to defend ones self, family and property by any means) is a natural right. The only reason it was included as an amendment was to make that natural right ironclad with respect to any government attempt to restrict or remove it.

Of course the point is largely moot if you consider the sheer number of firearms owned by US citizens. And, thanks in no small part to the utterances of people like King 4Putt, Nancy Pelosi, Chuck Shumer, etc, the number is growing daily in record-breaking fashion.
 
B

barsook8

Guest
BlueSunday said:
If I'm not mistaken the Second Amendment was widely interpreted to apply not to individuals but to state militias,as it actually said in the language of the amendment.
Click to expand...

So here's the conundrum I think.... In the past the civic responsibility and the right to have a gun were separate rights but inseparably linked. Over time that was forgotten and the two eventually blended into one where many understand the 2A to read, "because we ("The Government" and "The People") want one (i.e., the militia) we ("The Government," but this time not "The People") grant you ("The People") the right to have a gun." What originally were "two equal, but separate" rights eventually became "one necessity as a the legal basis for permitting the other."

So when the need for a citizen militia declined over time (but also because - certainly since the 1960s - folks didn't feel inclined to fulfill their civic obligations) the right to have a gun ("bear arms") became an orphan (it wasn't, but some certainly seemed to think so). The thinking goes like this: since there is no longer any reason for the necessity (the militia; which is the basis for the right) there is no longer a right to the dependent permission ("to bear arms"). To state that gun ownership is linked to a militia may very well be true (certainly seems to be), but it is not true to say that one causes/grants the other. Citizen disinterest in one aspect (i.e., the "militia") does not negate the other aspect (i.e., "the right to have/bear arms"). Bottom line, these are two separate, but equal issues where the negation of one does not negate the other.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Merlin99

Merlin99

Visualize whirled peas
PREMO Member
BlueSunday said:
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.

In United States v. Cruikshank (1876), the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that, "The right to bear arms is not granted by the Constitution; neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence" and limited the applicability of the Second Amendment to the federal government.[9] In United States v. Miller (1939), the Supreme Court ruled that the federal government and the states could limit any weapon types not having a "reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia."[10][11]

In the twenty-first century, the amendment has been subjected to renewed academic inquiry and judicial interest.[11] In District of Columbia v. Heller (2008), the Supreme Court handed down a landmark decision that held the amendment protects an individual right to possess and carry firearms.[12][13] In McDonald v. Chicago (2010), the Court clarified its earlier decisions that limited the amendment's impact to a restriction on the federal government, expressly holding that the Fourteenth Amendment applies the Second Amendment to state and local governments to the same extent that the Second Amendment applies to the federal government.[14] In Caetano v. Massachusetts (2016), the Supreme Court reiterated its earlier rulings that "the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding" and that its protection is not limited to "only those weapons useful in warfare".[15]


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution
Click to expand...

I don't see why you're bringing Cruikshank up, it says that not only is it an individual right, but that it exists independent of the constitution.
 
B

BernieP

Resident PIA
tommyjo said:
Well, you certainly will be welcomed on here...

Since you seem to be as ignorant as those who you claim to oppose...I am wondering exactly what is your legal, educational and Constitutional background to make such claims?
Click to expand...
Maybe you should share your credentials as well. Instead of taking notes from the libtards maybe you should read the constitution, then read the Federalist papers and finally do some reading on the history of the period and the rationale of the constitution.

Popular to liberal belief the constitution, more specifically the Bill of Rights, was designed to limit the power of the federal government.
The founding fathers did not want to hand a lot of power to a centralized government similar to the king and parliament.
They wanted the states to have the power to govern themselves. The central government was for those things that extended beyond a state's boundaries and for the "common" defense of all the states.
It was to empower the people, not the political leaders.
The founding fathers did not want a standing Army. They realized a small navy was crucial to the country, bit there was no need for a large army
As for the second amendment in the Bill of Rights, the militia was the people, not the national guard or reserve. The intent was to have an armed population that could rise up and overthrow the government should it become tyrannical.
The framers of the constitution never foresaw the massive size of the government when it came to regulating the daily lives of the citizens of this country
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top