Wait-Just-a-Goddam-Second Amendment!
 

http://truth-out.org/opinion/item/13...cond-amendment

http://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphoto...88717611_n.png

Put the second amendment between the 1st and 3rd, see the context it's intended for yet?


edit; The first Amendment to the US constitution is the protection of free speech. The third Amendment to the constitution is No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner …… see what the second refers to now?


.

QFT:thumbsup

Not really. :helpme

Don't worry I didn't think you would.

I like my guns... Don't punish me because %3 of %1 of the population are fucktards...

I think all gun owners should be a member of a well-regulated militia... Regulated by the US Government.

It blows me away that I have to have a driver's license and have to register each car, but guns require only a background check.

more cars. cars are more dangerous.

An online search by anyone of even limited intelligence can easily find quotes by the founding fathers referencing guns and the second Amendment.

Those with less than a limited intelligence make posts mocking things they haven't a clue about

What blows the mind of the less intelligent doesn't make it wrong, it just makes it above your intelligence level to understand.

Get an education:

https://gfy.com/showthread.php?t=1093950

:2 cents:

Problem is now a days, people hear Militia and think Military nuts jobs running around the woods playing soldier.

But when the constitution was being drafted, it basically meant the people, everyone! That's why the supreme court upheld the rights to own firearms in Washington DC

The problem is people are sheep and believe what they're told to believe.

How true!

:2 cents:

You weren't punished.

20 children in Connecticut were.

The whole point of a People's Militia is to be outside of the Govt. Having it Govt regulated kinda defeats the purpose. The problem with Militia's is they tend to attract all the crack pots from the extreme right.

IMO the Militia's should be more like the Army Reserves, a functioning citizens Army that helps their communities in the time of need, be it a national emergency or what ever. Perhaps they could be used to protect schools or as border defense to help curb illegal immigration.

The thing is this would take a major reinvention of the current Militia system which of course will never happen. Not to mention how would you even organize something like this with out also risking the issue of it being compromised.

Most of the intelligence around here is far less than limited.

:2 cents:

NO.

That is a "liberal" lie.

:2 cents:

In the past, as a new nation, we needed a militia because we did not have military forces. Now we have the Armed forces and there is no need for a militia. Remember, the government is us not "them". The second amendment is not a blanket give-away, after all, we don't get to have rocket launchers hand grenades and tanks.

You can also find quotes from the founding fathers of this country that warned of standing armies.. James Madison for example..

In time of actual war, great discretionary powers are constantly given to the Executive Magistrate. Constant apprehension of War, has the same tendency to render the head too large for the body. A standing military force, with an overgrown Executive will not long be safe companions to liberty. The means of defence against foreign danger, have been always the instruments of tyranny at home. Among the Romans it was a standing maxim to excite a war, whenever a revolt was apprehended. Throughout all Europe, the armies kept up under the pretext of defending, have enslaved the people.

and his thoughts on never ending wars that we seem to always be in..

Of all the enemies to public liberty war is, perhaps, the most to be dreaded, because it comprises and develops the germ of every other. War is the parent of armies; from these proceed debts and taxes; and armies, and debts, and taxes are the known instruments for bringing the many under the domination of the few. In war, too, the discretionary power of the Executive is extended; its influence in dealing out offices, honors, and emoluments is multiplied: and all the means of seducing the minds, are added to those of subduing the force, of the people. The same malignant aspect in republicanism may be traced in the inequality of fortunes, and the opportunities of fraud, growing out of a state of war, and in the degeneracy of manners and of morals, engendered by both. No nation could preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare.


Seems to be a man that could see the future..

That's your answer? Enlighten me. Show me how smart you are. :error

Exactly. There's tremendous effort made by certain powerful entities to get us to forget that.

I'm sure there are some that feel they should. And the NRA is probably lobbying for it.

we had an Navy, Army and Marine Corp before we had a declaration of independence.

Where does it say in the 2nd amendment we are limited in what fire arms we can own?

A lot of conjecture

But cars have a valid purpose and people do not use guns to kill twenty school child in a matter of minutes.

Guns do not have that same purpose, and the vast majority of us never have guns or use guns. And guns are used to kill people.

Take my wife for example. She uses her car every day of her life. She's never fired a gun, however. Everyone uses transportation, but so few of use firearms or need them.

The threats to US society that inspired the writing of the constitution generally no longer exist. Instead of fighting for the right to bear arms because the government might go rogue on us, we should be demanding a new constitution addressing Wall Street, lobbyists and conflicts of interest among congressmen.

The founding fathers weren't stupid. They were fully aware that technological progress was an ongoing process and that therefore guns would inevitably become both more efficient and more lethal.

The final wording that they arrived at for the second amendment was no accident either.

Having said this, I'm not totally convinced that today's homeowners necessarily need high-capacity, rapid fire assault guns to keep burglars and repo-men off of their property :winkwink:

That's a silly argument...it's like saying...I like to drink & drive and can do it without crashing, so don't punish me because 3% of 1% of the population are fucktards.

And this is coming from a gun owner.

They didnt see where slavery was going or women voting but they knew the future of guns. lol

It's a lot easier to envision technological advances than to forecast changes in attitudes.

And now, rather than look at all the crap that people on either side of the issue put out, lets simply look at what the highest court in the land determined in DC verses Heller:



(1) The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2–53.

(a) The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms. Pp. 2–22.

(b) The prefatory clause comports with the Court’s interpretation of the operative clause. The “militia” comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. The Antifederalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to disable this citizens’ militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, so that the ideal of a citizens’ militia would be preserved. Pp. 22–28.

(c) The Court’s interpretation is confirmed by analogous arms-bearing rights in state constitutions that preceded and immediately followed the Second Amendment. Pp. 28–30.

(d) The Second Amendment’s drafting history, while of dubious interpretive worth, reveals three state Second Amendment proposals that unequivocally referred to an individual right to bear arms. Pp. 30–32.

(e) Interpretation of the Second Amendment by scholars, courts and legislators, from immediately after its ratification through the late 19th century also supports the Court’s conclusion. Pp. 32–47.

(f) None of the Court’s precedents forecloses the Court’s interpretation. Neither United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542 , nor Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 252 , refutes the individual-rights interpretation. United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174 , does not limit the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes, but rather limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by the militia, i.e., those in common use for lawful purposes. Pp. 47–54.

(2) Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons.



.


There you have it. The bottom line.



P.S. in Macdonald v Chicago, the supreme court held that the same things hold for state and local governments.



.

Way of the world and its BS I know

a good read
http://anopenlettertogunowners.blogspot.com/?m=1ner

80 million people in this country own guns. That's not "few."

EXACTLY!!!!
It ain't about duck hunting. It's about the people being free from oppression and the rule of tyrants.

If they would have had them when the Constitution was drafted they would have been in there.:2 cents:

They were interested if freedom.

It does say what kind we can own. ANY KIND WE WANT!!!!! the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

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.

I took a hunter safety course when I turned 16, it was about safety more than anything and when I took a carry permit class, it was about the law, safety and common sense. Then we went to the range and qualified with the weapons we brought. I guess it's going to depend on where to take these classes. I disagree with him about semi auto rifles, running with scissors is dangerous too, it's an opinion. He was right about the assault weapons ban and many other things.

If you read it, its one sentence. If they just wanted everyone to own a gun. They wont of put in the first part. "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, "
And militia didnt mean the people, it meant militia. To protect the country and the government, not to rise up against the government. "being necessary to the security of a free state"

But you dont hear about 20 children killed with scissors because some nut ran into thee school with them.

no, you're as bad as the extremists on the other side of the issue - it's one sentence true, but the first part regarding 'the militia' is separate from 'the right of the people' part - the first part refers to the right of the states to have well regulated militias, no such thing as an unarmed militia, and then adds that individual citizens have the right to bear arms as well.

your interpretation is wrong. if they only intended that members of militias could have arms the second part wouldn't have been necessary to include. and if your interpretation was right, which it isn't, by exclusion in the Bill of Rights it would be assumed that the founding fathers intended citizens not to have guns. which is ridiculous in the 18th century, EVERYBODY had guns, including every one of the founding fathers.

I love when all the constitutional scholars gather for a chat. :ak47: . . :costumed87:girl

Sometimes I find it hard to believe you were a Marine. Is that what they drilled into you?

Yes, the militia is the people, do you ever read history? Here are statements from the very people that wrote the constitution.

"I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for few public officials." (George Mason, 3 Elliot, Debates at 425-426)

"A militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves...and include all men capable of bearing arms." (Richard Henry Lee, Additional Letters from the Federal Farmer (1788) at 169)

"On every question of construction (of the Constitution) let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed." (Thomas Jefferson, letter to William Johnson, June 12, 1823, The Complete Jefferson, p. 322)

"No Free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." (Thomas Jefferson, Proposal Virginia Constitution, 1 T. Jefferson Papers, 334,[C.J.Boyd, Ed., 1950])

"What, Sir, is the use of a militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty.... Whenever Governments mean to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order to raise an army upon their ruins." (Rep. Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts, spoken during floor debate over the Second Amendment [ I Annals of Congress at 750 {August 17, 1789}])

"As civil rulers, not having their duty to the people before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as the military forces which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the article in their right to keep and bear their private arms." (Tench Coxe in `Remarks on the First Part of the Amendments to the Federal Constitution' under the Pseudonym `A Pennsylvanian' in the Philadelphia Federal Gazette, June 18, 1789 at 2 col. 1)


"The Constitution shall never be construed....to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms" (Samuel Adams, Debates and Proceedings in the Convention of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, 86-87)

"That the said Constitution shall never be construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of The United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms..." (Samuel Adams, Debates and Proceedings in the Convention of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, at 86-87 (Peirce & Hale, eds., Boston, 1850))

"The strongest reason for people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government." -- (Thomas Jefferson)

How about the 21 kids under the age of 16 that died at the hands of the BATF, FBI, national guard and the US Army at Waco Texas?
They didn't attack anyone, they were raided! 74 people, men, women and children were killed over what? Weapons Violations? They didn't find any illegal weapons!
They called in the Army for helicopters and tanks, a violation of federal law, they said they could because there was reported to have been a meth lab on the premises, they didn't find one. The FBI afterwards said there was never a question of drugs on the premises.

All because a bunch of nuts ( The Government Kind ) ran in there. This is the very reason we should not get rid of our rights to own guns. That happened under Clinton, same thing happened then, assault weapons ban. Go Figure?

The government would rather we forget little mistakes like Waco Texas, back when they wrote the first assault weapons ban.

The constitution with that in mind, you read the debates they had writing the constitution and the last thing they wanted was for the government to have the power it has today. The federal government was never suppose to have the powers it has today.

No it isn't.
Sperbonzo's was a good read

Great post!

:thumbsup:thumbsup:thumbsup:thumbsup

50 seconds to amend it.

The federal papers are a great read. I had an awesome history teacher in high school that didn't use the classroom book more than he had to. He told the real story. Like why the Pilgrims are highly thought of in history, it's because the US needed some of it's own history early in our history. According the ships log, they pulled into Plymouth Rock because they were out of beer.

So many things in our own history that people just forget, sometimes I wish I could forget some of the things I've seen.

I mean, we as a nation, are pretty amazing at some of the great things we have accomplished. When California bought the Bay Bridge from China, they said it was because we could no longer do the work? Really? Yet we had to send people to China to show them how to do it. Or how about the stimulus money, how many foreign companies benefited from that? Investing in Fisker which is a foreign company to build cars that only 1% of the population can afford? I was all for the stimulus, but damn, who did the accounting? Invest in American companies right? Novel idea I know. Can't even keep all the drugs from coming into the states from over the border, but I don't think they want to stop them, dumb down america is what they are doing, that's why we gave them guns right?

Ok, my rant is over for the night....