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....

nevermind...

Less lethal means? You know they developed the 1911 colt 45 because MacArthur was not having much luck knocking down the natives in the Philipines that got high and charged the troops, like a suicide attack. Someone comes at you with a base ball bat and is amped on meth, you let me know how you feel about less lethal means. That's why the cops that are carrying tazers are still carrying guns. You can't get the tazers they carry.

In those days they drank beer because it was safer to drink than water. If your ship was out of water you'd be stopping somewhere too. The point is invalid.

This whole thread is nothing but an exercise in taking things out of context. A supposed "serious constitutional discussion" and I only recall seeing ONE reference to a Supreme Court decision.

:helpme

yeah. i deleted my post because my position is complicated. part of me says that society is advanced enough that in some places, guns are not necessary & the harm to the public outweighs their benefit. But this is too simple, as history shows life is mostly conflict & survival, not prosperity. One must not be complacent & assume the benefits of first world living will go on indefinitely. all it takes is a multi-week power outage to create a state of anarchy.

The point with the beer was that history is based on what is told to us, not the truth. We were having a serious discussion, I posted a bunch of quotes from the guys that wrote it to further the plain truth what a militia is


LA Riots happen, government sieges at Waco Texas happen, I want to be the guy that survives it