Are we so Societally Evolved as to render the Constitiution (2nd Amend.) Antiquated...

[KeiserC]

The 2nd Amendment was not a check against Tyranny of the Government of the People. It was for the Militia's to always have their weapons with them and to be well trained in the art of military maneuvers and drills. Each State had one. They were ultimately under control of the CiC. Technological advances have rendered the Citizen Militia's obsolete and replaced them with the National Guard. So in a way yes things have evolved. Of course the Supreme Court has decided to re-write the Amendment and ignore bit about the Militia and it's value in a free state and granted the people a limited right to certain weapons.

Clearly impossible to do in this climate but I think it needs to be re-written to clearly define the peoples rights.

State militas were ultimately under the control of the feds, but the States appointed the officers. Which I think in theory would prevent the congress calling out ten militas to impose tyranny on three states.

Article I, Section 8 (the Militia Clause) states:

“Congress shall have the power to: provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions; to provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress.”

A fair point against the OP's assertion that the 2nd was intended to thwart tyranny from our own government.

I posted because there is a danger of misstating, and deflecting, the true importance of the 2nd to today's world. Anyone who thinks their right to an AR-15 or whatever is connected to some notion of "THE PEOPLE" rising up against a tyrannical federal government is mistaken. The STATE GOVERNMENTS were given congressional protections to thwart what the Founders feared the federal govt might become, which never actually happended. The Founders feared a Federal government might use either a standing army, which was viewed as paid mercenaries, or a group of some states to deny freedoms specified in the BoR. It's not a coincidence that the 2nd is part of the BoR.

Washington and the Whiskey Rebellion made it very clear that the 2nd was not a means citizens could use to avoid a legally enacted law. There is no provision in the Const or BoR for rebellion. The right of the states to nullify a federally enacted law was a separate issue, and the nullification crisis, and supremacy of federal law, set up the crisis that led to the civil war. And Buchanan is generally considered the worst potus ever because he failed to find a compromise to let states control their economies while allowing for federal laws to have supremacy over state law. Reagan used states rights as a dog whistle to racists in the South, but really what he was about was trying to remove the fed govt from its encroachment in the new deal and 60s in terms of education, healthcare, marriage, etc that until 1932 were strictly left to states. Reagan was not saying, "get yer AR-15s an pertect yer liberty."

Today there is a danger that governments like Wash DC and Chicago will take away our rights to defend our homes from invasions by criminals. That's the issue. The rest of it may interest some people who like history, but that's it. There are some interesting parallels with English common law, and their Civil War, but again, that's just something for people who like history.

You're far more patient than I when it comes to explaining things that I believe every adult should already know. I appreciate that you and others take that time.

me patient? LOL I think the OP mixed and matched, but not intentionally. KaiserBill (-: may have intended a discussion of why school (and other) massacares seem to be increasing.

- a good point to underscore in the OP... The 1st presumption / assertion made is that the 2ndA is at its core (the purpose of it), is a means of facilitating a check (by the people) against tyranny.

the 2nd point of including "Societally Evolved" is borrowing from the 'Progressive' Play book... how firearms for a check against tyranny is outlandishly antiquate, a relic the moment after it was written... etc. No longer relevant, in short... We are bombarded by this in the MSM all day long, so it shouldn't be a stretch for any of us to recognize this assertion.

Necessarily, for the sake of debate, one would have to acknowledge (not necessarily agree with) both assertions.

 

[hunarcy]

We can find original intent in the founding fathers later writings,

Who is we? Have you had any law school?
`

I think "we" could be anyone who has a dictionary and can comprehend reading at the 10th grade level.

 

[JakeStarkey]

LOL! I didn't rejected it. I merely pointed out he was basing his opinion on one person's point of view because he agreed with it. When you "interpret" the Constitution as "living document" you risk turning it to something that was NOT intended. Now, I realize there must be flexibility to deal with changing times, but that's not the same as twisting it into something new.

I've been hearing that same excuse (figuratively speaking) since Roe v Wade. At issue now is the 2nd Amendment. Like with abortion, it's a highly volatile and emotional topic. Those who defend it are solidly intransigent about it which negates any pragmatic discussion on it. SCOTUS really doesn't want to get involved in it which leaves it still up for discussion, if possible. I don't believe 2A is absolute from a legal perspective. It has limitations that should be explored and tested.
`

I think the phrase "shall not be infringed." is pretty absolute.

You will always be able to own and possess a weapon: you just don't have the right to have an operating bazooka in your private life.

 

[JakeStarkey]

"The 1st presumption / assertion made is that the 2ndA is at its core (the purpose of it), is a means of facilitating a check (by the people) against tyranny" is false.

 

[JakeStarkey]

SavannahMan=Ammon Bundy is not in jail. All charges dismissed with prejudice. Why? The Government lied and cheated. Charges Against Bundys in Ranch Standoff Case Are Dismissed

So with literally two exceptions everyone who went to prison plead guilty. Those who pled not guilty went home with two exceptions. So what does that tell you?

First the Government was unwilling to end up playing the part of Custer at the re-enactment of the Little Bighorn, and two, they really were out to screw the Bundy’s. Now as for me I think the Bundy’s are assholes. But even assholes have rights. Which brings us back to you. How are you doing?

If the Bundys tried it again, there will be bloodshed and the militia scattered as ashes before the wind.

Unlikely. Let’s talk numbers. There are including Federal, State, County, and City, about three million cops total in the nation. There are probably that many Remington branded AR-15’s not to mention the dozen other makers.

How many cops would die? How many would face Veterans with training and experience more than equal to that of the cops?

You live in a tin foil world. Almost no veterans are going to join a rebellion against the country and constitution.

The neighbors would put the rebels against the wall in the back yard and leave them where they fell, before the LEO or the military ever showed up.

About half of the people at the Bundy Ranch were veterans. And what makes you think it would be against the Constitution? The people there believed that the Government was acting in an unconstitutional manner. They interpreted the Constitution differently than you do.

You are ignorant if you have never heard of the Oath Keepers. They are former military and cops . Oath Keepers

They are considered a hate group by the Pot stirring Southern Poverty Law Center.

The famed Michigan Militia of thirty years ago was led by a former Green Beret.

You really are ignorant aren’t you? Are you a veteran? Most of them see themselves as Patriots. If the active military was ordered to open fire on citizens about half would refuse. That would be higher in the special units. Paratroopers, Rangers, and the rest.

You don't have a clue. SCOTUS and case law's interpretations count. Yours and your friends don't. And you simply don't have the firepower, militia boy. The feds and staties went easy on you the last two times. Well, maybe not: ask LaVoy Finicum. Oh, that's right.

 

[OldLady]

The 2nd Amendment was "antiquated" on the day it was written.

The Constitution, including Bill of Rights, is generally a masterpiece of forward-thinking that is still relevant today - but not the 2nd Amendment. The founders, mostly men of great vision, apparently couldn't see past the day they wrote it. It has become so obsolete that SCOTUS can interpret it any way it wishes - which it has and will continue to do so.

It's like an Etch A Sketch.

My own suspicion is that they wrote it so "open to interpretation" to kick the can down the road. They had to get approval from everyone--so they wrote it in a way that all could read into it what they wanted to see.
The rest of the Constitution is clear. The way the 2nd is worded? Not so much.

 

[ThunderKiss1965]

LOL! I didn't rejected it. I merely pointed out he was basing his opinion on one person's point of view because he agreed with it. When you "interpret" the Constitution as "living document" you risk turning it to something that was NOT intended. Now, I realize there must be flexibility to deal with changing times, but that's not the same as twisting it into something new.

I've been hearing that same excuse (figuratively speaking) since Roe v Wade. At issue now is the 2nd Amendment. Like with abortion, it's a highly volatile and emotional topic. Those who defend it are solidly intransigent about it which negates any pragmatic discussion on it. SCOTUS really doesn't want to get involved in it which leaves it still up for discussion, if possible. I don't believe 2A is absolute from a legal perspective. It has limitations that should be explored and tested.
`

I think the phrase "shall not be infringed." is pretty absolute.

You will always be able to own and possess a weapon: you just don't have the right to have an operating bazooka in your private life.

Why not ?

 

[JakeStarkey]

LOL! I didn't rejected it. I merely pointed out he was basing his opinion on one person's point of view because he agreed with it. When you "interpret" the Constitution as "living document" you risk turning it to something that was NOT intended. Now, I realize there must be flexibility to deal with changing times, but that's not the same as twisting it into something new.

I've been hearing that same excuse (figuratively speaking) since Roe v Wade. At issue now is the 2nd Amendment. Like with abortion, it's a highly volatile and emotional topic. Those who defend it are solidly intransigent about it which negates any pragmatic discussion on it. SCOTUS really doesn't want to get involved in it which leaves it still up for discussion, if possible. I don't believe 2A is absolute from a legal perspective. It has limitations that should be explored and tested.
`

I think the phrase "shall not be infringed." is pretty absolute.

You will always be able to own and possess a weapon: you just don't have the right to have an operating bazooka in your private life.

Why not ?

SCOTUS and case law says you can't. You are not the one who interprets the Constitution with authority.

 

[OldLady]

State militas were ultimately under the control of the feds, but the States appointed the officers. Which I think in theory would prevent the congress calling out ten militas to impose tyranny on three states.

Article I, Section 8 (the Militia Clause) states:

“Congress shall have the power to: provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions; to provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress.”

A fair point against the OP's assertion that the 2nd was intended to thwart tyranny from our own government.

I posted because there is a danger of misstating, and deflecting, the true importance of the 2nd to today's world. Anyone who thinks their right to an AR-15 or whatever is connected to some notion of "THE PEOPLE" rising up against a tyrannical federal government is mistaken. The STATE GOVERNMENTS were given congressional protections to thwart what the Founders feared the federal govt might become, which never actually happended. The Founders feared a Federal government might use either a standing army, which was viewed as paid mercenaries, or a group of some states to deny freedoms specified in the BoR. It's not a coincidence that the 2nd is part of the BoR.

Washington and the Whiskey Rebellion made it very clear that the 2nd was not a means citizens could use to avoid a legally enacted law. There is no provision in the Const or BoR for rebellion. The right of the states to nullify a federally enacted law was a separate issue, and the nullification crisis, and supremacy of federal law, set up the crisis that led to the civil war. And Buchanan is generally considered the worst potus ever because he failed to find a compromise to let states control their economies while allowing for federal laws to have supremacy over state law. Reagan used states rights as a dog whistle to racists in the South, but really what he was about was trying to remove the fed govt from its encroachment in the new deal and 60s in terms of education, healthcare, marriage, etc that until 1932 were strictly left to states. Reagan was not saying, "get yer AR-15s an pertect yer liberty."

Today there is a danger that governments like Wash DC and Chicago will take away our rights to defend our homes from invasions by criminals. That's the issue. The rest of it may interest some people who like history, but that's it. There are some interesting parallels with English common law, and their Civil War, but again, that's just something for people who like history.

You're far more patient than I when it comes to explaining things that I believe every adult should already know. I appreciate that you and others take that time.

me patient? LOL I think the OP mixed and matched, but not intentionally. KaiserBill (-: may have intended a discussion of why school (and other) massacares seem to be increasing.

- a good point to underscore in the OP... The 1st presumption / assertion made is that the 2ndA is at its core (the purpose of it), is a means of facilitating a check (by the people) against tyranny.

the 2nd point of including "Societally Evolved" is borrowing from the 'Progressive' Play book... how firearms for a check against tyranny is outlandishly antiquate, a relic the moment after it was written... etc. No longer relevant, in short... We are bombarded by this in the MSM all day long, so it shouldn't be a stretch for any of us to recognize this assertion.

Necessarily, for the sake of debate, one would have to acknowledge (not necessarily agree with) both assertions.

I have also read that the purpose was to prevent a standing army. They hated standing armies. So that ship has sailed and if you want to go back to "original intent," we might as well get rid of it.

 

[SavannahMann]

SavannahMan=Ammon Bundy is not in jail. All charges dismissed with prejudice. Why? The Government lied and cheated. Charges Against Bundys in Ranch Standoff Case Are Dismissed

So with literally two exceptions everyone who went to prison plead guilty. Those who pled not guilty went home with two exceptions. So what does that tell you?

First the Government was unwilling to end up playing the part of Custer at the re-enactment of the Little Bighorn, and two, they really were out to screw the Bundy’s. Now as for me I think the Bundy’s are assholes. But even assholes have rights. Which brings us back to you. How are you doing?

If the Bundys tried it again, there will be bloodshed and the militia scattered as ashes before the wind.

Unlikely. Let’s talk numbers. There are including Federal, State, County, and City, about three million cops total in the nation. There are probably that many Remington branded AR-15’s not to mention the dozen other makers.

How many cops would die? How many would face Veterans with training and experience more than equal to that of the cops?

You live in a tin foil world. Almost no veterans are going to join a rebellion against the country and constitution.

The neighbors would put the rebels against the wall in the back yard and leave them where they fell, before the LEO or the military ever showed up.

About half of the people at the Bundy Ranch were veterans. And what makes you think it would be against the Constitution? The people there believed that the Government was acting in an unconstitutional manner. They interpreted the Constitution differently than you do.

You are ignorant if you have never heard of the Oath Keepers. They are former military and cops . Oath Keepers

They are considered a hate group by the Pot stirring Southern Poverty Law Center.

The famed Michigan Militia of thirty years ago was led by a former Green Beret.

You really are ignorant aren’t you? Are you a veteran? Most of them see themselves as Patriots. If the active military was ordered to open fire on citizens about half would refuse. That would be higher in the special units. Paratroopers, Rangers, and the rest.

You don't have a clue. SCOTUS and case law's interpretations count. Yours and your friends don't. And you simply don't have the firepower, militia boy. The feds and staties went easy on you the last two times. Well, maybe not: ask LaVoy Finicum. Oh, that's right.

Yeah. How are things going in Afghanistan? We have all the tech in the world. Yet we can’t seem to manage a win.

Well. Fine. Syria then. But we can’t seem to win there. Uneducated savages and they can’t manage to win in either place. How are things in Yemen?

I was trained in unconventional warfare by the Army. It worked in the Philippines during World War II. It worked in Vietnam. It worked in Afghanistan against every invader in history. It worked in China 2,500 years ago. It worked in America during the Revolutionary War. But this time it won’t. The Bundy’s won the fight, and won in court. Apparently the Jury didn’t see it your way. Then the Government went for round two and lost again.

So now your plan is to murder people. That will get the public on your side. Do I need a sarcasm tag? Yeah because the death of Randy Weaver’s son and wife really got the public on your side. I wonder if it is coincidental that Weaver won in court too? He was found not guilty, and in the civil case won against the Government. So where are these amazing victories that show you are reading the situation right?

 

[SavannahMann]

A fair point against the OP's assertion that the 2nd was intended to thwart tyranny from our own government.

I posted because there is a danger of misstating, and deflecting, the true importance of the 2nd to today's world. Anyone who thinks their right to an AR-15 or whatever is connected to some notion of "THE PEOPLE" rising up against a tyrannical federal government is mistaken. The STATE GOVERNMENTS were given congressional protections to thwart what the Founders feared the federal govt might become, which never actually happended. The Founders feared a Federal government might use either a standing army, which was viewed as paid mercenaries, or a group of some states to deny freedoms specified in the BoR. It's not a coincidence that the 2nd is part of the BoR.

Washington and the Whiskey Rebellion made it very clear that the 2nd was not a means citizens could use to avoid a legally enacted law. There is no provision in the Const or BoR for rebellion. The right of the states to nullify a federally enacted law was a separate issue, and the nullification crisis, and supremacy of federal law, set up the crisis that led to the civil war. And Buchanan is generally considered the worst potus ever because he failed to find a compromise to let states control their economies while allowing for federal laws to have supremacy over state law. Reagan used states rights as a dog whistle to racists in the South, but really what he was about was trying to remove the fed govt from its encroachment in the new deal and 60s in terms of education, healthcare, marriage, etc that until 1932 were strictly left to states. Reagan was not saying, "get yer AR-15s an pertect yer liberty."

Today there is a danger that governments like Wash DC and Chicago will take away our rights to defend our homes from invasions by criminals. That's the issue. The rest of it may interest some people who like history, but that's it. There are some interesting parallels with English common law, and their Civil War, but again, that's just something for people who like history.

You're far more patient than I when it comes to explaining things that I believe every adult should already know. I appreciate that you and others take that time.

me patient? LOL I think the OP mixed and matched, but not intentionally. KaiserBill (-: may have intended a discussion of why school (and other) massacares seem to be increasing.

- a good point to underscore in the OP... The 1st presumption / assertion made is that the 2ndA is at its core (the purpose of it), is a means of facilitating a check (by the people) against tyranny.

the 2nd point of including "Societally Evolved" is borrowing from the 'Progressive' Play book... how firearms for a check against tyranny is outlandishly antiquate, a relic the moment after it was written... etc. No longer relevant, in short... We are bombarded by this in the MSM all day long, so it shouldn't be a stretch for any of us to recognize this assertion.

Necessarily, for the sake of debate, one would have to acknowledge (not necessarily agree with) both assertions.

I have also read that the purpose was to prevent a standing army. They hated standing armies. So that ship has sailed and if you want to go back to "original intent," we might as well get rid of it.

The original intent was an armed population that would be impossible to defeat. The militia was by law every able bodied free man.

 

[Sahba]

I posted because there is a danger of misstating, and deflecting, the true importance of the 2nd to today's world. Anyone who thinks their right to an AR-15 or whatever is connected to some notion of "THE PEOPLE" rising up against a tyrannical federal government is mistaken. The STATE GOVERNMENTS were given congressional protections to thwart what the Founders feared the federal govt might become, which never actually happended. The Founders feared a Federal government might use either a standing army, which was viewed as paid mercenaries, or a group of some states to deny freedoms specified in the BoR. It's not a coincidence that the 2nd is part of the BoR.

Washington and the Whiskey Rebellion made it very clear that the 2nd was not a means citizens could use to avoid a legally enacted law. There is no provision in the Const or BoR for rebellion. The right of the states to nullify a federally enacted law was a separate issue, and the nullification crisis, and supremacy of federal law, set up the crisis that led to the civil war. And Buchanan is generally considered the worst potus ever because he failed to find a compromise to let states control their economies while allowing for federal laws to have supremacy over state law. Reagan used states rights as a dog whistle to racists in the South, but really what he was about was trying to remove the fed govt from its encroachment in the new deal and 60s in terms of education, healthcare, marriage, etc that until 1932 were strictly left to states. Reagan was not saying, "get yer AR-15s an pertect yer liberty."

Today there is a danger that governments like Wash DC and Chicago will take away our rights to defend our homes from invasions by criminals. That's the issue. The rest of it may interest some people who like history, but that's it. There are some interesting parallels with English common law, and their Civil War, but again, that's just something for people who like history.

You're far more patient than I when it comes to explaining things that I believe every adult should already know. I appreciate that you and others take that time.

me patient? LOL I think the OP mixed and matched, but not intentionally. KaiserBill (-: may have intended a discussion of why school (and other) massacares seem to be increasing.

- a good point to underscore in the OP... The 1st presumption / assertion made is that the 2ndA is at its core (the purpose of it), is a means of facilitating a check (by the people) against tyranny.

the 2nd point of including "Societally Evolved" is borrowing from the 'Progressive' Play book... how firearms for a check against tyranny is outlandishly antiquate, a relic the moment after it was written... etc. No longer relevant, in short... We are bombarded by this in the MSM all day long, so it shouldn't be a stretch for any of us to recognize this assertion.

Necessarily, for the sake of debate, one would have to acknowledge (not necessarily agree with) both assertions.

I have also read that the purpose was to prevent a standing army. They hated standing armies. So that ship has sailed and if you want to go back to "original intent," we might as well get rid of it.

The original intent was an armed population that would be impossible to defeat. The militia was by law every able bodied free man.

Interestingly that's exactly what I have seen hiking through Switzerland. Every home (I mean without exception) had firearms in them, asking around I discovered that it's Swiss law & I guess you are punished by their government if you choose to disobey. I would like to hear from those naysayers of the Second A on what they think the amendment is for if it's not about tyranny, & if you say state militia yadi yada - why is the preparedness of a militia any less pertinent in these time where our country has no idea who 10's of millions are -- since they aren't citizens or 'legally' supposed to be here in the first place. I want a militia and if you don't want one, I think the law is on my side not yours.

 

[hunarcy]

The 2nd Amendment was "antiquated" on the day it was written.

The Constitution, including Bill of Rights, is generally a masterpiece of forward-thinking that is still relevant today - but not the 2nd Amendment. The founders, mostly men of great vision, apparently couldn't see past the day they wrote it. It has become so obsolete that SCOTUS can interpret it any way it wishes - which it has and will continue to do so.

It's like an Etch A Sketch.

My own suspicion is that they wrote it so "open to interpretation" to kick the can down the road. They had to get approval from everyone--so they wrote it in a way that all could read into it what they wanted to see.
The rest of the Constitution is clear. The way the 2nd is worded? Not so much.

The problem is not how it's written. It's how people want to "interpret" it when they don't agree with what's written.

 

[hunarcy]

LOL! I didn't rejected it. I merely pointed out he was basing his opinion on one person's point of view because he agreed with it. When you "interpret" the Constitution as "living document" you risk turning it to something that was NOT intended. Now, I realize there must be flexibility to deal with changing times, but that's not the same as twisting it into something new.

I've been hearing that same excuse (figuratively speaking) since Roe v Wade. At issue now is the 2nd Amendment. Like with abortion, it's a highly volatile and emotional topic. Those who defend it are solidly intransigent about it which negates any pragmatic discussion on it. SCOTUS really doesn't want to get involved in it which leaves it still up for discussion, if possible. I don't believe 2A is absolute from a legal perspective. It has limitations that should be explored and tested.
`

I think the phrase "shall not be infringed." is pretty absolute.

You will always be able to own and possess a weapon: you just don't have the right to have an operating bazooka in your private life.

Why not ?

Because it's arms and the things necessary to bear arms that is protected. Not ordinance...however, it is worth noting that private ownership of cannon was not as uncommon in the 1800's as it is today.

 

[miketx]

`
As far as constitutional interpretations, I favor the "living" as opposed to the "original intent" method. The former is fluid and dynamic while the latter is stagnant and ridged.
`

The very definition of fascism.

 

[Sahba]

Why do so many here think that the SCOTUS is the 'end and be all' authority on Constitutionality when that same body reverses its self from time to time over the years. Do people not know that those 9 justices can be removed if they mess up 'exhibit bad behavior'. They are mere mortals and capable of bias, self serving interests, petty prejudice etc. and all the other crap that the rest of us 'mere mortals' deal with. Let's not glorify what they say or what "constitutional experts" (like Obama) opine on. The Constitution doesn't really need experts anyway, it wasn't designed to be read or interpreted by experts. We had just rid ourselves from the convoluted intricacies of the Parliamentary system with a big F U the the King of England. A couple centuries later & we now need "experts" to re-write --- O, I mean interpret this document for us.

 

[bendog]

You're far more patient than I when it comes to explaining things that I believe every adult should already know. I appreciate that you and others take that time.

me patient? LOL I think the OP mixed and matched, but not intentionally. KaiserBill (-: may have intended a discussion of why school (and other) massacares seem to be increasing.

- a good point to underscore in the OP... The 1st presumption / assertion made is that the 2ndA is at its core (the purpose of it), is a means of facilitating a check (by the people) against tyranny.

the 2nd point of including "Societally Evolved" is borrowing from the 'Progressive' Play book... how firearms for a check against tyranny is outlandishly antiquate, a relic the moment after it was written... etc. No longer relevant, in short... We are bombarded by this in the MSM all day long, so it shouldn't be a stretch for any of us to recognize this assertion.

Necessarily, for the sake of debate, one would have to acknowledge (not necessarily agree with) both assertions.

I have also read that the purpose was to prevent a standing army. They hated standing armies. So that ship has sailed and if you want to go back to "original intent," we might as well get rid of it.

The original intent was an armed population that would be impossible to defeat. The militia was by law every able bodied free man.

Interestingly that's exactly what I have seen hiking through Switzerland. Every home (I mean without exception) had firearms in them, asking around I discovered that it's Swiss law & I guess you are punished by their government if you choose to disobey. I would like to hear from those naysayers of the Second A on what they think the amendment is for if it's not about tyranny, & if you say state militia yadi yada - why is the preparedness of a militia any less pertinent in these time where our country has no idea who 10's of millions are -- since they aren't citizens or 'legally' supposed to be here in the first place. I want a militia and if you don't want one, I think the law is on my side not yours.

I'm not a 2nd naysayer, anyone who advocated for the same regulations here that apply in Switzerland would be called a gungrabbing liberal muslim Kenyan socialist communist.

 

[Sahba]

me patient? LOL I think the OP mixed and matched, but not intentionally. KaiserBill (-: may have intended a discussion of why school (and other) massacares seem to be increasing.

- a good point to underscore in the OP... The 1st presumption / assertion made is that the 2ndA is at its core (the purpose of it), is a means of facilitating a check (by the people) against tyranny.

the 2nd point of including "Societally Evolved" is borrowing from the 'Progressive' Play book... how firearms for a check against tyranny is outlandishly antiquate, a relic the moment after it was written... etc. No longer relevant, in short... We are bombarded by this in the MSM all day long, so it shouldn't be a stretch for any of us to recognize this assertion.

Necessarily, for the sake of debate, one would have to acknowledge (not necessarily agree with) both assertions.

I have also read that the purpose was to prevent a standing army. They hated standing armies. So that ship has sailed and if you want to go back to "original intent," we might as well get rid of it.

The original intent was an armed population that would be impossible to defeat. The militia was by law every able bodied free man.

Interestingly that's exactly what I have seen hiking through Switzerland. Every home (I mean without exception) had firearms in them, asking around I discovered that it's Swiss law & I guess you are punished by their government if you choose to disobey. I would like to hear from those naysayers of the Second A on what they think the amendment is for if it's not about tyranny, & if you say state militia yadi yada - why is the preparedness of a militia any less pertinent in these time where our country has no idea who 10's of millions are -- since they aren't citizens or 'legally' supposed to be here in the first place. I want a militia and if you don't want one, I think the law is on my side not yours.

I'm not a 2nd naysayer, anyone who advocated for the same regulations here that apply in Switzerland would be called a gungrabbing liberal muslim Kenyan socialist communist.

Specific to firearms ? I don't think that is correct - you'll obviously have to back your shit up on this

 

[OldLady]

The 2nd Amendment was "antiquated" on the day it was written.

The Constitution, including Bill of Rights, is generally a masterpiece of forward-thinking that is still relevant today - but not the 2nd Amendment. The founders, mostly men of great vision, apparently couldn't see past the day they wrote it. It has become so obsolete that SCOTUS can interpret it any way it wishes - which it has and will continue to do so.

It's like an Etch A Sketch.

My own suspicion is that they wrote it so "open to interpretation" to kick the can down the road. They had to get approval from everyone--so they wrote it in a way that all could read into it what they wanted to see.
The rest of the Constitution is clear. The way the 2nd is worded? Not so much.

The problem is not how it's written. It's how people want to "interpret" it when they don't agree with what's written.

Maybe.

 

[OldLady]

Why do so many here think that the SCOTUS is the 'end and be all' authority on Constitutionality when that same body reverses its self from time to time over the years. Do people not know that those 9 justices can be removed if they mess up 'exhibit bad behavior'. They are mere mortals and capable of bias, self serving interests, petty prejudice etc. and all the other crap that the rest of us 'mere mortals' deal with. Let's not glorify what they say or what "constitutional experts" (like Obama) opine on. The Constitution doesn't really need experts anyway, it wasn't designed to be read or interpreted by experts. We had just rid ourselves from the convoluted intricacies of the Parliamentary system with a big F U the the King of England. A couple centuries later & we now need "experts" to re-write --- O, I mean interpret this document for us.

But we don't define "bad behavior" as "making decisions we disagree with." At least we don't yet.