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

[BlindBoo]

Are we so evolved as a Society & Nation that this notion of a check against tyranny

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.

 

[KeiserC]

Are we so evolved as a Society & Nation that this notion of a check against tyranny

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.

Clearly that is the 'truth that you have created for yourself' good luck with that philosophy... there unfortunately are plenty of "self proclaimed..authorities on the issue" that would wallow with you in your delusions...lol

 

[hunarcy]

`
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.
`

So, you'd rather ignore what the Founders said in favor of what you wish it said?

 

[Rambunctious]

Three main global groups that would love to make America gun free...
Russia
China/NK
The Democrat party

 

[The Original Tree]

Ask the People Of Ferguson that.

Not only should it be mandatory for US Citizens to have guns, it should be mandatory that we have fire extinguishers too to stop Libtards from buring our cities
Down!

A hi-cap. magazine ban has been an issue for decades and it underscores the essential point of contention between the camps of the 'gun rights' & 'anti's'... Does it boil down to the fundamental point of the 2nd Amendment... a check, by 'the people', against tyranny?

Are we so evolved as a Society & Nation that this notion of a check against tyranny... is 'foolish' and 'an antiquated notion'? We do see dozens and dozens of Countries around the world where there is rampant oppression by dictatorships, quasi governments, political parties, royal families... over the freedoms and "inalienable rights" of their people... So are we 'above all that', now well into our 3rd century as a Nation?

House Democrats Push Ban on 'High Capacity' Magazines and 205 Different Firearms

Magazine capacity is perhaps the clearest tangible measure of where our Nation stands on this... After all, what use is an "assault rifle" if it can only be used with 'tiny' capacity mags... Is having an armed citizenry... 'armed commensurately' with that of the 'civilian' authority policing them, a bygone notion? Do our remaining 90's something elder's, notions of the Wiemar Republic, no longer apply here...

 

[forkup]

A hi-cap. magazine ban has been an issue for decades and it underscores the essential point of contention between the camps of the 'gun rights' & 'anti's'... Does it boil down to the fundamental point of the 2nd Amendment... a check, by 'the people', against tyranny?

Are we so evolved as a Society & Nation that this notion of a check against tyranny... is 'foolish' and 'an antiquated notion'? We do see dozens and dozens of Countries around the world where there is rampant oppression by dictatorships, quasi governments, political parties, royal families... over the freedoms and "inalienable rights" of their people... So are we 'above all that', now well into our 3rd century as a Nation?

House Democrats Push Ban on 'High Capacity' Magazines and 205 Different Firearms

Magazine capacity is perhaps the clearest tangible measure of where our Nation stands on this... After all, what use is an "assault rifle" if it can only be used with 'tiny' capacity mags... Is having an armed citizenry... 'armed commensurately' with that of the 'civilian' authority policing them, a bygone notion? Do our remaining 90's something elder's, notions of the Wiemar Republic, no longer apply here...

Socially evolved.....no. More like politically evolved. Modern dictatorship/autocratic rule doesn't come from the barrel of a gun. It comes from a control of all forms of media. It doesn't even require that everybody believes the same. You just create a sort of bubbles in which you control the flow of information. As long as you are capable of preventing the 2 bubbles from coming together you'll be able to create an environment were whatever the other side says will automatically dismissed as untrue/fake news.

True...but follow the chain all the way to the end... Political - media - control / distortion of narrative --- state & federal legislators - expansion of regulations through legislation - -- etc. etc. ---- ---- tyranny.

The point is most people wouldn't recognize actual tyranny. They would actually fight those who oppose tyranny. Erdogan in Turkey is a good example of this. He has progressed from a secular democratically elected ruler to an autocrat. He did this by popular support. You can have all your citizens armed with tanks if they don't suspect that they're being oppressed they wouldn't react. In that light the 2nd amendment is superfluous. German citizens were well armed in 1933 compared to the armament of the military which was small,they willingly gave up their freedom. Etc, etc.

 

[Windparadox]

So, you'd rather ignore what the Founders said in favor of what you wish it said?

`
It's a little more involved than that.
`

 

[BlindBoo]

Are we so evolved as a Society & Nation that this notion of a check against tyranny

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.

Clearly that is the 'truth that you have created for yourself' good luck with that philosophy... there unfortunately are plenty of "self proclaimed..authorities on the issue" that would wallow with you in your delusions...lol

Good luck with your revolution against the Deep State!

 

[The Original Tree]

Huh?

You don’t know the Bible very well.

We are under the law of grace since the resurrection of Christ.

Most of that stuff does not apply.

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.

Exactly. When the Bible first came out, it was good to say in the Ten Commandments, "Do not kill, do not steal, do not bear false witness, honor thy father and mother, etc." It was novel at the time. But stoning non-virgins or disobedient children, or owning slaves has become antiquated. That is what's wrong with these gun-loving nuts quoting the Second Amendment all the time!

 

[Skull Pilot]

A hi-cap. magazine ban has been an issue for decades and it underscores the essential point of contention between the camps of the 'gun rights' & 'anti's'... Does it boil down to the fundamental point of the 2nd Amendment... a check, by 'the people', against tyranny?

Are we so evolved as a Society & Nation that this notion of a check against tyranny... is 'foolish' and a silly relic...? We do (currently) see dozens and dozens of Countries around the world where there is rampant oppression by dictatorships, quasi governments, political parties, royal families... over the freedoms and "inalienable rights" of their people... So are we 'above all that', now well into our 3rd century as a Nation?

House Democrats Push Ban on 'High Capacity' Magazines and 205 Different Firearms

Magazine capacity is perhaps the clearest tangible measure of where our Nation stands on this... After all, what use is an "assault rifle" if it can only be used with 'tiny' capacity mags... Is having an armed citizenry... 'armed commensurately' with that of the 'civilian' authority policing them, a bygone notion? Do our remaining 90's something elder's, notions of the Wiemar Republic, no longer apply here...?

It's the fact that we have devolved socially into whining sniveling self centered narcissists that have raised a generation of whining sniveling self centered narcissists the second amendment is being questioned.

People don't lose rights because they are too responsible now do they?

 

[hunarcy]

A hi-cap. magazine ban has been an issue for decades and it underscores the essential point of contention between the camps of the 'gun rights' & 'anti's'... Does it boil down to the fundamental point of the 2nd Amendment... a check, by 'the people', against tyranny?

Are we so evolved as a Society & Nation that this notion of a check against tyranny... is 'foolish' and a silly relic...? We do (currently) see dozens and dozens of Countries around the world where there is rampant oppression by dictatorships, quasi governments, political parties, royal families... over the freedoms and "inalienable rights" of their people... So are we 'above all that', now well into our 3rd century as a Nation?

House Democrats Push Ban on 'High Capacity' Magazines and 205 Different Firearms

Magazine capacity is perhaps the clearest tangible measure of where our Nation stands on this... After all, what use is an "assault rifle" if it can only be used with 'tiny' capacity mags... Is having an armed citizenry... 'armed commensurately' with that of the 'civilian' authority policing them, a bygone notion? Do our remaining 90's something elder's, notions of the Wiemar Republic, no longer apply here...?

It's the fact that we have devolved socially into whining sniveling self centered narcissists that the second amendment is being questioned.

People don't lose rights because they are too responsible now do they?

Apparently they do...not a person who has an AR-15 right now has done a school shooting.

 

[Skull Pilot]

A hi-cap. magazine ban has been an issue for decades and it underscores the essential point of contention between the camps of the 'gun rights' & 'anti's'... Does it boil down to the fundamental point of the 2nd Amendment... a check, by 'the people', against tyranny?

Are we so evolved as a Society & Nation that this notion of a check against tyranny... is 'foolish' and a silly relic...? We do (currently) see dozens and dozens of Countries around the world where there is rampant oppression by dictatorships, quasi governments, political parties, royal families... over the freedoms and "inalienable rights" of their people... So are we 'above all that', now well into our 3rd century as a Nation?

House Democrats Push Ban on 'High Capacity' Magazines and 205 Different Firearms

Magazine capacity is perhaps the clearest tangible measure of where our Nation stands on this... After all, what use is an "assault rifle" if it can only be used with 'tiny' capacity mags... Is having an armed citizenry... 'armed commensurately' with that of the 'civilian' authority policing them, a bygone notion? Do our remaining 90's something elder's, notions of the Wiemar Republic, no longer apply here...?

It's the fact that we have devolved socially into whining sniveling self centered narcissists that the second amendment is being questioned.

People don't lose rights because they are too responsible now do they?

Apparently they do...not a person who has an AR-15 right now has done a school shooting.

They are not considered responsible by the sniveling majority.

See we live in a world now where it is your fault if someone else commits a crime

 

[hunarcy]

A hi-cap. magazine ban has been an issue for decades and it underscores the essential point of contention between the camps of the 'gun rights' & 'anti's'... Does it boil down to the fundamental point of the 2nd Amendment... a check, by 'the people', against tyranny?

Are we so evolved as a Society & Nation that this notion of a check against tyranny... is 'foolish' and a silly relic...? We do (currently) see dozens and dozens of Countries around the world where there is rampant oppression by dictatorships, quasi governments, political parties, royal families... over the freedoms and "inalienable rights" of their people... So are we 'above all that', now well into our 3rd century as a Nation?

House Democrats Push Ban on 'High Capacity' Magazines and 205 Different Firearms

Magazine capacity is perhaps the clearest tangible measure of where our Nation stands on this... After all, what use is an "assault rifle" if it can only be used with 'tiny' capacity mags... Is having an armed citizenry... 'armed commensurately' with that of the 'civilian' authority policing them, a bygone notion? Do our remaining 90's something elder's, notions of the Wiemar Republic, no longer apply here...?

It's the fact that we have devolved socially into whining sniveling self centered narcissists that the second amendment is being questioned.

People don't lose rights because they are too responsible now do they?

Apparently they do...not a person who has an AR-15 right now has done a school shooting.

They are not considered responsible by the sniveling majority.

See we live in a world now where it is your fault if someone else commits a crime

Should we take the same reasoning and apply it to women...Andrea Yates murdered her children, so no child should stay with its mother...they are a danger to children.

Another example of such danger was Susan Smith. Get the kids out of those dangerous homes.

 

[Skull Pilot]

A hi-cap. magazine ban has been an issue for decades and it underscores the essential point of contention between the camps of the 'gun rights' & 'anti's'... Does it boil down to the fundamental point of the 2nd Amendment... a check, by 'the people', against tyranny?

Are we so evolved as a Society & Nation that this notion of a check against tyranny... is 'foolish' and a silly relic...? We do (currently) see dozens and dozens of Countries around the world where there is rampant oppression by dictatorships, quasi governments, political parties, royal families... over the freedoms and "inalienable rights" of their people... So are we 'above all that', now well into our 3rd century as a Nation?

House Democrats Push Ban on 'High Capacity' Magazines and 205 Different Firearms

Magazine capacity is perhaps the clearest tangible measure of where our Nation stands on this... After all, what use is an "assault rifle" if it can only be used with 'tiny' capacity mags... Is having an armed citizenry... 'armed commensurately' with that of the 'civilian' authority policing them, a bygone notion? Do our remaining 90's something elder's, notions of the Wiemar Republic, no longer apply here...?

It's the fact that we have devolved socially into whining sniveling self centered narcissists that the second amendment is being questioned.

People don't lose rights because they are too responsible now do they?

Apparently they do...not a person who has an AR-15 right now has done a school shooting.

They are not considered responsible by the sniveling majority.

See we live in a world now where it is your fault if someone else commits a crime

Should we take the same reasoning and apply it to women...Andrea Yates murdered her children, so no child should stay with its mother...they are a danger to children.

Another example of such danger was Susan Smith. Get the kids out of those dangerous homes.

Yes we should.

If all gun owners are responsible for all shootings then all mothers are responsible for all the children murdered by mothers and all men are responsible for all rapes

All people with hands are responsible for every fist fight in the world

 

[there4eyeM]

Of course the nation and the world have evolved since the eighteenth century. The notion that today's oh-so-soft Americans could ever resist a determined trained army is so laughable that no sane person could even consider the thought for more than a passing second. Besides, the man-given 'right' to possess firearms by no means can be eternally held to be a blank check for anything and everything that can be considered an 'arm'.
All thngs considered, the firearm extremists are lucky they have had it their way so long. They took no conciliatory steps to maintain their supremacy and will soon pay the price. I and millions like me could own all the 'guns' one could imagine and no innocent person would ever be harmed. The fact is, terribly efficient firearms are all too available to some who are all too fragile mentally to handle the responsibility.

 

[bripat9643]

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.

Scotus cannot interpret it anyway it wishes unless you want to make a mockery of the Constitution. If you don't like the 2nd Amendment, then repeal it. Of course, you will find that impossible to do because a large percentage of Americans will oppose any such attempt. Just more proof that it's no obsolete.

So tell us: what makes it "obsolete?"

 

[bripat9643]

Of course the nation and the world have evolved since the eighteenth century. The notion that today's oh-so-soft Americans could ever resist a determined trained army is so laughable that no sane person could even consider the thought for more than a passing second. Besides, the man-given 'right' to possess firearms by no means can be eternally held to be a blank check for anything and everything that can be considered an 'arm'.
All thngs considered, the firearm extremists are lucky they have had it their way so long. They took no conciliatory steps to maintain their supremacy and will soon pay the price. I and millions like me could own all the 'guns' one could imagine and no innocent person would ever be harmed. The fact is, terribly efficient firearms are all too available to some who are all too fragile mentally to handle the responsibility.

People who support the Bill of Rights are "extremists?"

You snowflakes give away your true feelings without realizing it.

 

[bripat9643]

If the OP means "antiquated" in that the citizenry can no longer oppose successfully with weapons a totalitarian government, yes, that is so.

They managed to do it in Afghanistan, dipstick.

 

[forkup]

A hi-cap. magazine ban has been an issue for decades and it underscores the essential point of contention between the camps of the 'gun rights' & 'anti's'... Does it boil down to the fundamental point of the 2nd Amendment... a check, by 'the people', against tyranny?

Are we so evolved as a Society & Nation that this notion of a check against tyranny... is 'foolish' and a silly relic...? We do (currently) see dozens and dozens of Countries around the world where there is rampant oppression by dictatorships, quasi governments, political parties, royal families... over the freedoms and "inalienable rights" of their people... So are we 'above all that', now well into our 3rd century as a Nation?

House Democrats Push Ban on 'High Capacity' Magazines and 205 Different Firearms

Magazine capacity is perhaps the clearest tangible measure of where our Nation stands on this... After all, what use is an "assault rifle" if it can only be used with 'tiny' capacity mags... Is having an armed citizenry... 'armed commensurately' with that of the 'civilian' authority policing them, a bygone notion? Do our remaining 90's something elder's, notions of the Wiemar Republic, no longer apply here...?

It's the fact that we have devolved socially into whining sniveling self centered narcissists that the second amendment is being questioned.

People don't lose rights because they are too responsible now do they?

Apparently they do...not a person who has an AR-15 right now has done a school shooting.

They are not considered responsible by the sniveling majority.

See we live in a world now where it is your fault if someone else commits a crime

No, we live in a world were we have a society that tries to protect itself by limiting certain freedoms which are harmful to society as a whole. You can't use a cellphone while driving, because society has found that doing so increases the risks of crashing. You can't buy cocaine legally because society has found the drug kills people. You can't go out and rape somebody because society has ruled that it's harmful and immoral. You can't buy a fully armed Abrams tank because having something like that in your possession is deemed dangerous. That is the price of living in a society ruled by laws. You have to be able to give up certain freedoms for the common good.

 

[bripat9643]

A hi-cap. magazine ban has been an issue for decades and it underscores the essential point of contention between the camps of the 'gun rights' & 'anti's'... Does it boil down to the fundamental point of the 2nd Amendment... a check, by 'the people', against tyranny?

Are we so evolved as a Society & Nation that this notion of a check against tyranny... is 'foolish' and 'an antiquated notion'? We do see dozens and dozens of Countries around the world where there is rampant oppression by dictatorships, quasi governments, political parties, royal families... over the freedoms and "inalienable rights" of their people... So are we 'above all that', now well into our 3rd century as a Nation?

House Democrats Push Ban on 'High Capacity' Magazines and 205 Different Firearms

Magazine capacity is perhaps the clearest tangible measure of where our Nation stands on this... After all, what use is an "assault rifle" if it can only be used with 'tiny' capacity mags... Is having an armed citizenry... 'armed commensurately' with that of the 'civilian' authority policing them, a bygone notion? Do our remaining 90's something elder's, notions of the Wiemar Republic, no longer apply here...

Socially evolved.....no. More like politically evolved. Modern dictatorship/autocratic rule doesn't come from the barrel of a gun. It comes from a control of all forms of media. It doesn't even require that everybody believes the same. You just create a sort of bubbles in which you control the flow of information. As long as you are capable of preventing the 2 bubbles from coming together you'll be able to create an environment were whatever the other side says will automatically dismissed as untrue/fake news.

All government comes from the barrell of a gun, dumbass. That's literally what government means: the monopoly on the use of force. No one controls the flow of information without guns, and much of the time not even with guns.