Exactly what and why was the 2nd amendment written like it is

[danielpalos]

Our federal Constitution is written the way it is, Because there is no provision for excuses in the federal doctrine, only results.

 

[Marion Morrison]

danielpalos the guy that can't get laid in a whorehouse.

The 2nd amendment was written the way it was so there was no wiggle room for faggots like danielpalos to get it wrong.

Somehow, they do anyways.

It's OK, wrong is wrong.

 

[Flopper]

Applying 21st Century mores to 18th Century thinking is an exercise in vanity.

The militia is bound to the right. The right is not bound to the militia.

If you want to follow the meaning of the 2nd amendment, the Militia is bound to the Government which should be neither right nor left, it just is.

Which is why there is a comma separating the militia from the people in the Second...

They knew that a government, a country, needed an armed force to defend itself and its citizens. At the same time, they had just broken free from a ruler and government they considered tyrannical and recognized that there is always the potential for a ruler or government to go bad, thus the right of the people to keep and bear Arms...

The militia is necessary, but that does not preclude the people being armed.

Some might argue that this applies only to the federal government and that state and local governments are free to infringe all they want... but that's another discussion...

Applying 21st Century mores to 18th Century thinking is an exercise in vanity.

The militia is bound to the right. The right is not bound to the militia.

If you want to follow the meaning of the 2nd amendment, the Militia is bound to the Government which should be neither right nor left, it just is.

Which is why there is a comma separating the militia from the people in the Second...

They knew that a government, a country, needed an armed force to defend itself and its citizens. At the same time, they had just broken free from a ruler and government they considered tyrannical and recognized that there is always the potential for a ruler or government to go bad, thus the right of the people to keep and bear Arms...

The militia is necessary, but that does not preclude the people being armed.

Some might argue that this applies only to the federal government and that state and local governments are free to infringe all they want... but that's another discussion...

I agree, the states certainly wanted an armed force to defend the nation. However, they did not agree as to what that armed force should be. North Carolina and other states believed a volunteer citizens militia was the answer. Other states believed the primary defense of the nation should be a standing army. Washington expressed his displeasure with the undisciplined conduct and poor battlefield performance of the militia. Washington blamed the Patriot reliance on the militia as the chief cause of his problems in the devastating loss of Long Island and Manhattan to the British. He and other leaders supported a standing army as oppose to using state militias to defend the nation.

The purpose of 2nd amendment was to insure that arms would be availability in the future so volunteers could armed themselves and serve in the militia. This satisfied supporters of the militias. With the 2nd amendment guaranteeing the availability of arms they believed there would be no need for a standing army. However, time would prove that Washington was correct. The performance of the volunteer militias could not match professional soldier on the battlefield.

Had their been little support in the states for the militias, it is unlikely that there would have been a 2nd amendment because there was little interest in owning guns other than to serve in militias. Also, wealthy businessmen and plantation owners were not keen about seeing guns in the hands of the poor and guns in the hands of slaves was terrifying so the 2nd amendment was not received well by these people.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

Applying 21st Century mores to 18th Century thinking is an exercise in vanity.

The militia is bound to the right. The right is not bound to the militia.

If you want to follow the meaning of the 2nd amendment, the Militia is bound to the Government which should be neither right nor left, it just is.

Which is why there is a comma separating the militia from the people in the Second...

They knew that a government, a country, needed an armed force to defend itself and its citizens. At the same time, they had just broken free from a ruler and government they considered tyrannical and recognized that there is always the potential for a ruler or government to go bad, thus the right of the people to keep and bear Arms...

The militia is necessary, but that does not preclude the people being armed.

Some might argue that this applies only to the federal government and that state and local governments are free to infringe all they want... but that's another discussion...

Applying 21st Century mores to 18th Century thinking is an exercise in vanity.

The militia is bound to the right. The right is not bound to the militia.

If you want to follow the meaning of the 2nd amendment, the Militia is bound to the Government which should be neither right nor left, it just is.

Which is why there is a comma separating the militia from the people in the Second...

They knew that a government, a country, needed an armed force to defend itself and its citizens. At the same time, they had just broken free from a ruler and government they considered tyrannical and recognized that there is always the potential for a ruler or government to go bad, thus the right of the people to keep and bear Arms...

The militia is necessary, but that does not preclude the people being armed.

Some might argue that this applies only to the federal government and that state and local governments are free to infringe all they want... but that's another discussion...

I agree, the states certainly wanted an armed force to defend the nation. However, they did not agree as to what that armed force should be. North Carolina and other states believed a volunteer citizens militia was the answer. Other states believed the primary defense of the nation should be a standing army. Washington expressed his displeasure with the undisciplined conduct and poor battlefield performance of the militia. Washington blamed the Patriot reliance on the militia as the chief cause of his problems in the devastating loss of Long Island and Manhattan to the British. He and other leaders supported a standing army as oppose to using state militias to defend the nation.

The purpose of 2nd amendment was to insure that arms would be availability in the future so volunteers could armed themselves and serve in the militia. This satisfied supporters of the militias. With the 2nd amendment guaranteeing the availability of arms they believed there would be no need for a standing army. However, time would prove that Washington was correct. The performance of the volunteer militias could not match professional soldier on the battlefield.

Had their been little support in the states for the militias, it is unlikely that there would have been a 2nd amendment because there was little interest in owning guns other than to serve in militias. Also, wealthy businessmen and plantation owners were not keen about seeing guns in the hands of poor and guns in the hands of slaves was terrifying so the 2nd amendment was not received well by these people.

Still pushing Bellesiles. Too funny.

 

[Flopper]

If the founders could have seen how many millions of hours were going to be wasted fighting over that silly clause they would have probably shortened the amendment to "The right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed". Or course the only reason for the amendment was to satisfy those states concerned about the militia having trained armed recruits, so they might have just dropped the whole amendment.

In those days, very few people were worried about the government taking away guns. The damn things were cumbersome, slow loading, expensive, and too often blew in one's face.

The real hot issue in the Bill of Rights was the first amendment because a number of states had state sponsored religions.

Our Constitution and supreme law of the land, was written, termed and styled such, for a Reason. That reason is Order over Chaos, every time there is a Decision to be made.

There is No Provision for excuses in the federal doctrine, Only results.

Keep in mind the constitution, like all pieces of legislation was a compromise. The two political sects, the federalist lead by Alexander Hamilton and the Jeffersonian Democratic Republicans lead by Thomas Jefferson had opposing ideas as to how the new government would function. The resulting political parties dominated the political landscape in all states. Considering the political atmosphere in the late 18th century, the constitution, although not perfect was a remarkable document.

There are a number flaws in the constitution but probably the greatest is lack of change. This of course gives the document a timeless nature, which in turn gives it a near sacred or mystical aura in the eyes of Americans. Sacred timelessness is great for building a civic identity. But it makes for really horrible law. The Constitution is far too difficult to amend, which means it cannot respond to changes in society and moral values. By default it gives preference to a version of a moral and orderly society that fit a group of people long since dead, at the expense of a version that fits the group currently living. A constitution is living or dead; ours is rapidly moving toward the latter.

I agree to disagree. We could not do a better job, today.

We certainly could not re-write it today but we could start by making small changes, incorporating long accepted rulings of the supreme court, and eliminating some parts and replacing them with congressional legislation. After several constitutional conventions over a period of years we could bring it update and more in keeping with the nation as it is today.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Applying 21st Century mores to 18th Century thinking is an exercise in vanity.

The militia is bound to the right. The right is not bound to the militia.

If you want to follow the meaning of the 2nd amendment, the Militia is bound to the Government which should be neither right nor left, it just is.

Which is why there is a comma separating the militia from the people in the Second...

They knew that a government, a country, needed an armed force to defend itself and its citizens. At the same time, they had just broken free from a ruler and government they considered tyrannical and recognized that there is always the potential for a ruler or government to go bad, thus the right of the people to keep and bear Arms...

The militia is necessary, but that does not preclude the people being armed.

Some might argue that this applies only to the federal government and that state and local governments are free to infringe all they want... but that's another discussion...

there are no natural rights in our Second Amendment.

Whether the rights are natural or not, the 2nd guarantees an individual right.

No, it doesn't. It guarantees a civil right that is applied to individuals.

The rights enumerated in the Constitution are unalienable meaning they cannot be divorced from the individual. The governemnt has neither the power not the authority to grant these unalienable rights as they are inherent in the individual from the moment of birth.

This idea in an integral part of the Constitution.

 

[Pop23]

Applying 21st Century mores to 18th Century thinking is an exercise in vanity.

The militia is bound to the right. The right is not bound to the militia.

If you want to follow the meaning of the 2nd amendment, the Militia is bound to the Government which should be neither right nor left, it just is.

Which is why there is a comma separating the militia from the people in the Second...

They knew that a government, a country, needed an armed force to defend itself and its citizens. At the same time, they had just broken free from a ruler and government they considered tyrannical and recognized that there is always the potential for a ruler or government to go bad, thus the right of the people to keep and bear Arms...

The militia is necessary, but that does not preclude the people being armed.

Some might argue that this applies only to the federal government and that state and local governments are free to infringe all they want... but that's another discussion...

Applying 21st Century mores to 18th Century thinking is an exercise in vanity.

The militia is bound to the right. The right is not bound to the militia.

If you want to follow the meaning of the 2nd amendment, the Militia is bound to the Government which should be neither right nor left, it just is.

Which is why there is a comma separating the militia from the people in the Second...

They knew that a government, a country, needed an armed force to defend itself and its citizens. At the same time, they had just broken free from a ruler and government they considered tyrannical and recognized that there is always the potential for a ruler or government to go bad, thus the right of the people to keep and bear Arms...

The militia is necessary, but that does not preclude the people being armed.

Some might argue that this applies only to the federal government and that state and local governments are free to infringe all they want... but that's another discussion...

I agree, the states certainly wanted an armed force to defend the nation. However, they did not agree as to what that armed force should be. North Carolina and other states believed a volunteer citizens militia was the answer. Other states believed the primary defense of the nation should be a standing army. Washington expressed his displeasure with the undisciplined conduct and poor battlefield performance of the militia. Washington blamed the Patriot reliance on the militia as the chief cause of his problems in the devastating loss of Long Island and Manhattan to the British. He and other leaders supported a standing army as oppose to using state militias to defend the nation.

The purpose of 2nd amendment was to insure that arms would be availability in the future so volunteers could armed themselves and serve in the militia. This satisfied supporters of the militias. With the 2nd amendment guaranteeing the availability of arms they believed there would be no need for a standing army. However, time would prove that Washington was correct. The performance of the volunteer militias could not match professional soldier on the battlefield.

Had their been little support in the states for the militias, it is unlikely that there would have been a 2nd amendment because there was little interest in owning guns other than to serve in militias. Also, wealthy businessmen and plantation owners were not keen about seeing guns in the hands of the poor and guns in the hands of slaves was terrifying so the 2nd amendment was not received well by these people.

So the poster admits:

The purpose of 2nd amendment was to insure that arms would be availability in the future so volunteers could armed themselves and serve in the militia.

The right exists and has a defined purpose. The case should be closed at this point. The future is not defined as the next 20 years, the next 100 years or the next 1000 years. It is simply a possibility that never ends. That is exactly what "future" means.

So this is progress.

But then the poster implies that these rights for an unstated reason, the people should have this right restricted or eliminated.

So I ask, what does the poster hope to achieve by the removal of this right?

I can assume that it is to reduce death rates.

If that were the case, and since most of these homicides occur in small geographic areas, wouldn't the poster, seeking this goal, be better served in demanding that these Metro areas get this problem under control using the same method that the Federal Government has been successfully using for decades?

Get your house in order by reducing these numbers or the Federal Government will reduce or eliminate Federal Funding to your City/State.

We know that the restrictions or elimination of either a type of gun, or all guns, will not accomplish his goal because his proposal is reliant on the criminals, who are responsible for these deaths in the first place, adhering to law.

His proposal is based on pure speculation. Change law so that these murders will be reduced. If the theory had merit we would not be wasting time discussing it in the first place because laws prohibiting murder and assault already exists, as do the killings. It's not at all clear how adding one, two, five hundred or ten thousand new laws will defer these killings when the standing punishments for violating the current laws can be Life in Prison or Death. Expecting a criminal to adhere to an additional law, when violation of current laws can draw a penalty of Death, is nothing but a pipe dream and only leaves those that would be disarmed at a greater risk.

So what is the posters motive in seeking the restriction or elimination of this right, when the only people who would possibly be affected are those that do not contribute to the problem in the first place?

It is an odd argument being made, but the admittance that the right exists is indeed progress.

 

[danielpalos]

danielpalos the guy that can't get laid in a whorehouse.

The 2nd amendment was written the way it was so there was no wiggle room for faggots like danielpalos to get it wrong.

Somehow, they do anyways.

It's OK, wrong is wrong.

only wo-men have to resort to fallacy.

 

[danielpalos]

If the founders could have seen how many millions of hours were going to be wasted fighting over that silly clause they would have probably shortened the amendment to "The right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed". Or course the only reason for the amendment was to satisfy those states concerned about the militia having trained armed recruits, so they might have just dropped the whole amendment.

In those days, very few people were worried about the government taking away guns. The damn things were cumbersome, slow loading, expensive, and too often blew in one's face.

The real hot issue in the Bill of Rights was the first amendment because a number of states had state sponsored religions.

Our Constitution and supreme law of the land, was written, termed and styled such, for a Reason. That reason is Order over Chaos, every time there is a Decision to be made.

There is No Provision for excuses in the federal doctrine, Only results.

Keep in mind the constitution, like all pieces of legislation was a compromise. The two political sects, the federalist lead by Alexander Hamilton and the Jeffersonian Democratic Republicans lead by Thomas Jefferson had opposing ideas as to how the new government would function. The resulting political parties dominated the political landscape in all states. Considering the political atmosphere in the late 18th century, the constitution, although not perfect was a remarkable document.

There are a number flaws in the constitution but probably the greatest is lack of change. This of course gives the document a timeless nature, which in turn gives it a near sacred or mystical aura in the eyes of Americans. Sacred timelessness is great for building a civic identity. But it makes for really horrible law. The Constitution is far too difficult to amend, which means it cannot respond to changes in society and moral values. By default it gives preference to a version of a moral and orderly society that fit a group of people long since dead, at the expense of a version that fits the group currently living. A constitution is living or dead; ours is rapidly moving toward the latter.

I agree to disagree. We could not do a better job, today.

We certainly could not re-write it today but we could start by making small changes, incorporating long accepted rulings of the supreme court, and eliminating some parts and replacing them with congressional legislation. After several constitutional conventions over a period of years we could bring it update and more in keeping with the nation as it is today.

There is nothing ambiguous about our supreme law of the land, just right wing appeals to ignorance.

 

[Pop23]

danielpalos the guy that can't get laid in a whorehouse.

The 2nd amendment was written the way it was so there was no wiggle room for faggots like danielpalos to get it wrong.

Somehow, they do anyways.

It's OK, wrong is wrong.

only wo-men have to resort to fallacy.

Is that why you appear to care a lot about the safety of the rapist, and not so much about the safety of the victim. You hate women?

 

[danielpalos]

If you want to follow the meaning of the 2nd amendment, the Militia is bound to the Government which should be neither right nor left, it just is.

Which is why there is a comma separating the militia from the people in the Second...

They knew that a government, a country, needed an armed force to defend itself and its citizens. At the same time, they had just broken free from a ruler and government they considered tyrannical and recognized that there is always the potential for a ruler or government to go bad, thus the right of the people to keep and bear Arms...

The militia is necessary, but that does not preclude the people being armed.

Some might argue that this applies only to the federal government and that state and local governments are free to infringe all they want... but that's another discussion...

there are no natural rights in our Second Amendment.

Whether the rights are natural or not, the 2nd guarantees an individual right.

No, it doesn't. It guarantees a civil right that is applied to individuals.

The rights enumerated in the Constitution are unalienable meaning they cannot be divorced from the individual. The governemnt has neither the power not the authority to grant these unalienable rights as they are inherent in the individual from the moment of birth.

This idea in an integral part of the Constitution.

There are no individual rights in our Second Amendment. Unalienable rights are recognized and secured in State Constitutions and available via Due Process.

What the right wing wants to do, is infringe upon the doctrine of separation of powers, without just Cause.

 

[danielpalos]

danielpalos the guy that can't get laid in a whorehouse.

The 2nd amendment was written the way it was so there was no wiggle room for faggots like danielpalos to get it wrong.

Somehow, they do anyways.

It's OK, wrong is wrong.

only wo-men have to resort to fallacy.

Is that why you appear to care a lot about the safety of the rapist, and not so much about the safety of the victim. You hate women?

Only those who are full of fallacy must hate women more. Why resort to the Badness of fallacy when you can resort to the sublime Goodness of sublime Truth (value) through argumentation.

 

[WinterBorn]

First DanielP claims the 2nd is a collective right designated to the states.

Now citizens must earn their right by working construction or working as under qualified law enforcement. No mention of how they will be paid.

 

[Pop23]

Which is why there is a comma separating the militia from the people in the Second...

They knew that a government, a country, needed an armed force to defend itself and its citizens. At the same time, they had just broken free from a ruler and government they considered tyrannical and recognized that there is always the potential for a ruler or government to go bad, thus the right of the people to keep and bear Arms...

The militia is necessary, but that does not preclude the people being armed.

Some might argue that this applies only to the federal government and that state and local governments are free to infringe all they want... but that's another discussion...

there are no natural rights in our Second Amendment.

Whether the rights are natural or not, the 2nd guarantees an individual right.

No, it doesn't. It guarantees a civil right that is applied to individuals.

The rights enumerated in the Constitution are unalienable meaning they cannot be divorced from the individual. The governemnt has neither the power not the authority to grant these unalienable rights as they are inherent in the individual from the moment of birth.

This idea in an integral part of the Constitution.

There are no individual rights in our Second Amendment. Unalienable rights are recognized and secured in State Constitutions and available via Due Process.

What the right wing wants to do, is infringe upon the doctrine of separation of powers, without just Cause.

And, exactly what problem are you trying to solve? Do you even know? Or just pissing in the wind again?

 

[Pop23]

First DanielP claims the 2nd is a collective right designated to the states.

Now citizens must earn their right by working construction or working as under qualified law enforcement. No mention of how they will be paid.

He is an odd one

 

[WinterBorn]

danielpalos the guy that can't get laid in a whorehouse.

The 2nd amendment was written the way it was so there was no wiggle room for faggots like danielpalos to get it wrong.

Somehow, they do anyways.

It's OK, wrong is wrong.

only wo-men have to resort to fallacy.

Is that why you appear to care a lot about the safety of the rapist, and not so much about the safety of the victim. You hate women?

Only those who are full of fallacy must hate women more. Why resort to the Badness of fallacy when you can resort to the sublime Goodness of sublime Truth (value) through argumentation.

Utter nonsense. You have been shown to have absolutely no respect for women. You think they exist to service your carnal desires.

 

[Pop23]

danielpalos the guy that can't get laid in a whorehouse.

The 2nd amendment was written the way it was so there was no wiggle room for faggots like danielpalos to get it wrong.

Somehow, they do anyways.

It's OK, wrong is wrong.

only wo-men have to resort to fallacy.

Is that why you appear to care a lot about the safety of the rapist, and not so much about the safety of the victim. You hate women?

Only those who are full of fallacy must hate women more. Why resort to the Badness of fallacy when you can resort to the sublime Goodness of sublime Truth (value) through argumentation.

Utter nonsense. You have been shown to have absolutely no respect for women. You think they exist to service your carnal desires.

The thought of which made me throw up a little in my mouth.

 

[danielpalos]

First DanielP claims the 2nd is a collective right designated to the states.

Now citizens must earn their right by working construction or working as under qualified law enforcement. No mention of how they will be paid.

the militia and the security of a free State requires collective action of the People.

 

[danielpalos]

there are no natural rights in our Second Amendment.

Whether the rights are natural or not, the 2nd guarantees an individual right.

No, it doesn't. It guarantees a civil right that is applied to individuals.

The rights enumerated in the Constitution are unalienable meaning they cannot be divorced from the individual. The governemnt has neither the power not the authority to grant these unalienable rights as they are inherent in the individual from the moment of birth.

This idea in an integral part of the Constitution.

There are no individual rights in our Second Amendment. Unalienable rights are recognized and secured in State Constitutions and available via Due Process.

What the right wing wants to do, is infringe upon the doctrine of separation of powers, without just Cause.

And, exactly what problem are you trying to solve? Do you even know? Or just pissing in the wind again?

muster the militia of the People, until crime goes down. it must be cheaper than our alleged wars on crime, drugs, and terror.

 

[danielpalos]

danielpalos the guy that can't get laid in a whorehouse.

The 2nd amendment was written the way it was so there was no wiggle room for faggots like danielpalos to get it wrong.

Somehow, they do anyways.

It's OK, wrong is wrong.

only wo-men have to resort to fallacy.

Is that why you appear to care a lot about the safety of the rapist, and not so much about the safety of the victim. You hate women?

Only those who are full of fallacy must hate women more. Why resort to the Badness of fallacy when you can resort to the sublime Goodness of sublime Truth (value) through argumentation.

Utter nonsense. You have been shown to have absolutely no respect for women. You think they exist to service your carnal desires.

honesty is a form of respect, story teller. not my fault, women have lousy female intuition.