CDZ How The Second Amendment Comes From Something That Happened In The 2nd Century BCE

[JLW]

When Congress approved the First Amendment on Dec. 15, 1791, they didn’t feel any need to describe why they were insisting on freedom of speech, publication, religion, and protest. They didn’t say “for the purposes of reporting the news,” or “because we think Americans should go to church,” or set limits on the size of marches. There are no specific purposes, and no boundaries set on any of these rights.

However, when the Second Amendment was passed on the same day, it was laden with all too familiar language that describes exactly why citizens were to be permitted firearms: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State.” Citizens were allowed to have guns for a specific purpose. And while it may be possible, with enough convoluted statements and nonsense about the 18th century context of “well-regulated” or the definition of “militia,” to deliberately misunderstand the clear meaning of the this limit, the authors underlined the meaning in the Third Amendment.

How the Second Amendment comes from something that happened in the 2nd century BCE

When Congress approved the First Amendment on Dec. 15, 1791, they didn’t feel any need to describe why they were insisting on freedom of speech, publication, religion, and protest. They didn’t say “for the purposes of reporting the news,” or “because...

m.dailykos.com

Protection of the elected government from both a standing army, and an insurrectionist mob.

Citizens were allowed to have guns for a specific purpose.

No, they were not.

The PEOPLE were given the right to keep and bear arms,


NOT the Militia

Wrong. The Supreme Court only applied the 2nd amendment to individuals in 2008.

The Constitution 'applied' it much earlier.

" A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. "

That is your opinion. That was not the law until 2008.

That is your opinion.

no, that's a fact.

the law was based on what the 2nd actually said.

That is your opinion, it was not the status of the law pre-2008. Even Heller, states that the government still has the power to regulate certain firearms.

 

[progressive hunter]

I think it's very clear the Founders left it to the states to decide such individual issues, and the history bears it out, same as they did with establishment of religion, voting rights. etc. This makes both 'sides' unhappy but that is the way it was.

A safety course should be the primary requirement regardless of any of the rest of it. Times change, and far fewer people are raised around firearms from childhood like they were in the past, and that cultural change needs to be accounted for.

the country has been run by judicial fiat since the Civil war, and its no different today; the 'Constitutionality' of anything has long since been irrelevant, it's just whatever gang can pack the Federal benches these days gets to make up whatever laws they want to now. It's just delusional fantasy to believe otherwise.

I dont see anywhere that its left up to the states for anything having to do with the peoples right to be armed,,,

the 2nd makes it clear "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED",,,

 

[Auld Phart]

When Congress approved the First Amendment on Dec. 15, 1791, they didn’t feel any need to describe why they were insisting on freedom of speech, publication, religion, and protest. They didn’t say “for the purposes of reporting the news,” or “because we think Americans should go to church,” or set limits on the size of marches. There are no specific purposes, and no boundaries set on any of these rights.

However, when the Second Amendment was passed on the same day, it was laden with all too familiar language that describes exactly why citizens were to be permitted firearms: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State.” Citizens were allowed to have guns for a specific purpose. And while it may be possible, with enough convoluted statements and nonsense about the 18th century context of “well-regulated” or the definition of “militia,” to deliberately misunderstand the clear meaning of the this limit, the authors underlined the meaning in the Third Amendment.

How the Second Amendment comes from something that happened in the 2nd century BCE

When Congress approved the First Amendment on Dec. 15, 1791, they didn’t feel any need to describe why they were insisting on freedom of speech, publication, religion, and protest. They didn’t say “for the purposes of reporting the news,” or “because...

m.dailykos.com

Protection of the elected government from both a standing army, and an insurrectionist mob.

Citizens were allowed to have guns for a specific purpose.

No, they were not.

The PEOPLE were given the right to keep and bear arms,


NOT the Militia

Wrong. The Supreme Court only applied the 2nd amendment to individuals in 2008.

The Constitution 'applied' it much earlier.

" A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. "

That is your opinion. That was not the law until 2008.

That is your opinion.

no, that's a fact.

the law was based on what the 2nd actually said.

That is your opinion, it was not the status of the law pre-2008. Even Heller, states that the government still has the power to regulate certain firearms.

That is your opinion, it was not the status of the law pre-2008.

It's been the 'status' since the Constitution was ratified, despite YOUR 'opinion'.

Deal with it.

 

[JLW]

When Congress approved the First Amendment on Dec. 15, 1791, they didn’t feel any need to describe why they were insisting on freedom of speech, publication, religion, and protest. They didn’t say “for the purposes of reporting the news,” or “because we think Americans should go to church,” or set limits on the size of marches. There are no specific purposes, and no boundaries set on any of these rights.

However, when the Second Amendment was passed on the same day, it was laden with all too familiar language that describes exactly why citizens were to be permitted firearms: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State.” Citizens were allowed to have guns for a specific purpose. And while it may be possible, with enough convoluted statements and nonsense about the 18th century context of “well-regulated” or the definition of “militia,” to deliberately misunderstand the clear meaning of the this limit, the authors underlined the meaning in the Third Amendment.

How the Second Amendment comes from something that happened in the 2nd century BCE

When Congress approved the First Amendment on Dec. 15, 1791, they didn’t feel any need to describe why they were insisting on freedom of speech, publication, religion, and protest. They didn’t say “for the purposes of reporting the news,” or “because...

m.dailykos.com

Protection of the elected government from both a standing army, and an insurrectionist mob.

Citizens were allowed to have guns for a specific purpose.

No, they were not.

The PEOPLE were given the right to keep and bear arms,


NOT the Militia

Wrong. The Supreme Court only applied the 2nd amendment to individuals in 2008.

The Constitution 'applied' it much earlier.

" A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. "

That is your opinion. That was not the law until 2008.

That is your opinion.

no, that's a fact.

the law was based on what the 2nd actually said.

That is your opinion, it was not the status of the law pre-2008. Even Heller, states that the government still has the power to regulate certain firearms.

That is your opinion, it was not the status of the law pre-2008.

It's been the 'status' since the Constitution was ratified, despite YOUR 'opinion'.

Deal with it.

You are wrong. All Supreme Court cases prior to Heller, stated that the second amendment DID NOT apply to the states or individuals, only to the national government. You can argue with me till the chickens come home to roost but that will not change past Supreme Court opinions.

 

[Turtlesoup]

When Congress approved the First Amendment on Dec. 15, 1791, they didn’t feel any need to describe why they were insisting on freedom of speech, publication, religion, and protest. They didn’t say “for the purposes of reporting the news,” or “because we think Americans should go to church,” or set limits on the size of marches. There are no specific purposes, and no boundaries set on any of these rights.

However, when the Second Amendment was passed on the same day, it was laden with all too familiar language that describes exactly why citizens were to be permitted firearms: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State.” Citizens were allowed to have guns for a specific purpose. And while it may be possible, with enough convoluted statements and nonsense about the 18th century context of “well-regulated” or the definition of “militia,” to deliberately misunderstand the clear meaning of the this limit, the authors underlined the meaning in the Third Amendment.

How the Second Amendment comes from something that happened in the 2nd century BCE

When Congress approved the First Amendment on Dec. 15, 1791, they didn’t feel any need to describe why they were insisting on freedom of speech, publication, religion, and protest. They didn’t say “for the purposes of reporting the news,” or “because...

m.dailykos.com

Protection of the elected government from both a standing army, and an insurrectionist mob.

Oh brother---such nonsense.

Here's what was the final straw (England had banned weapons before from its own citizens to make them easier to victimize so this was just the final straw) of why we have the 2nd amendment. (THE WHOLE HISTORY OF WHY IS VERY MUCH LONGER).


Following the events of December 16, 1773 in which the Sons of Liberty in Boston made a political protest of the tax policy of the British government and the East India Company that controlled all the tea that was imported into the colonies in Boston Harbor. Disguised as Indians, a group numbering anywhere from 30 to 130 men dumped 342 chests of tea into the sea over the course of three hours.

As a result of this protest, Parliament, with the direct encouragement of King George III, passed the Coercive Acts, or as they were properly known the Restraining Acts, in 1774. These acts are as follows:


Though Parliament was warned by men like Edmund Burke and Lord Chatham that such legislation would not be wise and would only provoke the colonists more, they failed to listen to reason.

Patriots that heard of the Acts determined that they would fight and die rather than see such laws enforced upon them by the British Army. The Patriots of Lancaster County, Pennsylvania, resolved: “That in the event of Great Britain attempting to force unjust laws upon us by the strength of arms, our cause we leave to heaven and our rifles.” Interestingly enough, a South Carolina newspaper essay, which was reprinted in Virginia at the time, recorded that any law that required the military to enforce it was “necessarily illegitimate,” according to David B. Kopel.

In Massachusetts, the Royal Governor, General Thomas Gage, forbid town meetings from taking place more than once a year. So when an illegal meeting was taking place in Salem, he sent in the British Redcoats to break it up. They were met with 3,000 armed Americans and they retreated. Interestingly enough, Gage’s aide, John Andrews, said that anyone in the area that was 16 years or older owned a firearm and had gunpowder. If you were wondering, yes this is where the issue of the First Amendment came from and where “town hall meetings” originated from. Let’s just say in Massachusetts, it was “getting real.”

The British realized that they could not control the people with only 2,000 troops in Boston. So what did they do? They sought to eliminate the people’s ability to firearms and gun powder.

Remember, at one time it was law in the colonies for militiamen to own their own firearms and have a minimum quantity of gunpowder on hand, though all could not afford it. Remember too, that this powder was not stable like that we use today.

On September 1, 1774, just before dawn, Gage sent approximately 260 Redcoats up the Mystic River to seize several hundred barrels of powder from the Charlestown powder house and this became known as the “Powder Alarm.”


The militia at the time produced 20,000 men who mobilized and began marching towards Boston. American colonists believed that if the British were going to use force or violence to seize arms or powder, it was an act of war and they would respond in kind. This is what happened the following year.

Kopel writes,

Five days after the Powder Alarm, on September 6, the militia of the towns of Worcester County assembled on the Worcester Common. Backed by the formidable array, the Worcester Convention took over the reins of government, and ordered the resignations of all militia officers, who had received their commissions from the Royal Governor. The officers promptly resigned and then received new commissions from the Worcester Convention.
That same day, the people of Suffolk County (which includes Boston) assembled and adopted the Suffolk Resolves. The 19-point Resolves complained about the Powder Alarm, and then took control of the local militia away from the Royal Governor (by replacing the Governor’s appointed officers with officers elected by the militia) and resolved to engage in group practice with arms at least weekly.
The First Continental Congress, which had just assembled in Philadelphia, unanimously endorsed the Suffolk Resolves and urged all the other colonies to send supplies to help the Bostonians.
Governor Gage directed the Redcoats to begin general, warrantless searches for arms and ammunition. According to the Boston Gazette, of all General Gage’s offenses, “what most irritated the People” was “seizing their Arms and Ammunition.”

Perhaps you are seeing exactly where the Bill of Rights came from. It was borne out of the injustices that were done to the Colonists by a tyrannical government.

The Massachusetts Assembly convened so that representatives could reassemble as the “Provincial Congress.” Gage declared the assembly illegal. Notice that didn’t stop it. Then on October 26, 1774 they adopted a resolution which condemned military rule and criticized Gage for “unlawfully seizing and retaining large quantities of ammunition in the arsenal at Boston.”

Gage was urged a week prior by Lord Dartmouth, the Royal Secretary of State for America to disarm New England. Two days after the letter was dispatched from Dartmouth, King George III and Parliament blocked the importation of arms and ammunition to Americans. While the order required a permit to export arms or ammunition from Great Britain to America, the reality was that no permits were granted. This effectively blocked arms and ammunition being imported to the colonies. Does this sound familiar to the kind of talk we hear today regarding certain types of weapons and ammunition? I think it does.

Founding Father Ben Franklin set out to import arms and ammunition from France, Spain and the Netherlands.

Paul Revere took to New Hampshire to warn of British ships approaching with the express purpose that they were going to be seizing firearms, cannons and gunpowder at Fort William and Mary. Four hundred New Hampshire patriots moved preemptively to capture those arms on December 14, 1774. A prominent New Hampshire paper at the time said the capture was both “prudent” and “proper.” They also reminded their readers of the ancient Carthagians who consented to “deliver up all their Arms to the Romans” and then overcome by them soon after.

Kopel gives great insight as he writes,

“The British government was not, in a purely formal sense, attempting to abolish the Americans’ common law right of self-defense. Yet in practice, that was precisely what the British were attempting. First, by disarming the Americans, the British were attempting to make the practical exercise of the right of personal self-defense much more difficult. Second, and more fundamentally, the Americans made no distinction between self-defense against a lone criminal or against a criminal government. To the Americans, and to their British Whig ancestors, the right of self-defense necessarily implied the right of armed self-defense against tyranny.”

Things became more heated and pressed in the following months. On March 23, 1775 Patrick Henry gave his famous speech to the Virginia legislature. During that speech Henry declared, “The millions of people, armed in the holy cause of liberty, and in such a country as that which we possess, are invincible by any force which our enemy can send against us.”

That convention put forth a committee which included Patrick Henry, Richard Henry Lee, George Washington, and Thomas Jefferson. The purpose of this committee was “to prepare a plan for the embodying, arming, and disciplining such a number of men as may be sufficient” to defend their commonwealth. This convention then urged “that every Man be provided with a good Rifle” and “that every Horseman be provided . . . with Pistols and Holsters, a Carbine, or other Firelock.”

Can you imagine our legislature putting forth something like that today? Frankly, I would love to see it!

Ultimately, do you know what started America’s War for Independence? That’s right, it was a tyrannical government that soft peddled “self-defense” while banning firearms and gunpowder.

On April 19, 1775, British and American soldiers exchanged fire in the Massachusetts towns of Lexington and Concord. On the night of April 18, the royal governor of Massachusetts, General Thomas Gage, commanded by King George III to suppress the rebellious Americans, had ordered 700 British soldiers, under Lieutenant Colonel Francis Smith and Marine Major John Pitcairn, to seize the colonists’ arms and gunpowder stores in Concord.


At Lexington Green, the British were met by approximately seventy American Minute Men led by John Parker. At the North Bridge in Concord, the British were confronted again, this time by 300 to 400 armed colonists, and were forced to march back to Boston with the Americans firing on them all the way. By the end of the day, the colonists were singing “Yankee Doodle” and the American Revolution had begun. You can read a timeline of the events that followed here.

With the Americans pushing back against the British use of military force to seize their firearms, Gage sought to offer the people of Boston the opportunity to leave town, but only if they surrendered their arms. Some accepted the offer and some 2,674 guns were surrendered. Gage didn’t let the people go.

While Benjamin Franklin had just returned from London on an unsuccessful diplomatic trip, he “was highly pleased to find the Americans arming and preparing for the worst events.”

On June 19, 1775, Gage finally gave an ultimatum to the Bostonians. They were to surrender their arms. Anyone that was found in possession of arms would be deemed guilty of treason.

Just weeks later on July 6, 1775 the Continental Congress issued A Declaration by the Representatives of the United Colonies of North-America, Now Met in Congress at Philadelphia, Setting Forth the Causes and Necessity of Their Taking Up Arms. This was written by Thomas Jefferson and Pennsylvania lawyer John Dickinson.

Jefferson wrote:

We are reduced to the alternative of choosing an unconditional submission to the tyranny of irritated ministers, or resistance by force.—The latter is our choice—We have counted the cost of this contest, and find nothing so dreadful as voluntary slavery.—Honour, justice, and humanity, forbid us tamely to surrender that freedom which we received from our gallant ancestors, and which our innocent posterity have a right to receive from us. We cannot endure the infamy and guilt of resigning succeeding generations to that wretchedness which inevitably awaits them, if we basely entail hereditary bondage upon them.
Our cause is just. Our union is perfect. Our internal resources are great, and, if necessary, foreign assistance is undoubtedly attainable… With hearts fortified with these animating reflections, we most solemnly, before God and the world, declare, that, exerting the utmost energy of those powers, which our beneficent Creator hath graciously bestowed upon us, the arms we have been compelled by our enemies to assume, we will, in defiance of every hazard, with unabating firmness and perseverance, employ for the preservation of our liberties; being with one mind resolved to die freemen rather than to live slaves.

Kurt Nimmo recites what followed:

The document was drafted after England sent soldiers to “restore order” in the Colonies and the Second Continental Congress thought it necessary to raise an army and justify its actions.
It also underscored the necessity to bear arms against tyranny – a concept that is almost entirely lost today as the United Nations conspires to register and confiscate the firearms of Americans and ill-informed citizens defend the Second Amendment as the right to own a gun for hunting.
Two days later, on July 8, 1775, the Olive Branch Petition was issued. It proposed a final peace deal with England and promised loyalty to the British government if it repealed the Coercive Acts and ended its taxation without representation policies.

The Olive Branch Petition was summarily dismissed by King George’s official, stating that the Colonies were in a state of rebellion. The English Parliament then passed the American Prohibitory Act, which forbid any further trade with the Colonies. In other words, they imposed what we call today sanctions, which became a further act of war against the colonies.

 

[Auld Phart]

When Congress approved the First Amendment on Dec. 15, 1791, they didn’t feel any need to describe why they were insisting on freedom of speech, publication, religion, and protest. They didn’t say “for the purposes of reporting the news,” or “because we think Americans should go to church,” or set limits on the size of marches. There are no specific purposes, and no boundaries set on any of these rights.

However, when the Second Amendment was passed on the same day, it was laden with all too familiar language that describes exactly why citizens were to be permitted firearms: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State.” Citizens were allowed to have guns for a specific purpose. And while it may be possible, with enough convoluted statements and nonsense about the 18th century context of “well-regulated” or the definition of “militia,” to deliberately misunderstand the clear meaning of the this limit, the authors underlined the meaning in the Third Amendment.

How the Second Amendment comes from something that happened in the 2nd century BCE

When Congress approved the First Amendment on Dec. 15, 1791, they didn’t feel any need to describe why they were insisting on freedom of speech, publication, religion, and protest. They didn’t say “for the purposes of reporting the news,” or “because...

m.dailykos.com

Protection of the elected government from both a standing army, and an insurrectionist mob.

Citizens were allowed to have guns for a specific purpose.

No, they were not.

The PEOPLE were given the right to keep and bear arms,


NOT the Militia

Wrong. The Supreme Court only applied the 2nd amendment to individuals in 2008.

The Constitution 'applied' it much earlier.

" A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. "

That is your opinion. That was not the law until 2008.

That is your opinion.

no, that's a fact.

the law was based on what the 2nd actually said.

That is your opinion, it was not the status of the law pre-2008. Even Heller, states that the government still has the power to regulate certain firearms.

That is your opinion, it was not the status of the law pre-2008.

It's been the 'status' since the Constitution was ratified, despite YOUR 'opinion'.

Deal with it.

You are wrong. All Supreme Court cases prior to Heller, stated that the second amendment DID NOT apply to the states or individuals, only to the national government. You can argue with me till the chickens come home to roost but that will not change past Supreme Court opinions.

nor will it change what is actually written in the 2nd Amendment.

 

[Oddball]

When Congress approved the First Amendment on Dec. 15, 1791, they didn’t feel any need to describe why they were insisting on freedom of speech, publication, religion, and protest. They didn’t say “for the purposes of reporting the news,” or “because we think Americans should go to church,” or set limits on the size of marches. There are no specific purposes, and no boundaries set on any of these rights.

However, when the Second Amendment was passed on the same day, it was laden with all too familiar language that describes exactly why citizens were to be permitted firearms: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State.” Citizens were allowed to have guns for a specific purpose. And while it may be possible, with enough convoluted statements and nonsense about the 18th century context of “well-regulated” or the definition of “militia,” to deliberately misunderstand the clear meaning of the this limit, the authors underlined the meaning in the Third Amendment.

How the Second Amendment comes from something that happened in the 2nd century BCE

When Congress approved the First Amendment on Dec. 15, 1791, they didn’t feel any need to describe why they were insisting on freedom of speech, publication, religion, and protest. They didn’t say “for the purposes of reporting the news,” or “because...

m.dailykos.com

Protection of the elected government from both a standing army, and an insurrectionist mob.

More shameless lying agitprop from Daily Kooks.

The sentence structure is clear....

 

[JLW]

When Congress approved the First Amendment on Dec. 15, 1791, they didn’t feel any need to describe why they were insisting on freedom of speech, publication, religion, and protest. They didn’t say “for the purposes of reporting the news,” or “because we think Americans should go to church,” or set limits on the size of marches. There are no specific purposes, and no boundaries set on any of these rights.

However, when the Second Amendment was passed on the same day, it was laden with all too familiar language that describes exactly why citizens were to be permitted firearms: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State.” Citizens were allowed to have guns for a specific purpose. And while it may be possible, with enough convoluted statements and nonsense about the 18th century context of “well-regulated” or the definition of “militia,” to deliberately misunderstand the clear meaning of the this limit, the authors underlined the meaning in the Third Amendment.

How the Second Amendment comes from something that happened in the 2nd century BCE

When Congress approved the First Amendment on Dec. 15, 1791, they didn’t feel any need to describe why they were insisting on freedom of speech, publication, religion, and protest. They didn’t say “for the purposes of reporting the news,” or “because...

m.dailykos.com

Protection of the elected government from both a standing army, and an insurrectionist mob.

Citizens were allowed to have guns for a specific purpose.

No, they were not.

The PEOPLE were given the right to keep and bear arms,


NOT the Militia

Wrong. The Supreme Court only applied the 2nd amendment to individuals in 2008.

The Constitution 'applied' it much earlier.

" A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. "

That is your opinion. That was not the law until 2008.

That is your opinion.

no, that's a fact.

the law was based on what the 2nd actually said.

That is your opinion, it was not the status of the law pre-2008. Even Heller, states that the government still has the power to regulate certain firearms.

That is your opinion, it was not the status of the law pre-2008.

It's been the 'status' since the Constitution was ratified, despite YOUR 'opinion'.

Deal with it.

You are wrong. All Supreme Court cases prior to Heller, stated that the second amendment DID NOT apply to the states or individuals, only to the national government. You can argue with me till the chickens come home to roost but that will not change past Supreme Court opinions.

nor will it change what is actually written in the 2nd Amendment.

That is your opinion.

 

[Auld Phart]

When Congress approved the First Amendment on Dec. 15, 1791, they didn’t feel any need to describe why they were insisting on freedom of speech, publication, religion, and protest. They didn’t say “for the purposes of reporting the news,” or “because we think Americans should go to church,” or set limits on the size of marches. There are no specific purposes, and no boundaries set on any of these rights.

However, when the Second Amendment was passed on the same day, it was laden with all too familiar language that describes exactly why citizens were to be permitted firearms: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State.” Citizens were allowed to have guns for a specific purpose. And while it may be possible, with enough convoluted statements and nonsense about the 18th century context of “well-regulated” or the definition of “militia,” to deliberately misunderstand the clear meaning of the this limit, the authors underlined the meaning in the Third Amendment.

How the Second Amendment comes from something that happened in the 2nd century BCE

When Congress approved the First Amendment on Dec. 15, 1791, they didn’t feel any need to describe why they were insisting on freedom of speech, publication, religion, and protest. They didn’t say “for the purposes of reporting the news,” or “because...

m.dailykos.com

Protection of the elected government from both a standing army, and an insurrectionist mob.

Citizens were allowed to have guns for a specific purpose.

No, they were not.

The PEOPLE were given the right to keep and bear arms,


NOT the Militia

Wrong. The Supreme Court only applied the 2nd amendment to individuals in 2008.

The Constitution 'applied' it much earlier.

" A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. "

That is your opinion. That was not the law until 2008.

That is your opinion.

no, that's a fact.

the law was based on what the 2nd actually said.

That is your opinion, it was not the status of the law pre-2008. Even Heller, states that the government still has the power to regulate certain firearms.

That is your opinion, it was not the status of the law pre-2008.

It's been the 'status' since the Constitution was ratified, despite YOUR 'opinion'.

Deal with it.

You are wrong. All Supreme Court cases prior to Heller, stated that the second amendment DID NOT apply to the states or individuals, only to the national government. You can argue with me till the chickens come home to roost but that will not change past Supreme Court opinions.

nor will it change what is actually written in the 2nd Amendment.

That is your opinion.

and it's your 'opinion' that citizens were not allowed to keep and bear arms, (unless they belonged to a militia), for the 200+ years between the Ratification of the Constitution, and the Heller decision?

 

[sartre play]

Not sure why we have a problem that one requirement of owning a gun wouldn't include being trained in gun safety.

 

[DudleySmith]

I think it's very clear the Founders left it to the states to decide such individual issues, and the history bears it out, same as they did with establishment of religion, voting rights. etc. This makes both 'sides' unhappy but that is the way it was.

A safety course should be the primary requirement regardless of any of the rest of it. Times change, and far fewer people are raised around firearms from childhood like they were in the past, and that cultural change needs to be accounted for.

the country has been run by judicial fiat since the Civil war, and its no different today; the 'Constitutionality' of anything has long since been irrelevant, it's just whatever gang can pack the Federal benches these days gets to make up whatever laws they want to now. It's just delusional fantasy to believe otherwise.

Which is why the Founders explicitly gave Congress the powers to regulate the courts.

And Congress has repeatedly refused to do so, and in fact cedes its due process responsibilities pretty much permanently, throwing the whole system out of order, between the court shopping and executive orders it is crashing down now to nothing but street warfare. Of course commies and right wingers want exactly that, and throughout history the right wingers always win in the end, even in so-called 'Red Revolutions'; see Lenin, Stalin, Pol Pot, and Mao for how that stuff turns out for the Reds' version. Re the right wing versions? Distinctions without a difference for the vast majority; they're all sociopaths.

 

[DudleySmith]

The early history of militias had highly mixed results, and mostly negatives ones at that.

https://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/10.7249/j.ctt19rmdcb.11.pdf?refreqid=excelsior%3A06e4122a1f45e29f1f3fa2ed7107c3f2

A militia-based force also had serious limitations. Indeed, as historian John Shy notes, General George Washington “never ceased complaining about his militia—about their undependability, their indiscipline, their cowardice under fire.”2 Washington himself summed it up: “To place any dependence upon the militia is assuredly resting upon a broken staff.”3 As political scientist Ronald Krebs noted, some of the founding fathers turned to the militia because it was the best option available, not because it was the optimal solution. John Adams, for example, believed that “not more than a regiment ‘of the meanest, idlest, most intemperate, and worthless’ would have signed up for the war’s duration.”4 Eventually, the United States needed to form a more unified Continental Army (molded by a Prussian military officer, no less) before it could win the Revolutionary War. Moreover, as the decades drew on, American politicians increasingly became convinced that the militia system could not serve as the principal instrument for American national security in the future. One reason was that the militia system proved unreliable during crises. During the 1786 Shay’s Rebellion, for example, 800 militiamen—sympathetic to the rebels—refused to put down the uprising.5

And so on. The short answer is the country opted for better options than just letting your neighbor Goober up the street play with his tanks and nuclear warheads on the weekends for more professional, and mostly sober at least part of the time,, alternative options.

 

[DudleySmith]

Not sure why we have a problem that one requirement of owning a gun wouldn't include being trained in gun safety.

Probably a real problem for the weekend power boozers who can't hold off for a few hours to go take a short test.

 

[martybegan]

Not sure why we have a problem that one requirement of owning a gun wouldn't include being trained in gun safety.

Again, because in some States, the class would be once a year limited to 20 people.

It's not about safety for gun control people, It's about making it as hard as possible for a law abiding person to get a firearm.

 

[progressive hunter]

I think it's very clear the Founders left it to the states to decide such individual issues, and the history bears it out, same as they did with establishment of religion, voting rights. etc. This makes both 'sides' unhappy but that is the way it was.

A safety course should be the primary requirement regardless of any of the rest of it. Times change, and far fewer people are raised around firearms from childhood like they were in the past, and that cultural change needs to be accounted for.

the country has been run by judicial fiat since the Civil war, and its no different today; the 'Constitutionality' of anything has long since been irrelevant, it's just whatever gang can pack the Federal benches these days gets to make up whatever laws they want to now. It's just delusional fantasy to believe otherwise.

I dont see anywhere that its left up to the states for anything having to do with the peoples right to be armed,,,

the 2nd makes it clear "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED",,,

I don't care if you can't see it or not. Ideologues are all morons, left or right wingers; they all look alike.and they all end up with the exact same 'order'.

instead of being an ass why not just point out where it says that which you claim???

because the 10th amendment makes it clear it is delegated to the people not the states or feds,,

 

[Circe]

Not sure why we have a problem that one requirement of owning a gun wouldn't include being trained in gun safety.

Because gun safety is nobody else's business. Also, it's not likely to have any effect on the actual problem, which is crazies doing spree killings!

 

[DudleySmith]

Not sure why we have a problem that one requirement of owning a gun wouldn't include being trained in gun safety.

Because gun safety is nobody else's business. Also, it's not likely to have any effect on the actual problem, which is crazies doing spree killings!

That's right, cuz your right to be irresponsible and kill somebody while screwing around with a weapon you can't handle properly is specifically what the Founders meant by the Second Amendment.

 

[DudleySmith]

I think it's very clear the Founders left it to the states to decide such individual issues, and the history bears it out, same as they did with establishment of religion, voting rights. etc. This makes both 'sides' unhappy but that is the way it was.

A safety course should be the primary requirement regardless of any of the rest of it. Times change, and far fewer people are raised around firearms from childhood like they were in the past, and that cultural change needs to be accounted for.

the country has been run by judicial fiat since the Civil war, and its no different today; the 'Constitutionality' of anything has long since been irrelevant, it's just whatever gang can pack the Federal benches these days gets to make up whatever laws they want to now. It's just delusional fantasy to believe otherwise.

I dont see anywhere that its left up to the states for anything having to do with the peoples right to be armed,,,

the 2nd makes it clear "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED",,,

I don't care if you can't see it or not. Ideologues are all morons, left or right wingers; they all look alike.and they all end up with the exact same 'order'.

instead of being an ass why not just point out where it says that which you claim???

because the 10th amendment makes it clear it is delegated to the people not the states or feds,,

Why would I waste my time on rebutting rubbish claims? You think the 2nd A magically trumped states' rights for some reason, the sole Amendment to do so, despite all the other Amendments that didn't. The states decided who could vote, whether or not a state could have an established religion, etc. etc, but all of sudden the Feds were granted the absolute power to decide who could shoot everybody else regardless of what the individual states wanted. It's rubbish, and a made up 'universal right' that doesn't exist, as demonstrated over and over and over and over by subsequent state laws for the next 200+ years. I already posted to an essay that covered the politics of militias , so I don't need to repeat myself over and over just because your mantras don't allow you to discuss anything outside your box.

 

[progressive hunter]

I think it's very clear the Founders left it to the states to decide such individual issues, and the history bears it out, same as they did with establishment of religion, voting rights. etc. This makes both 'sides' unhappy but that is the way it was.

A safety course should be the primary requirement regardless of any of the rest of it. Times change, and far fewer people are raised around firearms from childhood like they were in the past, and that cultural change needs to be accounted for.

the country has been run by judicial fiat since the Civil war, and its no different today; the 'Constitutionality' of anything has long since been irrelevant, it's just whatever gang can pack the Federal benches these days gets to make up whatever laws they want to now. It's just delusional fantasy to believe otherwise.

I dont see anywhere that its left up to the states for anything having to do with the peoples right to be armed,,,

the 2nd makes it clear "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED",,,

I don't care if you can't see it or not. Ideologues are all morons, left or right wingers; they all look alike.and they all end up with the exact same 'order'.

instead of being an ass why not just point out where it says that which you claim???

because the 10th amendment makes it clear it is delegated to the people not the states or feds,,

Why would I waste my time on rebutting rubbish claims? You think the 2nd A magically trumped states' rights for some reason, the sole Amendment to do so, despite all the other Amendments that didn't. The states decided who could vote, whether or not a state could have an established religion, etc. etc, but all of sudden the Feds were granted the absolute power to decide who could shoot everybody else regardless of what the individual states wanted. It's rubbish, and a made up 'universal right' that doesn't exist, as demonstrated over and over and over and over by subsequent state laws for the next 200+ years.

of course it does when you read both the 2nd and the tenth together,,, what youre doing is ignoring all of it,,,

if you only had a specific thing you could point to like I did your opinion might have merit,,

 

[DudleySmith]

I think it's very clear the Founders left it to the states to decide such individual issues, and the history bears it out, same as they did with establishment of religion, voting rights. etc. This makes both 'sides' unhappy but that is the way it was.

A safety course should be the primary requirement regardless of any of the rest of it. Times change, and far fewer people are raised around firearms from childhood like they were in the past, and that cultural change needs to be accounted for.

the country has been run by judicial fiat since the Civil war, and its no different today; the 'Constitutionality' of anything has long since been irrelevant, it's just whatever gang can pack the Federal benches these days gets to make up whatever laws they want to now. It's just delusional fantasy to believe otherwise.

I dont see anywhere that its left up to the states for anything having to do with the peoples right to be armed,,,

the 2nd makes it clear "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED",,,

I don't care if you can't see it or not. Ideologues are all morons, left or right wingers; they all look alike.and they all end up with the exact same 'order'.

instead of being an ass why not just point out where it says that which you claim???

because the 10th amendment makes it clear it is delegated to the people not the states or feds,,

Why would I waste my time on rebutting rubbish claims? You think the 2nd A magically trumped states' rights for some reason, the sole Amendment to do so, despite all the other Amendments that didn't. The states decided who could vote, whether or not a state could have an established religion, etc. etc, but all of sudden the Feds were granted the absolute power to decide who could shoot everybody else regardless of what the individual states wanted. It's rubbish, and a made up 'universal right' that doesn't exist, as demonstrated over and over and over and over by subsequent state laws for the next 200+ years.

of course it does when you read both the 2nd and the tenth together,,, what youre doing is ignoring all of it,,,

if you only had a specific thing you could point to like I did your opinion might have merit,,

There is nothing in the 10th about unlimited weapon ownership. You can keep claiming that and dance around with the other cultists like you won something, but the fact is it was not a power granted to the Federal govt. and denied the states, by the 10th or any other Amendment. Whether or not you personally approve of that obvious fact is pretty unimportant.