Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Nobody asked that, stupid. Once again you run from the subject matter like a bitch. It’s a simple yes or no question. Why can’t you answer it?My freedom of speech and religion is doing just fine.Can your city strip you of your freedom of speech or freedom or religion? Yes or No, ignorant one?
Can your city strip you of your freedom of speech or freedom or religion? Yes or No?
I already did!!! Doezens of times. Right here in this very thread. One does not need to be a firearms dealer to own a fully automatic firearm. One only needs an NFA Stamp from the ATF. I have friends that own “machine guns”. I have fired them many, many times. None of us are firearms dealers. Idiot.Then rebutt what I say instead of this childish insulting.
Spoken like an immature leftist who just had their ass handed to them.You do know that you already lost this one, don't you.I literally cannot stop laughing at how stupid you are. You don’t even understand what “due process” means.Under the Constitution, it's legal. IT's called States Rights and Due Process.
Snowflake, “due process” means your right to the legal process spelled out in the U.S. Constitution for being charged and prosecuted. It doesn’t have anything to do with a state trampling on the U.S. Constitution.
I just can’t get over how dumb you are. It’s amazing. You Googled the FFL, and misused it in your arguments. Then you misused “due process” (which is fucking incredible). You don’t know how or where to apply these terms because you are so profoundly ignorant of them. Incredible.
It’s exactly the issue. You claim that states have “states rights” to strip you of your constitutional rights when it comes to the 2nd Amendment (because you’re a certified pussy who is afraid of firearms). But when I apply that exact same other claims, you panic like a pussy (because it proves you are wrong).It's a question that isn't an issue.Nobody asked that, stupid. Once again you run from the subject matter like a bitch. It’s a simple yes or no question. Why can’t you answer it?My freedom of speech and religion is doing just fine.Can your city strip you of your freedom of speech or freedom or religion? Yes or No, ignorant one?
Can your city strip you of your freedom of speech or freedom or religion? Yes or No?
I already did!!! Doezens of times. Right here in this very thread. One does not need to be a firearms dealer to own a fully automatic firearm. One only needs an NFA Stamp from the ATF. I have friends that own “machine guns”. I have fired them many, many times. None of us are firearms dealers. Idiot.Then rebutt what I say instead of this childish insulting.
I didn’t ask whether or not you “felt worried” about your “freedom of speech or freedom of religion”. Everyone can see why you’re so afraid to answer this question right now. Running from it is making it SO much worse for you. You should have taken the issue head on. Now everyone knows you’re wrong (and a disingenuous pussy).I don't feel the worry about my freedom of speech or religion.Nobody asked that, stupid. Once again you run from the subject matter like a bitch. It’s a simple yes or no question. Why can’t you answer it?My freedom of speech and religion is doing just fine.Can your city strip you of your freedom of speech or freedom or religion? Yes or No, ignorant one?
Can your city strip you of your freedom of speech or freedom or religion? Yes or No?
It’s exactly the issue. You claim that states have “states rights” to strip you of your constitutional rights when it comes to the 2nd Amendment (because you’re a certified pussy who is afraid of firearms). But when I apply that exact same other claims, you panic like a pussy (because it proves you are wrong).It's a question that isn't an issue.Nobody asked that, stupid. Once again you run from the subject matter like a bitch. It’s a simple yes or no question. Why can’t you answer it?My freedom of speech and religion is doing just fine.Can your city strip you of your freedom of speech or freedom or religion? Yes or No, ignorant one?
Can your city strip you of your freedom of speech or freedom or religion? Yes or No?
I did?!? Really? Please post the post # for the class so everyone can see it.None of us are Firearms Dealers you say, yet a few messages ago, you claimed to be a FFL dealer.
But again...nobody asked you whether or not your city “felt the need” to strip freedom of speech and/or freedom of religion rights or whether or not you “felt the need” to worry about it.They don't feel the need and I don't feel the need to worry about it.
Wow...I don’t know where you plucked that BS paraphrasing from, certainly was not from the second amendment. That’s just you inserting what you want the 2nd amendment to mean.The 2nd Amendment can be definitively paraphrased thus: The individual states have a right to defend themselves through maintenance of state militias. That being said, the Declaration of Independence acknowledges that individuals have an inalienable right to protect themselves. Unless/until the government can guarantee their personal safety, individuals have an inherent right to defend themselves by any reasonable means.
P.S. I don't give a shit how some judge "interprets" the plain language of these documents.
Yep, “well regulated” did not mean the same today as it did then... not even close.Wow...I don’t know where you plucked that BS paraphrasing from, certainly was not from the second amendment. That’s just you inserting what you want the 2nd amendment to mean.The 2nd Amendment can be definitively paraphrased thus: The individual states have a right to defend themselves through maintenance of state militias. That being said, the Declaration of Independence acknowledges that individuals have an inalienable right to protect themselves. Unless/until the government can guarantee their personal safety, individuals have an inherent right to defend themselves by any reasonable means.
P.S. I don't give a shit how some judge "interprets" the plain language of these documents.
It’s funny you should say you don’t give a shit how some judge interprets the text, because your interpretation is so far off base. Ivy League constitutional law professors who are in favor of heavy gun control and outright bans think your interpretation is shit. What they say is repeal the 2nd and institute the gun control measures you want.
“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.”
Let’s start with the militia line. The militia was necessary because the founders worried about hostile coups and takeovers from a standing army, which they were against during peacetime. You know, the coups that we’re constantly happening during their time, all throughout history, and even currently today. Or the federal government could just use standing armies to bully the citizens into what they wanted to do, again like they saw around the world during their time, history, and in modern times. This is why the militia was necessary to the security of a free state. The militias were led by local leaders elected by the local people’s in their respective region. States could call upon their militias in times of need, but militias were still independently run entities. This is why they were terrible against other standing armies, like Great Britain during the revolutionary war, because it was like herding cats in and aiming them at an army that operated as a single unit. Now, what would happen if east Virginia passed a law that screwed over western Virginia, and western Virginia said f-that? The state could try to call upon the miltias from western Virginia to enforce their will, but they, being the people of western Virginia are the very same ones saying f-that, our militia will fight against your eastern militia if you send em. The militias were a check on power, both to the states and the federal government. A check that will make these Governments think twice before passing law that the people wouldn’t like. That’s the whole domestic part of the phrase “enemies foreign and domestic”. The foreign part is in times of invasion, the militias were to act as a stop gap, and hold off invasions as best as possible until a standing army could be raised up. It was recognized at the time that militias were terrible against other standing armies, but they could still slow them down. And if you’re trying to dance with the phrase “well regulated”, what that clearly meant at the time was well equipped, supplied, at the ready, etc. How do we know this? Well, it was how they used the word regulated in that era. Also, if people would use just a little bit of thinking, they’d realize it doesn’t really make sense to say “a well policed (controlled, monitored, etc) militia...the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” So, do you honestly think the founders would agree on a paradoxical statement and insert it into the BOR, that they spent years debating, but universally agreed on the 2nd amendment, and just over looked the conflicting statement? Do you also think that if the states were to control the militias, the founders who were so worried about a standing army as a threat, would let the states have their own standing armies, to possibly march on philly or DC without any military check on them?
Moving on to the second part of the text. Do you notice that whole line “the right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.” It’s easy to miss so I capitalized t for you. The right of the PEOPLE. It doesnt say states, it doesn’t say government, it doesn’t say officials, it says people. It isn’t at all weird to you that they left out how the states would care for and control their militias in the enumerated powers? It isn’t weird to you that they had just fought against a state, in a war that was sparked by that state trying to disarm them...but after that whole bloody debacle against all odds they said to themselves “okay, well we didn’t like it when they were trying to take away our arms, but it’s ok if we do it to or own citizens. That’s not weird to you at all?
The 2nd is not about the state protecting its people, it’s about the people protecting themselves and their freedom from the only entities that can threaten freedom, governments. Including, and especially, their own government. I love it people act like the interpretation of the Const. and BOR is oh so murky, and “well I think they meant it like this or that.” We have tons and tons of writings from the founders themselves on what exactly was intended, we don’t have to do a whole lotta guess work on this shit. The people who do simple just don’t like the constitution. Plain and simple.
Wow...I don’t know where you plucked that BS paraphrasing from, certainly was not from the second amendment. That’s just you inserting what you want the 2nd amendment to mean.The 2nd Amendment can be definitively paraphrased thus: The individual states have a right to defend themselves through maintenance of state militias. That being said, the Declaration of Independence acknowledges that individuals have an inalienable right to protect themselves. Unless/until the government can guarantee their personal safety, individuals have an inherent right to defend themselves by any reasonable means.
P.S. I don't give a shit how some judge "interprets" the plain language of these documents.
It’s funny you should say you don’t give a shit how some judge interprets the text, because your interpretation is so far off base. Ivy League constitutional law professors who are in favor of heavy gun control and outright bans think your interpretation is shit. What they say is repeal the 2nd and institute the gun control measures you want.
“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.”
Let’s start with the militia line. The militia was necessary because the founders worried about hostile coups and takeovers from a standing army, which they were against during peacetime. You know, the coups that we’re constantly happening during their time, all throughout history, and even currently today. Or the federal government could just use standing armies to bully the citizens into what they wanted to do, again like they saw around the world during their time, history, and in modern times. This is why the militia was necessary to the security of a free state. The militias were led by local leaders elected by the local people’s in their respective region. States could call upon their militias in times of need, but militias were still independently run entities. This is why they were terrible against other standing armies, like Great Britain during the revolutionary war, because it was like herding cats in and aiming them at an army that operated as a single unit. Now, what would happen if east Virginia passed a law that screwed over western Virginia, and western Virginia said f-that? The state could try to call upon the miltias from western Virginia to enforce their will, but they, being the people of western Virginia are the very same ones saying f-that, our militia will fight against your eastern militia if you send em. The militias were a check on power, both to the states and the federal government. A check that will make these Governments think twice before passing law that the people wouldn’t like. That’s the whole domestic part of the phrase “enemies foreign and domestic”. The foreign part is in times of invasion, the militias were to act as a stop gap, and hold off invasions as best as possible until a standing army could be raised up. It was recognized at the time that militias were terrible against other standing armies, but they could still slow them down. And if you’re trying to dance with the phrase “well regulated”, what that clearly meant at the time was well equipped, supplied, at the ready, etc. How do we know this? Well, it was how they used the word regulated in that era. Also, if people would use just a little bit of thinking, they’d realize it doesn’t really make sense to say “a well policed (controlled, monitored, etc) militia...the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” So, do you honestly think the founders would agree on a paradoxical statement and insert it into the BOR, that they spent years debating, but universally agreed on the 2nd amendment, and just over looked the conflicting statement? Do you also think that if the states were to control the militias, the founders who were so worried about a standing army as a threat, would let the states have their own standing armies, to possibly march on philly or DC without any military check on them?
Moving on to the second part of the text. Do you notice that whole line “the right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.” It’s easy to miss so I capitalized t for you. The right of the PEOPLE. It doesnt say states, it doesn’t say government, it doesn’t say officials, it says people. It isn’t at all weird to you that they left out how the states would care for and control their militias in the enumerated powers? It isn’t weird to you that they had just fought against a state, in a war that was sparked by that state trying to disarm them...but after that whole bloody debacle against all odds they said to themselves “okay, well we didn’t like it when they were trying to take away our arms, but it’s ok if we do it to or own citizens. That’s not weird to you at all?
The 2nd is not about the state protecting its people, it’s about the people protecting themselves and their freedom from the only entities that can threaten freedom, governments. Including, and especially, their own government. I love it people act like the interpretation of the Const. and BOR is oh so murky, and “well I think they meant it like this or that.” We have tons and tons of writings from the founders themselves on what exactly was intended, we don’t have to do a whole lotta guess work on this shit. The people who do simple just don’t like the constitution. Plain and simple.
The militias were led by local leaders elected by the local people’s in their respective region. States could call upon their militias in times of need, but militias were still independently run entities.
Wow...I don’t know where you plucked that BS paraphrasing from, certainly was not from the second amendment. That’s just you inserting what you want the 2nd amendment to mean.The 2nd Amendment can be definitively paraphrased thus: The individual states have a right to defend themselves through maintenance of state militias. That being said, the Declaration of Independence acknowledges that individuals have an inalienable right to protect themselves. Unless/until the government can guarantee their personal safety, individuals have an inherent right to defend themselves by any reasonable means.
P.S. I don't give a shit how some judge "interprets" the plain language of these documents.
It’s funny you should say you don’t give a shit how some judge interprets the text, because your interpretation is so far off base. Ivy League constitutional law professors who are in favor of heavy gun control and outright bans think your interpretation is shit. What they say is repeal the 2nd and institute the gun control measures you want.
“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.”
Let’s start with the militia line. The militia was necessary because the founders worried about hostile coups and takeovers from a standing army, which they were against during peacetime. You know, the coups that we’re constantly happening during their time, all throughout history, and even currently today. Or the federal government could just use standing armies to bully the citizens into what they wanted to do, again like they saw around the world during their time, history, and in modern times. This is why the militia was necessary to the security of a free state. The militias were led by local leaders elected by the local people’s in their respective region. States could call upon their militias in times of need, but militias were still independently run entities. This is why they were terrible against other standing armies, like Great Britain during the revolutionary war, because it was like herding cats in and aiming them at an army that operated as a single unit. Now, what would happen if east Virginia passed a law that screwed over western Virginia, and western Virginia said f-that? The state could try to call upon the miltias from western Virginia to enforce their will, but they, being the people of western Virginia are the very same ones saying f-that, our militia will fight against your eastern militia if you send em. The militias were a check on power, both to the states and the federal government. A check that will make these Governments think twice before passing law that the people wouldn’t like. That’s the whole domestic part of the phrase “enemies foreign and domestic”. The foreign part is in times of invasion, the militias were to act as a stop gap, and hold off invasions as best as possible until a standing army could be raised up. It was recognized at the time that militias were terrible against other standing armies, but they could still slow them down. And if you’re trying to dance with the phrase “well regulated”, what that clearly meant at the time was well equipped, supplied, at the ready, etc. How do we know this? Well, it was how they used the word regulated in that era. Also, if people would use just a little bit of thinking, they’d realize it doesn’t really make sense to say “a well policed (controlled, monitored, etc) militia...the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” So, do you honestly think the founders would agree on a paradoxical statement and insert it into the BOR, that they spent years debating, but universally agreed on the 2nd amendment, and just over looked the conflicting statement? Do you also think that if the states were to control the militias, the founders who were so worried about a standing army as a threat, would let the states have their own standing armies, to possibly march on philly or DC without any military check on them?
Moving on to the second part of the text. Do you notice that whole line “the right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.” It’s easy to miss so I capitalized t for you. The right of the PEOPLE. It doesnt say states, it doesn’t say government, it doesn’t say officials, it says people. It isn’t at all weird to you that they left out how the states would care for and control their militias in the enumerated powers? It isn’t weird to you that they had just fought against a state, in a war that was sparked by that state trying to disarm them...but after that whole bloody debacle against all odds they said to themselves “okay, well we didn’t like it when they were trying to take away our arms, but it’s ok if we do it to or own citizens. That’s not weird to you at all?
The 2nd is not about the state protecting its people, it’s about the people protecting themselves and their freedom from the only entities that can threaten freedom, governments. Including, and especially, their own government. I love it people act like the interpretation of the Const. and BOR is oh so murky, and “well I think they meant it like this or that.” We have tons and tons of writings from the founders themselves on what exactly was intended, we don’t have to do a whole lotta guess work on this shit. The people who do simple just don’t like the constitution. Plain and simple.
Okay, we no longer have the need of the "Organized Militia" since the passage of the 1917 National Guard Act. In fact, the whole thing has become outdated for the same reason. The cost of war and the destruction of the weapons have far exceeded the needs and the abilities of any usable civilian capability. I agree, we do have the right to keep and bear arms. But at some point, we need to put the phrase "Within Reason" before that. Then we need to legally define what is within reason. Just plunking down the phrase, "the right to keep and bare arms" doesn't really mean a thing when you are trying to protect yourself from a rogue federal government.
You already stated that the real reason a Militia was used was so that the Federal Government could have the time to form a formal army. It was a stopgap or a slow down manner. Not intended to actually win. But to delay. What happens if it's your own Federal Government that is the transgressor? The power of the Federal Military is so powerful that any State Militia would be taken care of in a matter of hours and all State Representatives would be arrested. But what we have built into your Federal Military is Customs, Traditions and Regulations that prevent any President or any Leader from attempting to do this. Case in point. The last 3 days of Nixon, the Military went into a sit down period where they would not follow any and all orders from Nixon. The Joint Chiefs deemed him to be unstable. And they let us know all the way down to the NCO level that this was happening. The system works and it works well. It prevents a President from trying to overthrow our Constitutionally elected Government by using the US Military. Some seem to fear that Trump may try doing something stupid with the Military but the Joint Chiefs are watching him like a hawk at all times. The second he goes all the way over the edge, he no longer has the support of the Military. And what ever orders they had prior will be in affect but no new orders will be followed until the situation is corrected by the Civilian Government.
We don't need to be able to walk down the street wearing a M-60 "Going for another Beer Run". Where does a guy with a M-60 sit? Anywhere he wants to. Unless the guy with the M-2 doesn't want him sitting there. I don't wish to live in that city. If we take the 2nd amendment exactly as written, that scenario could happen. But when those two get irritated, there is going to be a lot of flying lead and a lot of innocent deaths happen all at once. So we allow the States the ability for Due Process to place limits. "Within Reason". In the end, the 2nd amendment really needs to be amended to a more modern meaning.
First off, the point that modern militaries would wipe out any force with small arms, and therefore small arms are useless, is incorrect. Look at the civil war, Vietnam, Afghanistan v USSR, Afghanistan v USA,Wow...I don’t know where you plucked that BS paraphrasing from, certainly was not from the second amendment. That’s just you inserting what you want the 2nd amendment to mean.The 2nd Amendment can be definitively paraphrased thus: The individual states have a right to defend themselves through maintenance of state militias. That being said, the Declaration of Independence acknowledges that individuals have an inalienable right to protect themselves. Unless/until the government can guarantee their personal safety, individuals have an inherent right to defend themselves by any reasonable means.
P.S. I don't give a shit how some judge "interprets" the plain language of these documents.
It’s funny you should say you don’t give a shit how some judge interprets the text, because your interpretation is so far off base. Ivy League constitutional law professors who are in favor of heavy gun control and outright bans think your interpretation is shit. What they say is repeal the 2nd and institute the gun control measures you want.
“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.”
Let’s start with the militia line. The militia was necessary because the founders worried about hostile coups and takeovers from a standing army, which they were against during peacetime. You know, the coups that we’re constantly happening during their time, all throughout history, and even currently today. Or the federal government could just use standing armies to bully the citizens into what they wanted to do, again like they saw around the world during their time, history, and in modern times. This is why the militia was necessary to the security of a free state. The militias were led by local leaders elected by the local people’s in their respective region. States could call upon their militias in times of need, but militias were still independently run entities. This is why they were terrible against other standing armies, like Great Britain during the revolutionary war, because it was like herding cats in and aiming them at an army that operated as a single unit. Now, what would happen if east Virginia passed a law that screwed over western Virginia, and western Virginia said f-that? The state could try to call upon the miltias from western Virginia to enforce their will, but they, being the people of western Virginia are the very same ones saying f-that, our militia will fight against your eastern militia if you send em. The militias were a check on power, both to the states and the federal government. A check that will make these Governments think twice before passing law that the people wouldn’t like. That’s the whole domestic part of the phrase “enemies foreign and domestic”. The foreign part is in times of invasion, the militias were to act as a stop gap, and hold off invasions as best as possible until a standing army could be raised up. It was recognized at the time that militias were terrible against other standing armies, but they could still slow them down. And if you’re trying to dance with the phrase “well regulated”, what that clearly meant at the time was well equipped, supplied, at the ready, etc. How do we know this? Well, it was how they used the word regulated in that era. Also, if people would use just a little bit of thinking, they’d realize it doesn’t really make sense to say “a well policed (controlled, monitored, etc) militia...the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” So, do you honestly think the founders would agree on a paradoxical statement and insert it into the BOR, that they spent years debating, but universally agreed on the 2nd amendment, and just over looked the conflicting statement? Do you also think that if the states were to control the militias, the founders who were so worried about a standing army as a threat, would let the states have their own standing armies, to possibly march on philly or DC without any military check on them?
Moving on to the second part of the text. Do you notice that whole line “the right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.” It’s easy to miss so I capitalized t for you. The right of the PEOPLE. It doesnt say states, it doesn’t say government, it doesn’t say officials, it says people. It isn’t at all weird to you that they left out how the states would care for and control their militias in the enumerated powers? It isn’t weird to you that they had just fought against a state, in a war that was sparked by that state trying to disarm them...but after that whole bloody debacle against all odds they said to themselves “okay, well we didn’t like it when they were trying to take away our arms, but it’s ok if we do it to or own citizens. That’s not weird to you at all?
The 2nd is not about the state protecting its people, it’s about the people protecting themselves and their freedom from the only entities that can threaten freedom, governments. Including, and especially, their own government. I love it people act like the interpretation of the Const. and BOR is oh so murky, and “well I think they meant it like this or that.” We have tons and tons of writings from the founders themselves on what exactly was intended, we don’t have to do a whole lotta guess work on this shit. The people who do simple just don’t like the constitution. Plain and simple.
Okay, we no longer have the need of the "Organized Militia" since the passage of the 1917 National Guard Act. In fact, the whole thing has become outdated for the same reason. The cost of war and the destruction of the weapons have far exceeded the needs and the abilities of any usable civilian capability. I agree, we do have the right to keep and bear arms. But at some point, we need to put the phrase "Within Reason" before that. Then we need to legally define what is within reason. Just plunking down the phrase, "the right to keep and bare arms" doesn't really mean a thing when you are trying to protect yourself from a rogue federal government.
You already stated that the real reason a Militia was used was so that the Federal Government could have the time to form a formal army. It was a stopgap or a slow down manner. Not intended to actually win. But to delay. What happens if it's your own Federal Government that is the transgressor? The power of the Federal Military is so powerful that any State Militia would be taken care of in a matter of hours and all State Representatives would be arrested. But what we have built into your Federal Military is Customs, Traditions and Regulations that prevent any President or any Leader from attempting to do this. Case in point. The last 3 days of Nixon, the Military went into a sit down period where they would not follow any and all orders from Nixon. The Joint Chiefs deemed him to be unstable. And they let us know all the way down to the NCO level that this was happening. The system works and it works well. It prevents a President from trying to overthrow our Constitutionally elected Government by using the US Military. Some seem to fear that Trump may try doing something stupid with the Military but the Joint Chiefs are watching him like a hawk at all times. The second he goes all the way over the edge, he no longer has the support of the Military. And what ever orders they had prior will be in affect but no new orders will be followed until the situation is corrected by the Civilian Government.
We don't need to be able to walk down the street wearing a M-60 "Going for another Beer Run". Where does a guy with a M-60 sit? Anywhere he wants to. Unless the guy with the M-2 doesn't want him sitting there. I don't wish to live in that city. If we take the 2nd amendment exactly as written, that scenario could happen. But when those two get irritated, there is going to be a lot of flying lead and a lot of innocent deaths happen all at once. So we allow the States the ability for Due Process to place limits. "Within Reason". In the end, the 2nd amendment really needs to be amended to a more modern meaning.
First, the point that non-uniform forces equipped with small arms cannot stand up against modern militaries is incorrect. Look at Vietnam, Afghanistan v USSR, and v USA.Wow...I don’t know where you plucked that BS paraphrasing from, certainly was not from the second amendment. That’s just you inserting what you want the 2nd amendment to mean.The 2nd Amendment can be definitively paraphrased thus: The individual states have a right to defend themselves through maintenance of state militias. That being said, the Declaration of Independence acknowledges that individuals have an inalienable right to protect themselves. Unless/until the government can guarantee their personal safety, individuals have an inherent right to defend themselves by any reasonable means.
P.S. I don't give a shit how some judge "interprets" the plain language of these documents.
It’s funny you should say you don’t give a shit how some judge interprets the text, because your interpretation is so far off base. Ivy League constitutional law professors who are in favor of heavy gun control and outright bans think your interpretation is shit. What they say is repeal the 2nd and institute the gun control measures you want.
“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.”
Let’s start with the militia line. The militia was necessary because the founders worried about hostile coups and takeovers from a standing army, which they were against during peacetime. You know, the coups that we’re constantly happening during their time, all throughout history, and even currently today. Or the federal government could just use standing armies to bully the citizens into what they wanted to do, again like they saw around the world during their time, history, and in modern times. This is why the militia was necessary to the security of a free state. The militias were led by local leaders elected by the local people’s in their respective region. States could call upon their militias in times of need, but militias were still independently run entities. This is why they were terrible against other standing armies, like Great Britain during the revolutionary war, because it was like herding cats in and aiming them at an army that operated as a single unit. Now, what would happen if east Virginia passed a law that screwed over western Virginia, and western Virginia said f-that? The state could try to call upon the miltias from western Virginia to enforce their will, but they, being the people of western Virginia are the very same ones saying f-that, our militia will fight against your eastern militia if you send em. The militias were a check on power, both to the states and the federal government. A check that will make these Governments think twice before passing law that the people wouldn’t like. That’s the whole domestic part of the phrase “enemies foreign and domestic”. The foreign part is in times of invasion, the militias were to act as a stop gap, and hold off invasions as best as possible until a standing army could be raised up. It was recognized at the time that militias were terrible against other standing armies, but they could still slow them down. And if you’re trying to dance with the phrase “well regulated”, what that clearly meant at the time was well equipped, supplied, at the ready, etc. How do we know this? Well, it was how they used the word regulated in that era. Also, if people would use just a little bit of thinking, they’d realize it doesn’t really make sense to say “a well policed (controlled, monitored, etc) militia...the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” So, do you honestly think the founders would agree on a paradoxical statement and insert it into the BOR, that they spent years debating, but universally agreed on the 2nd amendment, and just over looked the conflicting statement? Do you also think that if the states were to control the militias, the founders who were so worried about a standing army as a threat, would let the states have their own standing armies, to possibly march on philly or DC without any military check on them?
Moving on to the second part of the text. Do you notice that whole line “the right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.” It’s easy to miss so I capitalized t for you. The right of the PEOPLE. It doesnt say states, it doesn’t say government, it doesn’t say officials, it says people. It isn’t at all weird to you that they left out how the states would care for and control their militias in the enumerated powers? It isn’t weird to you that they had just fought against a state, in a war that was sparked by that state trying to disarm them...but after that whole bloody debacle against all odds they said to themselves “okay, well we didn’t like it when they were trying to take away our arms, but it’s ok if we do it to or own citizens. That’s not weird to you at all?
The 2nd is not about the state protecting its people, it’s about the people protecting themselves and their freedom from the only entities that can threaten freedom, governments. Including, and especially, their own government. I love it people act like the interpretation of the Const. and BOR is oh so murky, and “well I think they meant it like this or that.” We have tons and tons of writings from the founders themselves on what exactly was intended, we don’t have to do a whole lotta guess work on this shit. The people who do simple just don’t like the constitution. Plain and simple.
Okay, we no longer have the need of the "Organized Militia" since the passage of the 1917 National Guard Act. In fact, the whole thing has become outdated for the same reason. The cost of war and the destruction of the weapons have far exceeded the needs and the abilities of any usable civilian capability. I agree, we do have the right to keep and bear arms. But at some point, we need to put the phrase "Within Reason" before that. Then we need to legally define what is within reason. Just plunking down the phrase, "the right to keep and bare arms" doesn't really mean a thing when you are trying to protect yourself from a rogue federal government.
You already stated that the real reason a Militia was used was so that the Federal Government could have the time to form a formal army. It was a stopgap or a slow down manner. Not intended to actually win. But to delay. What happens if it's your own Federal Government that is the transgressor? The power of the Federal Military is so powerful that any State Militia would be taken care of in a matter of hours and all State Representatives would be arrested. But what we have built into your Federal Military is Customs, Traditions and Regulations that prevent any President or any Leader from attempting to do this. Case in point. The last 3 days of Nixon, the Military went into a sit down period where they would not follow any and all orders from Nixon. The Joint Chiefs deemed him to be unstable. And they let us know all the way down to the NCO level that this was happening. The system works and it works well. It prevents a President from trying to overthrow our Constitutionally elected Government by using the US Military. Some seem to fear that Trump may try doing something stupid with the Military but the Joint Chiefs are watching him like a hawk at all times. The second he goes all the way over the edge, he no longer has the support of the Military. And what ever orders they had prior will be in affect but no new orders will be followed until the situation is corrected by the Civilian Government.
We don't need to be able to walk down the street wearing a M-60 "Going for another Beer Run". Where does a guy with a M-60 sit? Anywhere he wants to. Unless the guy with the M-2 doesn't want him sitting there. I don't wish to live in that city. If we take the 2nd amendment exactly as written, that scenario could happen. But when those two get irritated, there is going to be a lot of flying lead and a lot of innocent deaths happen all at once. So we allow the States the ability for Due Process to place limits. "Within Reason". In the end, the 2nd amendment really needs to be amended to a more modern meaning.
The U.S. Constitution does not say that at all. You guys don’t get to make up your own version of the U.S. Constitution simply because you don’t like the fact that the current version prevents you from oppressing your fellow citizens as you desire.Militias were subject to State control.
You realize that the word state is not in reference to individual states like Nebraska, but state as in governmental entity, right? Kind of like how the state department doesn’t actually deal with the domestic states but foreign states. Please tell me you didn’t think that.The militias were led by local leaders elected by the local people’s in their respective region. States could call upon their militias in times of need, but militias were still independently run entities.
Militias were subject to State control. How else would they be necessary to the security of a free State, and who would regulate them?
P.S. Voting for their officers does not contradict this. But thanks for the sanctimonious sarcasm.
P.P.S. I don't give a shit how you interpret this plain language, either.
Plus, couldn’t the states just determine what sort of gun control laws they wanted, and that would also turn the whole “right of the people to keep and bear arms” into a paradoxical law? This is what happens when you let too many like minded people get together who all believe the same stuff, and never here any contrarian arguments...you get nonsensical theories like this.The militias were led by local leaders elected by the local people’s in their respective region. States could call upon their militias in times of need, but militias were still independently run entities.
Militias were subject to State control. How else would they be necessary to the security of a free State, and who would regulate them?
P.S. Voting for their officers does not contradict this. But thanks for the sanctimonious sarcasm.
P.P.S. I don't give a shit how you interpret this plain language, either.
