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.
Ok, that one isn’t accurate at all. The Afghans were getting blown off of the map until we heavily armed them. The biggest game changer being the “Stinger” missiles we supplied them with. They were shoulder fired heat-seeking missiles that brought down Soviet jets and helicopters. Without our “military-grade” weapons, the U.S.S.R. would have in fact wiped out the Afghans.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
Ok, that one isn’t accurate at all. The Afghans were getting blown off of the map until we heavily armed them. The biggest game changer being the “Stinger” missiles we supplied them with. They were shoulder fired heat-seeking missiles that brought down Soviet jets and helicopters. Without our “military-grade” weapons, the U.S.S.R. would have in fact wiped out the Afghans.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
The U.S. Constitution does not say that at all.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?
That certainly made it vastly more expensive for the Soviet’s, and really accelerated the drop in moral for the war. The moral was already dropping, it was a long war with little overall progress after the initial progress, much like our war with them. Add on to that choppers getting swatted out of the sky and many more men dying, we would’ve pulled out much sooner too. Our stingers sent over most certainly helped, because without choppers, operating in that terrain is a nightmare. Even then with the stingers, that is still an example of a third world guerilla army repelling a military superpower with an Air Force, armored division, etc.Ok, that one isn’t accurate at all. The Afghans were getting blown off of the map until we heavily armed them. The biggest game changer being the “Stinger” missiles we supplied them with. They were shoulder fired heat-seeking missiles that brought down Soviet jets and helicopters. Without our “military-grade” weapons, the U.S.S.R. would have in fact wiped out the Afghans.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
You realize that the word state is not in reference to individual states like Nebraska, but state as in governmental entity, right?
Wrong. The 2nd Amendment was a limit on federal power, so the idea that it was to be defended by militias is nonsensical. If the "state" meant the federal government, why would it be restricted in defending itself?
Okay wow, you really thought that “free state” meant the states. I’m getting the sense that if I have to explain this, I’m crossing over into the realm of casting pearls before swine. The “free state” is reference to a nation based on freedom and natural law. The philosophy of the founders at the time was that a free state does not exist when governments have a monopoly on the ability to enact force. Or at least that freedom would be short lived in the context of history. The “free state” includes the federal government, the state governments, and the citizens of that country. Are states a check on the federal government yes, localities are also a check on the state. Especially considering that in many states, they have a large population condensed in large cities, and sparse populations in rural counties. So those rural counties need some sort check against a heavily populated city telling the rural folks how to live, how they’ll get taxed, etc. There’s nothing stopping the state from being just as oppressive as the federal government, in your interpretation that I’ve honeslty never heard anyone else try to claim...probably because it’s extremely widely understood the meaning of the “free state”. Do you think the founders forget to make “state” plural? There was 13 of them at the time. The whole philosophy of the time was that government itself is the biggest danger to freedom, that it was like a fire, useful tool but with a fearful master, because fire can grow and start burning shit down quickly.You realize that the word state is not in reference to individual states like Nebraska, but state as in governmental entity, right?
Wrong. The 2nd Amendment was a limit on federal power, so the idea that it was to be defended by militias is nonsensical. If the "state" meant the federal government, why would it be restricted in defending itself?
LolWow...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.
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 2nd Amendment isn't about government power daryl. How many times does this have to be explained to you. The Bill of Rights is nine limits on what government can do to the individual, and one final option. That final option is the power to REMOVE an illegitimate government. That's what that inconvenient truth of the 2nd is for. To get rid of government people who are violating the COTUS.
That's the beauty of this Constitutional Republic. We don't swear allegiance to a person, or people, we swear allegiance to an idea. An idea that is codified in our CONSTITUTION.
Do you think the founders forget to make “state” plural? There was 13 of them at the time.
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 2nd Amendment isn't about government power daryl. How many times does this have to be explained to you. The Bill of Rights is nine limits on what government can do to the individual, and one final option. That final option is the power to REMOVE an illegitimate government. That's what that inconvenient truth of the 2nd is for. To get rid of government people who are violating the COTUS.
That's the beauty of this Constitutional Republic. We don't swear allegiance to a person, or people, we swear allegiance to an idea. An idea that is codified in our CONSTITUTION.
I agree as long as you preceded it with "Within Reason" and that seems to have been left out from the 2nd amendment.
What’s “within reason” to you?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 2nd Amendment isn't about government power daryl. How many times does this have to be explained to you. The Bill of Rights is nine limits on what government can do to the individual, and one final option. That final option is the power to REMOVE an illegitimate government. That's what that inconvenient truth of the 2nd is for. To get rid of government people who are violating the COTUS.
That's the beauty of this Constitutional Republic. We don't swear allegiance to a person, or people, we swear allegiance to an idea. An idea that is codified in our CONSTITUTION.
I agree as long as you preceded it with "Within Reason" and that seems to have been left out from the 2nd amendment.
The question of state sovereignty vs Fed is answered in the enumerated powers, the supremacy clause, and the 10th amendment. Anything listed in enumerated powers to the federal government, the fed gets supremacy over conflicting state laws, through the supremacy clause. The 10th amendment says, anything not listed in enumerated powers goes to the state. The 9th states anything not listed goes to the people.Do you think the founders forget to make “state” plural? There was 13 of them at the time.
Your arguments are increasingly nonsensical. The question of State Sovereignty vs. federal authority was not decided until the Civil War. Further, ratification of the Constitution required the affirmative votes of 11 individual States. Even so, these ratifications were conditional on additional restraints on federal power (the first ten Amendments). The "founders" did not propose the 2nd Amendment; it was demanded by individual State legislatures as protection against a federal government.
Do you honestly still believe that the “free state” is referring to the states? I can’t believe I’m having this conversation.
Proving once again that armed citizens do not become victims (and victims is what the left wants).“By our count, the US makes up less than 1.43% of the mass public shooters, 2.11% of their murders, and 2.88% of their attacks. All these are much less than the US’s 4.6% share of the world population. Attacks in the US are not only less frequent than other countries, they are also much less deadly on average,” the study found.
And no the BOR applies to all government forms, including states.
And no the BOR applies to all government forms, including states.
Wrong again:
- Incorporation of the Bill of Rights - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incorporation_of_the_Bill...
Incorporation, in United States law, is the doctrine by which portions of the Bill of Rights have been made applicable to the states.When the Bill of Rights was first ratified, courts held that its protections only extended to the actions of the federal government and that the Bill of Rights did not place limitations on the authority of state and local governments.
Wow, I’m gonna make a separate thread with a poll for this one. Free state is synonymous with free nation. I find it boarderline incredulous that you actually think that state (singular) is in reference to the states, and not too the nation.Do you honestly still believe that the “free state” is referring to the states? I can’t believe I’m having this conversation.
Yes, it referred to each individual State. I can't believe you no nothing about the history of the United States* of America, much less the adoption of its Constitution. If the security of a free federal State was so important, why was it not included when submitted to the States (reference Articles of Confederation) instead of added as a condition of ratification by those States?
*Do you think "States" was a misspelling?
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 2nd Amendment isn't about government power daryl. How many times does this have to be explained to you. The Bill of Rights is nine limits on what government can do to the individual, and one final option. That final option is the power to REMOVE an illegitimate government. That's what that inconvenient truth of the 2nd is for. To get rid of government people who are violating the COTUS.
That's the beauty of this Constitutional Republic. We don't swear allegiance to a person, or people, we swear allegiance to an idea. An idea that is codified in our CONSTITUTION.
I agree as long as you preceded it with "Within Reason" and that seems to have been left out from the 2nd amendment.
There is no "reasoning" with a despotic government. That's why there is no "within reason" in the 2nd Amendment. You forget daryl, the first artillery unit in the USA was a PRIVATE artillery Company, it still exists today as a philanthropic society, but they were founded in Boston as a private artillery unit and they fought in all of our wars up to the present day. As a complete unit throughout all of our wars up until the Span Am War.
Add to that the well known usage of Privateers during the Revolution, and after, with their floating artillery batteries, and once again "reasonable' was in no was a facet of the US Constitution. It is an absolutist document.
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.
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 2nd Amendment isn't about government power daryl. How many times does this have to be explained to you. The Bill of Rights is nine limits on what government can do to the individual, and one final option. That final option is the power to REMOVE an illegitimate government. That's what that inconvenient truth of the 2nd is for. To get rid of government people who are violating the COTUS.
That's the beauty of this Constitutional Republic. We don't swear allegiance to a person, or people, we swear allegiance to an idea. An idea that is codified in our CONSTITUTION.
I agree as long as you preceded it with "Within Reason" and that seems to have been left out from the 2nd amendment.
There is no "reasoning" with a despotic government. That's why there is no "within reason" in the 2nd Amendment. You forget daryl, the first artillery unit in the USA was a PRIVATE artillery Company, it still exists today as a philanthropic society, but they were founded in Boston as a private artillery unit and they fought in all of our wars up to the present day. As a complete unit throughout all of our wars up until the Span Am War.
Add to that the well known usage of Privateers during the Revolution, and after, with their floating artillery batteries, and once again "reasonable' was in no was a facet of the US Constitution. It is an absolutist document.
The time period you are talking about didn't have any need for "Within Reason". But we out grew the "Reasonable" and blew clean past the "Unreasonable".
