The definitive guide to the 2nd Amendment

[Daryl Hunt]

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.

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.

What’s “within reason” to you?

That's the first time anyone has actually asked that question in here making it the 64,000 dollar question. One I would have to enter into a serious discussion with serious people. But it appears the last part is lacking. Care to start out?

 

[Daryl Hunt]

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".

Like I said earlier Daryl, despotic governments are by definition unreasonable. Thus ALL means to prevent their creation is allowed.

And exactly how could the US end up with a Despotic Government for longer than 2 years? In affect, we have a revolution every 2 to 4 years to prevent this from happening and a whole lot of safeties built in to prevent it as well. We aren't talking about any 3rd world country, we are discussing the United States.

 

[Lesh]

The Second Amendment staes that the "well regulated militia was the reason that "the right to bear arms" shall not be infringed.

Article 1 Section 8 gives part of the duties of that "well regulated and organized and trained militia" as putting down insurrection...and it was used that way several times in that time period in Shay's Rebellion and the Whiskey Rebellion.

That militia no longer exists...so the 2A has no real meaning.

The Constitution neither gives...nor takes away gun rights. It only looks at them in regard to a non-existent militia

 

[Daryl Hunt]

The Second Amendment staes that the "well regulated militia was the reason that "the right to bear arms" shall not be infringed.

Article 1 Section 8 gives part of the duties of that "well regulated and organized and trained militia" as putting down insurrection...and it was used that way several times in that time period in Shay's Rebellion and the Whiskey Rebellion.

That militia no longer exists...so the 2A has no real meaning.

The Constitution neither gives...nor takes away gun rights. It only looks at them in regard to a non-existent militia

I disagree. You do have the right to protect your home and your family in your home. You have the right to keep and bear this. I do believe that we need to rewrite the 2nd amendment to state this and throw the "Organized Militia" clause out since it has no meaning anymore. But it's been proven in court that you do have the right to possess, at a minimum, a handgun inside your home for home and family defense. And let no Government take that way from any of us.

 

[jwoodie]

The Second Amendment staes that the "well regulated militia was the reason that "the right to bear arms" shall not be infringed.

No, a well regulated militia was needed for the security of a free State. The federal government was prohibited from infringing on this right to bear arms. If free State meant the federal government, why would it be prohibited from defending itself against foreign states? At the time of Constitutional ratification, there were 13 free States. Duh.

 

[Natural Citizen]

...who would regulate them?

You're in dire need of reeducation.

Well regulated didn't mean what you think it does.

But, you know, statists gonna state.

 

[Natural Citizen]

That's the beauty of this Constitutional Republic.

More clearly, a compound Republic. See Federalist 51.

 

[Lesh]

Well regulated didn't mean what you think it does.

Well regulated militia is described in Article 1 section 8.
And it describes a militia with roll calls, rank, officers and training

And describes as one of its duties to put DOWN insurrections

So yea...it means what I think it means

 

[sakinago]

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.

What’s “within reason” to you?

That's the first time anyone has actually asked that question in here making it the 64,000 dollar question. One I would have to enter into a serious discussion with serious people. But it appears the last part is lacking. Care to start out?

Sure, but note that it’s a moot point until the second is repealed. Or at least it’s a non-constitutional point until it’s repealed.

 

[sakinago]

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".

Like I said earlier Daryl, despotic governments are by definition unreasonable. Thus ALL means to prevent their creation is allowed.

And exactly how could the US end up with a Despotic Government for longer than 2 years? In affect, we have a revolution every 2 to 4 years to prevent this from happening and a whole lot of safeties built in to prevent it as well. We aren't talking about any 3rd world country, we are discussing the United States.

That’s not much of a revolution. Especially considering the fact that people in power, whether elected or not, tend towards accumulating their power. So what they’re ousted in four years if the next guy wants the same thing as the last. That’s why a constitution and rule of law is important to follow. If there’s a bad/outdated law, don’t ignore it, enforce it until it’s repealed. Ignoring it just affords the power for someone to selectively enforce the law. Just because the Fed doesn’t like the 9th and 10th amendment, doesn’t mean they get the right to ignore it.

 

[westwall]

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".

Like I said earlier Daryl, despotic governments are by definition unreasonable. Thus ALL means to prevent their creation is allowed.

And exactly how could the US end up with a Despotic Government for longer than 2 years? In affect, we have a revolution every 2 to 4 years to prevent this from happening and a whole lot of safeties built in to prevent it as well. We aren't talking about any 3rd world country, we are discussing the United States.

Easy, you have a series of obummer style governments and voila, within a generation you are living in a police state.

 

[westwall]

The Second Amendment staes that the "well regulated militia was the reason that "the right to bear arms" shall not be infringed.

Article 1 Section 8 gives part of the duties of that "well regulated and organized and trained militia" as putting down insurrection...and it was used that way several times in that time period in Shay's Rebellion and the Whiskey Rebellion.

That militia no longer exists...so the 2A has no real meaning.

The Constitution neither gives...nor takes away gun rights. It only looks at them in regard to a non-existent militia

Then why does it explicitly say the INDIVIDUAL?

 

[Lesh]

Then why does it explicitly say the INDIVIDUAL?

It.....doesn't

WTF?

 

[sakinago]

The Second Amendment staes that the "well regulated militia was the reason that "the right to bear arms" shall not be infringed.

Article 1 Section 8 gives part of the duties of that "well regulated and organized and trained militia" as putting down insurrection...and it was used that way several times in that time period in Shay's Rebellion and the Whiskey Rebellion.

That militia no longer exists...so the 2A has no real meaning.

The Constitution neither gives...nor takes away gun rights. It only looks at them in regard to a non-existent militia

“The Court reasoned that the Amendment's prefatory clause, i.e., "[a] well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State," announced the Amendment's purpose, but did not limit or expand the scope of the operative clause, i.e., "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." Moreover, the prefatory clause's history comported with the Court's interpretation, because the prefatory clause stemmed from the Anti-Federalists' concern that the federal government would disarm the people in order to disable the citizens' militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule.”

Second Amendment - U.S. Constitution - FindLaw

You can thank Clayton for finding, misunderstanding, and posting that. And the militia does still exist. The point of the second amendment wasn’t for “common defense”, it was so that the state didn’t have a monopoly of force against its citizens. There was a hot debate at the time on whether or not to allow standing armies. That however was never a debate on replacing standing armies over militias. Even though standing armies are much more effective than militias at going up against other forces. They worried that standing armies could be used against citizens in a few different ways. The constitution and bill of rights is based on natural law philosophy. Government rendering their citizens harmless goes directly against natural law.

Why the hell do people read the constitution as if they’re trying to decode the Mayan calendar? We already know the intentions, because the founders wrote about it, a lot, debated it, a lot, and corresponded to each other with letters about it, a lot, and then came to this consensus. It’s not a freaking mystery. There is a shit ton of first hand sources on the matter. Imagine if Egyptologist has scores of records and journals from the pharaohs, but decided to ignore it, and try to formulate their own theories on what happened. We’d rightfully call them imbeciles. The people who pretend like it is want to cherry pick the parts they like, and be willfully blind to anything that doesn’t jive with them.

 

[Lesh]

The above was Scalia's tortured explanation for his insane Heller decision.

The militia exists?

Yea...according to the Dick Act it consists of ONLY males...under 45.

You gonna run with that?

Scalia knew it wouldn't fly so he decided to ignore the militia clause completely and overturn 150 years of settled law

 

[Rustic]

The above was Scalia's tortured explanation for his insane Heller decision.

The militia exists?

Yea...according to the Dick Act it consists of ONLY males...under 45.

You gonna run with that?

Scalia knew it wouldn't fly so he decided to ignore the militia clause completely and overturn 150 years of settled law

Na, not really
The Second Amendment is 100% an individual right

 

[P@triot]

The time period you are talking about didn't have any need for "Within Reason".

Well here’s the thing, sparky. Our founders built in a process allowing for the American people to adapt the U.S. Constitution for modern needs. So you have 0 excuse.

The problem is, you can’t accept the fact that you can’t get the votes you want and need to amend the U.S. Constitution. Well, too bad. We the People have spoken.

 

[P@triot]

What’s “within reason” to you?

That's the first time anyone has actually asked that question in here making it the 64,000 dollar question. One I would have to enter into a serious discussion with serious people. But it appears the last part is lacking. Care to start out?

I’ll start! What is “within reason” is abiding by the U.S. Constitution (it is, afterall, the highest law in the land). It clearly and indisputably states that the American people have the right to keep and bear arms. Not muskets. Not handguns. Arms. I can own them. I can carry them. They can be full automatic, semi automatic, or single shot revolver. There are no restrictions. None. The U.S. Constitution is crystal clear on that.

 

[sakinago]

Jesus where to start? Yes under the militia act, there is the organized militia (national guard), and unorganized militia. What on earth is the problem with only males under 45? Military aged males is a saying for a reason, because they are historically the ones who exclusively have been sent into combat, up until what, a few years ago? Sure there are certain exceptions to that, in desperate situations around the world, sparsely scattered through history. You watch too many movies if you think that females can beat the shit out of henchmen twice their size...I really don’t know what you’re trying to get at by questioning the fact they distinguished military aged males.

Scalia didn’t single handedly hand down this ruling either, not how the Supreme Court works buddy. Sorry you don’t like the dick act, but it’s there. Sorry you don’t like the fact SC judges paid attention to what the founders actually said about the 2nd amendment, and actually did their job, which is to simply give a thumbs up or down on constitutionalty (as opposed to what they want). Sorry they didn’t try to overlook that pretty freaking clear part of “the right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms.” Notice how it doesn’t say “right of the state” or “right of the militia”, but people? How does one misinterpret people? The word people crashes right through the legs of the absolute stretches you call arguments/interpretations right off the bat.

 

[westwall]

Then why does it explicitly say the INDIVIDUAL?

It.....doesn't

WTF?

"The RIGHT of the PEOPLE, to KEEP AND BEAR ARMS, shall not be infringed" Not the "Right of the State", So WTF are you talking about?