The definitive guide to the 2nd Amendment

[P@triot]

This really illustrates the extreme lengths the left will go, to achieve their agenda of control and oppression.

NPR: More than two-thirds of school shootings reported to feds in 2015-16 never happened

 

[Skull Pilot]

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?

That was a non-answer to a very direct question

 

[Daryl Hunt]

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.

Wow,that's pretty intense. But it's also so far off the ultra right wing scale it's not even funny. Actually, Obama's time had less to do with this than Reagan's time did. And neither really made any huge changes. It was done more by congress and the SC. Once again, your hatred for the Black Dude shows true.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

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.

Are you saying that the system is setup to prevent a Despotic Government from taking hold?

 

[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.

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.

Yes, there lies the problem. But in order to have the support to repeal it, a suitable replacement must be ready and pre approved to go. It can be passed by the Senate and the House and waiting for the Presidents Signature. When the 2nd is appealed by the Presidents signature after the 2/3rds Congressional vote then his next signature would have to be for the new replacement law. This is such a hot subject it may be decades for at least a century before it can be done. I wonder if we will last long enough to get it done.

 

[hadit]

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.

Yes, there lies the problem. But in order to have the support to repeal it, a suitable replacement must be ready and pre approved to go. It can be passed by the Senate and the House and waiting for the Presidents Signature. When the 2nd is appealed by the Presidents signature after the 2/3rds Congressional vote then his next signature would have to be for the new replacement law. This is such a hot subject it may be decades for at least a century before it can be done. I wonder if we will last long enough to get it done.

It's tougher than that. To repeal an amendment, you have to ratify a new one, and that requires 3/4 of the states as well as Congress. It's not easy.

 

[sakinago]

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.

Are you saying that the system is setup to prevent a Despotic Government from taking hold?

Not sure where you picked that up. No I don’t, I was refuting your point that we have revolutions every 2-4 years. We dont, instead we elect politicians who wish for the same growth of power, sometimes to different ends, but they wish for the same roots of powers. We also obviously do not follow the 9th and 10th amendments, which are pretty damn important, especially when going over the debate on whether or not to make a BOR between the federalists and anti-federalist. That debate was that a BOR might make government think that they had the powers that werent specifically prohibited by the bill of rights (which the 9th and 10th are designed to guard against). Some of the founders believed that actual bloody revolutions would happen somewhat frequently to roll back the power of government, which is why they believed in the importance of the second amendment. Pretty much all the founders had a good bit of concern that the people would become lazy, and allow government to grow past its means. That’s self-evident today.

 

[westwall]

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.

Wow,that's pretty intense. But it's also so far off the ultra right wing scale it's not even funny. Actually, Obama's time had less to do with this than Reagan's time did. And neither really made any huge changes. It was done more by congress and the SC. Once again, your hatred for the Black Dude shows true.

obummer is the first POTUS that we know of to have weaponized the Intel communities of the US and directed their resources at an opposing campaign. His abrogation of the COTUS repeatedly to advance his open borders philosophy is also well known. I don't hate obummer because he is black. I don't hate him at all. I voted for him the first time, but then when i witnessed his wholesale corruption I turned against him not because of his color but because he was obviously anti american.

It says a whole lot about you, and your lack of a cogent argument, that you attempt to make it about his race and not about his policies which is clearly the reason why we don't like him.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

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.

Yes, there lies the problem. But in order to have the support to repeal it, a suitable replacement must be ready and pre approved to go. It can be passed by the Senate and the House and waiting for the Presidents Signature. When the 2nd is appealed by the Presidents signature after the 2/3rds Congressional vote then his next signature would have to be for the new replacement law. This is such a hot subject it may be decades for at least a century before it can be done. I wonder if we will last long enough to get it done.

It's tougher than that. To repeal an amendment, you have to ratify a new one, and that requires 3/4 of the states as well as Congress. It's not easy.

Instead, we just chip away at it like we are doing today. Leaving it an empty vessel. The 2nd amendment no longer really has any meaning when you get right down to it. It's just there. The problem is, we have two sides, both as militant as the other battling both sides. The signal to noise ratio far exceeds the actual message.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

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.

Wow,that's pretty intense. But it's also so far off the ultra right wing scale it's not even funny. Actually, Obama's time had less to do with this than Reagan's time did. And neither really made any huge changes. It was done more by congress and the SC. Once again, your hatred for the Black Dude shows true.

obummer is the first POTUS that we know of to have weaponized the Intel communities of the US and directed their resources at an opposing campaign. His abrogation of the COTUS repeatedly to advance his open borders philosophy is also well known. I don't hate obummer because he is black. I don't hate him at all. I voted for him the first time, but then when i witnessed his wholesale corruption I turned against him not because of his color but because he was obviously anti american.

It says a whole lot about you, and your lack of a cogent argument, that you attempt to make it about his race and not about his policies which is clearly the reason why we don't like him.

And yet you support Trump, the one that drained the swamp of the Gators by replacing them with the Crocs.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

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.

Are you saying that the system is setup to prevent a Despotic Government from taking hold?

Not sure where you picked that up. No I don’t, I was refuting your point that we have revolutions every 2-4 years. We dont, instead we elect politicians who wish for the same growth of power, sometimes to different ends, but they wish for the same roots of powers. We also obviously do not follow the 9th and 10th amendments, which are pretty damn important, especially when going over the debate on whether or not to make a BOR between the federalists and anti-federalist. That debate was that a BOR might make government think that they had the powers that werent specifically prohibited by the bill of rights (which the 9th and 10th are designed to guard against). Some of the founders believed that actual bloody revolutions would happen somewhat frequently to roll back the power of government, which is why they believed in the importance of the second amendment. Pretty much all the founders had a good bit of concern that the people would become lazy, and allow government to grow past its means. That’s self-evident today.

We are not disagreeing at all. I push for the whole Constitution and not just the parts that I agree with. And the 9th and 10th are part of it. Without those the Feds would have run rampant over the states long ago and we might have had a Despot Government. But things like that, along with the Military USCJ, prevents that from happening. I believe what we are seeing right now is the cleanup of some of the corruption at the federal level. This needs to be widened and made into a totally separate entity that the Congress and the Executive Branch cannot control at all where party politics is largely removed. We are seeing it work.

 

[westwall]

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.

Wow,that's pretty intense. But it's also so far off the ultra right wing scale it's not even funny. Actually, Obama's time had less to do with this than Reagan's time did. And neither really made any huge changes. It was done more by congress and the SC. Once again, your hatred for the Black Dude shows true.

obummer is the first POTUS that we know of to have weaponized the Intel communities of the US and directed their resources at an opposing campaign. His abrogation of the COTUS repeatedly to advance his open borders philosophy is also well known. I don't hate obummer because he is black. I don't hate him at all. I voted for him the first time, but then when i witnessed his wholesale corruption I turned against him not because of his color but because he was obviously anti american.

It says a whole lot about you, and your lack of a cogent argument, that you attempt to make it about his race and not about his policies which is clearly the reason why we don't like him.

And yet you support Trump, the one that drained the swamp of the Gators by replacing them with the Crocs.

Yes, and his Admin has been FAR more transparent than obummers was. obummer campaigned on the promise that his would be the most transparent admin in history and it was the exact opposite. obummer actively targeted reporters he didn't like. Where else do we see that sort of behavior? Why from his buddy pootins russia, for one.

Face it daryl, trump is a buffoon, and an ass, but what he is not is a dictator wanna be, like obummer was.

 

[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.

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.

Yes, there lies the problem. But in order to have the support to repeal it, a suitable replacement must be ready and pre approved to go. It can be passed by the Senate and the House and waiting for the Presidents Signature. When the 2nd is appealed by the Presidents signature after the 2/3rds Congressional vote then his next signature would have to be for the new replacement law. This is such a hot subject it may be decades for at least a century before it can be done. I wonder if we will last long enough to get it done.

Oh, if you’re worried about guns being the cause to America falling, then I think your view on that is heavily skewed. We’ve had automatics for 100 years, and up until recently they’ve been effectively banned. Let’s not forget about Switzerland, where you are issued a fully automatic assault rifle, and can walk down the street with it as you please. It’s also basically the safest place on earth. Guns are just not the problem, whatever way you want to slice it.

 

[sakinago]

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.

Yes, there lies the problem. But in order to have the support to repeal it, a suitable replacement must be ready and pre approved to go. It can be passed by the Senate and the House and waiting for the Presidents Signature. When the 2nd is appealed by the Presidents signature after the 2/3rds Congressional vote then his next signature would have to be for the new replacement law. This is such a hot subject it may be decades for at least a century before it can be done. I wonder if we will last long enough to get it done.

It's tougher than that. To repeal an amendment, you have to ratify a new one, and that requires 3/4 of the states as well as Congress. It's not easy.

Instead, we just chip away at it like we are doing today. Leaving it an empty vessel. The 2nd amendment no longer really has any meaning when you get right down to it. It's just there. The problem is, we have two sides, both as militant as the other battling both sides. The signal to noise ratio far exceeds the actual message.

It certainly has plenty of meaning for those who live in Mexico, Venezuela, China, etc, and who don’t have it. Is there a low chance today of our government going despotic, sure, but that becomes a much easier path once you disarm your people, and still happens even when citizens are armed. The world we live in is in constant flux, and it’s naive to think that things will stay this way forever, or even as far off as we think we can conceive. 3 years ago you would’ve laughed at the idea of trump becoming president, 2 years ago the same, even on Election Day many thought it wasn’t possible. That’s a mere 3 years ago. How on earth do you think you can predict what will happen in 10?

 

[Cecilie1200]

You got to read it like it was then not now, the context is all about the individual. The founding fathers told England to fuck off, the Second Amendment is all about telling an overbearing government to fuck off

In other words...you like Scalia...are making it up as you go along

Na, It doesn’t get any clearer than shall not be infringed

It doesn't gt any clearer than
"A Well Regulated Militia Being Necessary..."

Look up "prefatory clause", assuming it doesn't have too many syllables for you to handle.

A prefatory clause is a precursor to the operative clause. The operative clause states what must be done. The prefatory clause states why it should be done. For example, the second amendment to the United States Constitution is a prefatory clause followed by an operative clause. The first part of the amendment states ''a well-regulated militia, being necessary to the condition of a free state.'' This is the prefatory clause. The second part of the amendment states ''the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.'' This is the operative clause.

WHY IT SHOULD BE DONE. Without the "why" the rest makes no sense

Did it escape your notice that NONE of this indicates that the prefatory clause modifies or restricts the operatve clause? It's almost like listing a reason for doing something has no effect on what that something is.

I won't even bother addressing your absurd notion that "militia" meant to people in the 18th century what it means to modern-day illiterates like you, because your post has already put me dangerously close to my daily quota of immature silliness.

 

[sakinago]

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.

Are you saying that the system is setup to prevent a Despotic Government from taking hold?

Not sure where you picked that up. No I don’t, I was refuting your point that we have revolutions every 2-4 years. We dont, instead we elect politicians who wish for the same growth of power, sometimes to different ends, but they wish for the same roots of powers. We also obviously do not follow the 9th and 10th amendments, which are pretty damn important, especially when going over the debate on whether or not to make a BOR between the federalists and anti-federalist. That debate was that a BOR might make government think that they had the powers that werent specifically prohibited by the bill of rights (which the 9th and 10th are designed to guard against). Some of the founders believed that actual bloody revolutions would happen somewhat frequently to roll back the power of government, which is why they believed in the importance of the second amendment. Pretty much all the founders had a good bit of concern that the people would become lazy, and allow government to grow past its means. That’s self-evident today.

We are not disagreeing at all. I push for the whole Constitution and not just the parts that I agree with. And the 9th and 10th are part of it. Without those the Feds would have run rampant over the states long ago and we might have had a Despot Government. But things like that, along with the Military USCJ, prevents that from happening. I believe what we are seeing right now is the cleanup of some of the corruption at the federal level. This needs to be widened and made into a totally separate entity that the Congress and the Executive Branch cannot control at all where party politics is largely removed. We are seeing it work.

I don’t see much of it at work. The enumerated powers that the 9th and 10th refer are incredibly limiting when compared to what the fed is doing now. And while the trump administration is cutting back on regulations (coming down from non-elected officials), it’s not like they’re cutting back on the executive branches abilty to pass or remove these regulations. What happens when the next guy gets in? We aren’t seeing it with the legislative branch, they are letting the executive branch do much of their job, which is simply create legislation. And in their specific duties like the “power of the purse” they aren’t voting on different items, but instead keep throwing items into this overflowing pot of gumbo they keep rubber stamping every year. We aren’t really seeing it from the judicial branch either, they’ve been pretty derelict in their duty, which is giving a thumbs up or down on constitutionality. They seem to think they are the new lawmakers too.

The only way to reduce the amount of party politics is to reduce the fed government to what it was meant to be. Who cares if we elect the next hitler or Stalin as president, the amount of control they’ll actually have would be so minuscule it’d have little effect on our lives. Why we are so polarized today is probably because of the stakes being so much higher, with so much more federal control. At least I think that’s part of it.

 

[Lesh]

Did it escape your notice that NONE of this indicates that the prefatory clause modifies or restricts the operatve clause? It's almost like listing a reason for doing something has no effect on what that something is.

Huh?

A Well Regulated Militia being necessary to security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed

It's a really short and simple amendment and the framers were very careful about the words and phrasing they used.

The militia clause...which those who would like to ignore call a prefatory clause...explains why that which follows is there.

The right to bear arms ABSOLUTELY was there because of the need for a militia (at that time...since we neither had nor wanted a large standing army).

And elsewhere in the Constitution that "well regulated militia" is described ( Article 1 Section 8) and it describes a militia with rank, and officers, and roll calls, and training.

And part of its duties were to PUT DOWN the kind of insurrection the gun huggers claim the militia would empower. In fact several times during that period the militia was USED in just that way (Shay's rebellion and the Whiskey Rebellion)

The Dick Act essentially abolished the "well regulated militia" but allowed for an "unorganized militia" which ONLY has at its members MALES ...UNDER 45

 

[sakinago]

In other words...you like Scalia...are making it up as you go along

Na, It doesn’t get any clearer than shall not be infringed

It doesn't gt any clearer than
"A Well Regulated Militia Being Necessary..."

Look up "prefatory clause", assuming it doesn't have too many syllables for you to handle.

A prefatory clause is a precursor to the operative clause. The operative clause states what must be done. The prefatory clause states why it should be done. For example, the second amendment to the United States Constitution is a prefatory clause followed by an operative clause. The first part of the amendment states ''a well-regulated militia, being necessary to the condition of a free state.'' This is the prefatory clause. The second part of the amendment states ''the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.'' This is the operative clause.

WHY IT SHOULD BE DONE. Without the "why" the rest makes no sense

Did it escape your notice that NONE of this indicates that the prefatory clause modifies or restricts the operatve clause? It's almost like listing a reason for doing something has no effect on what that something is.

I won't even bother addressing your absurd notion that "militia" meant to people in the 18th century what it means to modern-day illiterates like you, because your post has already put me dangerously close to my daily quota of immature silliness.

The why, in why CITIZENS militias were necessary is because a free state does not exist when the state has the monopoly of force. The constitution is based on natural law. God/nature gives us the ability of free will, therefore governments function is to secure freedom. God/nature gives us the ability to speak=free speech. God/nature gives us the ability to defend ourselves from whatever threats come our way, no matter what uniform they have on=second amendment. If the second amendment was just about the government providing “security” for the people, they would’ve went with the standing army over the militia. This is because militias suck against standing armies. There was a debate at the time whether or not to have a standing army, but never was it aimed to replace militias because the founders universally agreed that citizens needed to be armed in case the government got out of hand. Remember the people have the right to abolish the government that fails to uphold their liberties. Considering it’s pretty rare for people in power to just relinquish that power without a fight should be a pretty clear indication of the “why” behind the prefatory clause. To which we get the next clause stating therefore “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” That’s not immature silliness, it’s simply not being so naive to think “well the government isn’t full blown turning on me now, therefore they’ll never do so in the future.”

Again, we’re not trying to decode ancient Sumarian hieroglyphs here, the intentions behind the second amendment were very clear. We have a shit ton of first hand accounts on the matter. If you don’t like the second amendment, repeal it, instead of trying to mentally squeeze a square peg in a round hole. It comes off as whiny.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Did it escape your notice that NONE of this indicates that the prefatory clause modifies or restricts the operatve clause? It's almost like listing a reason for doing something has no effect on what that something is.

Huh?

A Well Regulated Militia being necessary to security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed

It's a really short and simple amendment and the framers were very careful about the words and phrasing they used.

The militia clause...which those who would like to ignore call a prefatory clause...explains why that which follows is there.

The right to bear arms ABSOLUTELY was there because of the need for a militia (at that time...since we neither had nor wanted a large standing army).

And elsewhere in the Constitution that "well regulated militia" is described ( Article 1 Section 8) and it describes a militia with rank, and officers, and roll calls, and training.

And part of its duties were to PUT DOWN the kind of insurrection the gun huggers claim the militia would empower. In fact several times during that period the militia was USED in just that way (Shay's rebellion and the Whiskey Rebellion)

The Dick Act essentially abolished the "well regulated militia" but allowed for an "unorganized militia" which ONLY has at its members MALES ...UNDER 45

Okay, let's take this from the top. Today's history lesson is no charge.

1) Yes, the Framers WERE careful about the words and phrasing. That would be why the operative phrase - "operative" meaning "the part that actually DOES something" - states the right of the PEOPLE. Had they meant this Amendment to arm militias, they would have said so.

2) The need for a militia WAS an important concern, which is why it's the one mentioned in the Second Amendment. What's your point?

3) Specifically, Article 1, Section 8 does NOT refer to a "well-regulated militia". What it says is this: "To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions; To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;"

However, there is a point you failed to consider in your "Aha!" moment because you thought you proved . . . I have no idea what. That point is that the very existence of this Article invalidates your theory that the Second Amendment enables and protects militias being armed, because it specifically allows that already. If the Second Amendment were for the purpose you claim it is, it would be redundant. And as we already established, the Framers were very careful in their wording.

4) One could reasonable assume that, were our government to be so tyrannical that the common people felt the need for armed rebellion, that would by definition preclude those same people from answering a call from the government for a militia. I'd say that the Framers, given that they themselves rebelled against a tyrannical government and that's WHY they were the Framers, probably had something a bit different in mind than you think they did.

5) In re: The Dick Act: what's your point?

In future, it would be nice if I didn't have to spend quite so much time asking, "What's your point?" and you just made it clearly the first go-round. Thanks in advance.

 

[sakinago]

Did it escape your notice that NONE of this indicates that the prefatory clause modifies or restricts the operatve clause? It's almost like listing a reason for doing something has no effect on what that something is.

Huh?

A Well Regulated Militia being necessary to security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed

It's a really short and simple amendment and the framers were very careful about the words and phrasing they used.

The militia clause...which those who would like to ignore call a prefatory clause...explains why that which follows is there.

The right to bear arms ABSOLUTELY was there because of the need for a militia (at that time...since we neither had nor wanted a large standing army).

And elsewhere in the Constitution that "well regulated militia" is described ( Article 1 Section 8) and it describes a militia with rank, and officers, and roll calls, and training.

And part of its duties were to PUT DOWN the kind of insurrection the gun huggers claim the militia would empower. In fact several times during that period the militia was USED in just that way (Shay's rebellion and the Whiskey Rebellion)

The Dick Act essentially abolished the "well regulated militia" but allowed for an "unorganized militia" which ONLY has at its members MALES ...UNDER 45

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.—That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles, and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness… it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.”

Kind of hard to do the above with nerf guns. There is a why behind why the founders believed the militia was necessary. This should be the question you ask yourself next. They wrote about it a lot.

And the fed could call up the militias in times of need, since they didn’t have a standing army. That is, if the militias were obliged to do so. The government had to make sure they weren’t the reason the militias were coming after them, and actually would have militias want to come to their defense. That’s the whole point of having armed citizens, the government is less inclined to fuck with them.