The REAL purpose of 2nd Amendment; The no B.S. truth

[DiamondDave]

JoeB: The scotus can grant itself power because it determined it can grant itself power... PRICELESS

and of course.. you can only have a right if someone else feels good about it... but of course that don't matter if it is a right they want and others don't like it

If I have the constitutional right.. and I wish to exercise it by buying a 100 round drum while someone else decides on 10 10 shot magazines, so be it... if I wish to exercise it with a .50cal rather than a .22, so be it... your comfort and your fear mean nothing to my rights as a law abiding citizen.. and the SCOTUS does not get to revoke a right.. and I would LOVE to see it try

 

[Pete7469]

[q

So now those not liberal are for dirty water and air?? Are against early warning systems?? Nice leap

[....

Not a leap at all. Post Reagan, the GOP has fought against any of these things if they cut into profits of big corporations.

Not to mention you liberTARDians, think all those things are things the government shouldn't do.

Huge leap (and like how you ignored the actual amendment posting that showed what you claimed was not true.. we'll just take that as your admitting you were wrong)... being for profits is not being for dirty air and water...

Now... there are many of us with common sense that do not put the fate of a snail or a fish above the livelihood of a farmer or the need for energy

Government should only do what it is constitutionally CHARGED to do.. you want it to do more.. there is an AMENDMENT process.... you don't get to do it because one branch (I.E. the SC) says you can... as stated, the government does not get to simply grant itself new powers, whether it be via decree of itself or via another branch, or whatever

If these bed wetters what more government, why don't they take their ignorant asses to europe, or NK? They can have all the government they like there, they can be regulated all they like, and even starved to death on a collective farm.

Why can't these assholes allow humanity to have one country on earth that people can enjoy freedom in as the founders intended?

As a side note I have a serious concern with our clean air supply. Bed wetting facsist retards like JoeB are depleting it, and stealing oxygen from the rest of us.

 

[OldUSAFSniper]

Taking guns away from citizens: Nope.

Next fantasy...

 

[Wry Catcher]

the 2nd was, and is, meant to allow citizens to fight WITH their government, NOT against it.

If that were true, they would have written it that way.

But they didn't.

It simply says that the right of the people cannot be taken away or restricted. And it provides an explanation why... but makes no conditions on its mandate.

Even if somebody managed to prove that a well-regulated militia were NOT necessary for the security of a free states, the 2nd would still be a command that the right shall not be infringed. Period.

Much to the disappointment of left-wing fanatics.

You're entitled to your opinion but not your own facts. Left-Wing Fanatics likely relish the idea of easy to obtain military style weapons for they are generally interested in change NOW; they're revolutionaries. They do not believe in the rule of law, or generally care who gets hurt when they act. No different than Right-Wings Fanatics, aka, Radicals.

Moderates, both conservative and liberal, understand that some controls are necessary to limit access of guns capable of mass destruction of human beings and keep these and other guns out of the hands of Revolutionaries, Radicals, the Mentally Ill and Violent Felons.

The NRA and others who profit personally as gun purveyors have seen the carnage caused by guns and simply don't care. They use the Second Amendment as cover, claiming Liberty demands that no restrictions on guns are constitutional and one restriction will lead to another and eventually to the confiscation of all guns from citizens.

 

[martybegan]

the 2nd was, and is, meant to allow citizens to fight WITH their government, NOT against it.

If that were true, they would have written it that way.

But they didn't.

It simply says that the right of the people cannot be taken away or restricted. And it provides an explanation why... but makes no conditions on its mandate.

Even if somebody managed to prove that a well-regulated militia were NOT necessary for the security of a free states, the 2nd would still be a command that the right shall not be infringed. Period.

Much to the disappointment of left-wing fanatics.

You're entitled to your opinion but not your own facts. Left-Wing Fanatics likely relish the idea of easy to obtain military style weapons for they are generally interested in change NOW; they're revolutionaries. They do not believe in the rule of law, or generally care who gets hurt when they act. No different than Right-Wings Fanatics, aka, Radicals.

Moderates, both conservative and liberal, understand that some controls are necessary to limit access of guns capable of mass destruction of human beings and keep these and other guns out of the hands of Revolutionaries, Radicals, the Mentally Ill and Violent Felons.

The NRA and others who profit personally as gun purveyors have seen the carnage caused by guns and simply don't care. They use the Second Amendment as cover, claiming Liberty demands that no restrictions on guns are constitutional and one restriction will lead to another and eventually to the confiscation of all guns from citizens.

change any reference you have in your tirade from "guns" to "free speech" and the NRA to the ACLU and I would assume you would support the same restrictions?

And we KNOW the overall goal is to keep the control of weapons with the government only, its been stated by gun controllers all along.

 

[hunarcy]

The right of the people as a group, not as individuals, is what is guaranteed not to be infringed.

So, only groups are to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures?

Individuals don't have a right to peacefully assemble with other individuals?

 

[hunarcy]

Because the 2nd amendment itself uses the word "militia." Never heard of a militia that included just 1 person.

And yet, it doesn't say, "...the right of the militia to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." which shows your argument is invalid.

 

[M14 Shooter]

But much to the disappointment of right wing fanatics, the 2nd was, and is, meant to allow citizens to fight WITH their government, NOT against it.

The militia was purposed with, among other things, assisting or resisting the standing army as necessary.

Of course, as the Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home, any talk of service with the miliitia is moot.

 

[M14 Shooter]

The right of the people as a group, not as individuals, is what is guaranteed not to be infringed.

Wrong. All the other amendments grant rights to invididuals, not people in general. Why should the 2nd be any different?

Because the 2nd amendment itself uses the word "militia." Never heard of a militia that included just 1 person.

The 2nd protects the right of the people.
Not the militia, not the state - the people.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Stalkers and Shooters: A History of Snipers: Kevin Dockery: 9780425215425: Amazon.com: Books

Read this book last weekend, "Stalkers and Shooters: History of Snipers"; it was fantastic. Documents the history of snipers, from the early 1300's with arrows, up to the Revolutionary and Civil Wars, all the way to modern day military and swat snipers fighting terrorism. More of a detailed history than techincal teaching book.

Anyway, it spoke about the 2nd Amendment. And the real meaning of it within context of what was going on in the country at the time. This is not a political book. Its for no-B.S. military and police people. And here is basically how it lays it out:

The Revolutionary War depended a lot on volunteer militia to fight alongside official military. The problem was, the militia were being provided ammo by the regular troops, and they had to make 7 different types of ammo due to the militia all having different rifles.

The Revolutionary War was turned in large part due to American snipers and their marksmanship and guerilla tactics. They fought ALONGSIDE their government's official troops to fight off the British.

So, to put it bluntly, as the book lays it out, the CONTEXT of the idea behind the 2nd Amendment immediately after the Revolutionary War was a "well regulated" militia, MEANING that the standing government could provide ammunition in times of emergency to the citizens, and with "well regulated" militia, they'd all have a standard caliber ammo so the government could focus on mass producing one type of ammo, and thus, supply as much ammo as possible to it's people.

And that would allow the people to fight ALONG SIDE the regular troops in times of national defense.

THAT, in my opinion, is the true, no bullshit meaning, with historical context and purpose. To have armed citizens, in a common caliber of ammo, that the government can open up the hordes of ammo to should a national emergency or invasion happen.

Its not to allow the citizens to fight against their own government, its to allow them to fight WITH their government. The Revolutionary War showed this, when the Americans tried to supply 7 different types of ammo to the militia, and it was hard, so they determined that a "well regulated" (aka, common caliber) amongst the militia would be a good idea.

And it is. The standard ammo of choice seems to be 5.56/.223, 12 guage, and .45 or 9mm, all very common rounds that the federal, state and local governments use. And they are very popular among citizens.

It seems the 2nd Amendment works, accidentally or on purpose, in that if America were subjected to a mass invasion, the governments could distribute ammo to the people, most of whom would have guns that could fire the most common calibers government uses.



But much to the disappointment of right wing fanatics, the 2nd was, and is, meant to allow citizens to fight WITH their government, NOT against it.

At the time of the revolution the british WERE the government, and both the continental army and the milita were traitors to the government that was in effect. The continental government was initally not recognized as such, and was thus little more than a more organized group of traitors to the British crown.

The fact that the 2nd amendment didnt even exist at the time of the revolution is also a glaring hole in the books premise.

How is it a hole in the book's premise?

The constitution of the U.S. was written to set up a new government. They founders mistakenly thought they would need state militias to defend the new government. They didn't foresee how powerful the federal army would become. They modern standing army renders the 2nd amendment obsolete.

The 2nd protects the right of the people from actions against it by the government.
At no other point in time has it been more clear just how much that protection is needed than now.
Obsolete? It's never been more necessary.

 

[M14 Shooter]

the 2nd was, and is, meant to allow citizens to fight WITH their government, NOT against it.

If that were true, they would have written it that way.

But they didn't.

It simply says that the right of the people cannot be taken away or restricted. And it provides an explanation why... but makes no conditions on its mandate.

Even if somebody managed to prove that a well-regulated militia were NOT necessary for the security of a free states, the 2nd would still be a command that the right shall not be infringed. Period.
Much to the disappointment of left-wing fanatics.

The right of the people as a group, not as individuals, is what is guaranteed not to be infringed.

This statement cannot be soundly supported.

 

[Spoonman]

Stalkers and Shooters: A History of Snipers: Kevin Dockery: 9780425215425: Amazon.com: Books

Read this book last weekend, "Stalkers and Shooters: History of Snipers"; it was fantastic. Documents the history of snipers, from the early 1300's with arrows, up to the Revolutionary and Civil Wars, all the way to modern day military and swat snipers fighting terrorism. More of a detailed history than techincal teaching book.

Anyway, it spoke about the 2nd Amendment. And the real meaning of it within context of what was going on in the country at the time. This is not a political book. Its for no-B.S. military and police people. And here is basically how it lays it out:

The Revolutionary War depended a lot on volunteer militia to fight alongside official military. The problem was, the militia were being provided ammo by the regular troops, and they had to make 7 different types of ammo due to the militia all having different rifles.

The Revolutionary War was turned in large part due to American snipers and their marksmanship and guerilla tactics. They fought ALONGSIDE their government's official troops to fight off the British.

So, to put it bluntly, as the book lays it out, the CONTEXT of the idea behind the 2nd Amendment immediately after the Revolutionary War was a "well regulated" militia, MEANING that the standing government could provide ammunition in times of emergency to the citizens, and with "well regulated" militia, they'd all have a standard caliber ammo so the government could focus on mass producing one type of ammo, and thus, supply as much ammo as possible to it's people.

And that would allow the people to fight ALONG SIDE the regular troops in times of national defense.

THAT, in my opinion, is the true, no bullshit meaning, with historical context and purpose. To have armed citizens, in a common caliber of ammo, that the government can open up the hordes of ammo to should a national emergency or invasion happen.

Its not to allow the citizens to fight against their own government, its to allow them to fight WITH their government. The Revolutionary War showed this, when the Americans tried to supply 7 different types of ammo to the militia, and it was hard, so they determined that a "well regulated" (aka, common caliber) amongst the militia would be a good idea.

And it is. The standard ammo of choice seems to be 5.56/.223, 12 guage, and .45 or 9mm, all very common rounds that the federal, state and local governments use. And they are very popular among citizens.

It seems the 2nd Amendment works, accidentally or on purpose, in that if America were subjected to a mass invasion, the governments could distribute ammo to the people, most of whom would have guns that could fire the most common calibers government uses.



But much to the disappointment of right wing fanatics, the 2nd was, and is, meant to allow citizens to fight WITH their government, NOT against it.

Nice spin attempt, but when I want the true meaning of the 2nd amendment, I'll read the writings of James Madison. The guy who wrote it. Funny how his writings say just the opposite

 

[Spoonman]

Wrong. All the other amendments grant rights to invididuals, not people in general. Why should the 2nd be any different?

Because the 2nd amendment itself uses the word "militia." Never heard of a militia that included just 1 person.

The 2nd protects the right of the people.
Not the militia, not the state - the people.

and as madison said specifically, the militia he was talking about was not a government controlled militia. It was a militia of the people directed by leaders of their own choosing. The militia was run by the people for the protection of the people.

 

[M14 Shooter]

the 2nd was, and is, meant to allow citizens to fight WITH their government, NOT against it.

If that were true, they would have written it that way.

But they didn't.

It simply says that the right of the people cannot be taken away or restricted. And it provides an explanation why... but makes no conditions on its mandate.

Even if somebody managed to prove that a well-regulated militia were NOT necessary for the security of a free states, the 2nd would still be a command that the right shall not be infringed. Period.

Much to the disappointment of left-wing fanatics.

Thats probably because back then, in this new nation, they couldnt forsee a time when people hated the United States government so much. That they could only imagine supporting it and showing patriotism towards it.

They probably couldn't forsee people wanting to fight against the very government that partly makes this country so great.

Um.... prior to about 1760, the people you discuss here could not imagine anything such thing in reference to the King and parliament.

Given the ~30 years after that, why do you think they could not imagine any such thing in reference to the government they set up?

 

[westwall]

the 2nd was, and is, meant to allow citizens to fight WITH their government, NOT against it.

If that were true, they would have written it that way.

But they didn't.

It simply says that the right of the people cannot be taken away or restricted. And it provides an explanation why... but makes no conditions on its mandate.

Even if somebody managed to prove that a well-regulated militia were NOT necessary for the security of a free states, the 2nd would still be a command that the right shall not be infringed. Period.

Much to the disappointment of left-wing fanatics.

Thats probably because back then, in this new nation, they couldnt forsee a time when people hated the United States government so much. That they could only imagine supporting it and showing patriotism towards it.

They probably couldn't forsee people wanting to fight against the very government that partly makes this country so great.

A "poorly" or non-regulated militia would just be everybody having guns. And thats it.

The "well regulated" part, meaning it has some standards, referred to a common caliber of ammo, so in times of crisis, the government could arm the people with that standard caliber. The sources used in the book explain that. About how the Revolutionary War showed trouble by the American military trying to supply the citizens 7 different calibers of ammo to fight the British, when one.....or a "well regulated" militia.....would have been far more efficient.

If the Founders had wanted to be sure the citizens had the power to overthrow the government, they would've said "The people shall have the right to own weapons far superior to that of the government; And the government shall not own any weapons that are equal or greater than that of common citizens."

But thats not what they said.

The people of TODAY might be as ignorant of history as you think the framers were....they however were not. They were exceptionally wise men who devised a governmental system that was designed to be obstructive. They didn't want there to be easy passage of laws because they realized, quite rightly, that corrupt politicians would pass those laws that would benefit themselves as we have seen where Congress critters have exempted themselves from Insider Trading Laws.

No, you can believe your silly interpretation all you want. I will go with Thomas Jefferson who stated...."When the people fear the government, there is tyranny. When the government fears the people, there is liberty" or "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants" or "No freeman shall be debarred the use of arms" or "Experience hath shewn, that even under the best forms of government those entrusted with power have, in time, and by slow operations, perverted it into tyranny." So you see, one of THE principle framers of the Constitution says you are wrong. And not just by a little....

 

[PaulS1950]

1.5 to 3 million times a year citizens use their legal firearms to stop a crime or prevent it from happening according to the CDC report commissioned by Obambam.

 

[Spoonman]

1.5 to 3 million times a year citizens use their legal firearms to stop a crime or prevent it from happening according to the CDC report commissioned by Obambam.

if james madison had his way we would be using those legal firearms against our government for the crimes they are commiting against us today

 

[jasonnfree]

.... by right wing trigger happies that just talk tough but do nothing. Commie muslim Obama's been destroying america and everything it stands for for over four years and all you patriotic gun lovers just talk tough and argue about what the 2nd amendment means like a bunch of sissy liberals. Time to get off the couch and stop obama now before there's nothing left of this country that's worth fighting for. Maybe ted nugent can lead the initial charge.

 

[JoeB131]

[

Most civilians who own guns own them without an issue. Again because of someone elses stupidity I have to be punished.

You can, as usual, go fuck yourself.

You haven't done anything stupid, yet.

We have al sorts of things for pre-emptive stupidity. That's why we put locks on the upper floors of tall buildings and kept people from jumping off bridges like the Golden Gate.

 

[JoeB131]

1.5 to 3 million times a year citizens use their legal firearms to stop a crime or prevent it from happening according to the CDC report commissioned by Obambam.

Horseshit. NO such Study. In fact, the CDC is BANNED from studying the gun issue after Kellerman.