The Right To Bear Arms

[bayoubill]

granted, the wording and punctuation approaches inscrutability...

but when you read about how the final version came to be, with all the various rewrites and edits done in a hurried manner, you can sorta understand how it happened...

Ignorance is no excuse. What took place behind the scenes is irrelevant. Only the final product matters - and they fucked it up.

You did not read it, did you?

Figures.......

There's an incredible amount of back-and-forth documentation from that period regarding the construction of the Second Amendment...

but, no... I wouldn't expect that Lakhota would have bothered to do the research...

 

[Darkwind]

Ignorance is no excuse. What took place behind the scenes is irrelevant. Only the final product matters - and they fucked it up.

You did not read it, did you?

Figures.......

There's an incredible amount of back-and-forth documentation from that period regarding the construction of the Second Amendment...

but, no... I wouldn't expect that Lakhota would have bothered to do the research...

Yes, I know. But this is straight forward breakdown of the language of the 2nd Amendment, and it does provide some historic contextual background to help people like Lakhota understand the more difficult concepts.

 

[Lakhota]

Actually, Lincoln was quoting Jesus Christ when he said that.

Christ never existed.

So..Lincoln might as well as quoted Hercules.

Really? Explain the following photograph.

This is a picture my great grandmother's sister took in about 1974 or 1975, of a cloud formation she found interesting while she was attending a funeral of a family member in Idaho. This is a copy of the original photo, of which several copies are scattered throughout my family. This picture was taken LONG before Photoshop and other image manipulation software came along and, the copy was made long before Photoshop and other image manipulation software came along. And, I would challenge you to prove in any way, shape or form that the photo has been manipulated in any way, other than being copied from the original. She didn't see what came out in the picture with her own eyes but, this is the image which was produced when the photo was developed. Now, you can believe it or not but, I challenge you to debunk it.

 

[tyroneweaver]

Ignorance is no excuse. What took place behind the scenes is irrelevant. Only the final product matters - and they fucked it up.

You did not read it, did you?

Figures.......

There's an incredible amount of back-and-forth documentation from that period regarding the construction of the Second Amendment...

but, no... I wouldn't expect that Lakhota would have bothered to do the research...

of course that research would be that those who wrote a well regulated militia used guns in their private life so the libs better look for something different.

 

[Lakhota]

The so-called back and forth excuses are irrelevant. They produced a confusing product.

 

[NoNukes]

It's definitely not the most important amendment, like most conservatives argue, but it's not obsolete. We're the United Freakin States. We were founded on a revolutionary crazy notion that people are allowed to be as free as they want.

If you take away that crazy, then we're closer to being like the French. And no one wants that.

You mean that invAmerica, people are free to marry whoever they want? Women have the freedom to control their bodies however they want? It is a joke when right wingers speak of freedom.

 

[bayoubill]

The so-called back and forth excuses are irrelevant. They produced a confusing product.

'k... so, now what...?

 

[Lakhota]

The so-called back and forth excuses are irrelevant. They produced a confusing product.

'k... so, now what...?

Well, it is what it is. Goodnight, bill...

 

[bayoubill]

The so-called back and forth excuses are irrelevant. They produced a confusing product.

no matter... from their letters, the Framers' intent is clear... that law-abiding citizens have access to the latest technology in small-arms weaponry... in order to prevent tyranny (whether from within or without) from overtaking the newly-formed nation... whether during in their time or 200+ years hence...

 

[bayoubill]

The so-called back and forth excuses are irrelevant. They produced a confusing product.

'k... so, now what...?

Well, it is what it is. Goodnight, bill...

goodnight, ol' buddy... 'til next time, sweet dreams and blessings to you...

 

[CrotchetyGeezer]

Christ never existed.

So..Lincoln might as well as quoted Hercules.

Really? Explain the following photograph.

This is a picture my great grandmother's sister took in about 1974 or 1975, of a cloud formation she found interesting while she was attending a funeral of a family member in Idaho. This is a copy of the original photo, of which several copies are scattered throughout my family. This picture was taken LONG before Photoshop and other image manipulation software came along and, the copy was made long before Photoshop and other image manipulation software came along. And, I would challenge you to prove in any way, shape or form that the photo has been manipulated in any way, other than being copied from the original. She didn't see what came out in the picture with her own eyes but, this is the image which was produced when the photo was developed. Now, you can believe it or not but, I challenge you to debunk it.

That's odd. The only image I see in the bottom photo is Lakhota. One pure and simple asshole.

 

[Ravi]

It is confusing to intelligent people.

Intelligent people always understand the 2nd Amendment.

You shouldn't out yourself like that.

Here is a good lesson on how to read the Second Amendment.

A Primer on the Constitutional Right to Keep and Bear Arms <<---Link

Here is the opening excerpt.....

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. - The Second Amendment



The Second Amendment is among the most misunderstood provisions of the U.S. Constitution. That is not because it is particularly difficult to understand. On the contrary, for more than a hundred years after it was adopted, hardly anyone seemed the least bit confused about what it meant. The confusion, and some serious mistakes, only became widespread in the twentieth century, when influential people began to think it was a good idea to disarm the civilian population. Because the plain meaning of the Second Amendment rather obviously creates an obstacle to these disarmament schemes, the temptation to misinterpret this provision of the Constitution became very strong.

Read the rest of it and learn something. Perhaps your confusion will go away and you can actually say you are starting to gain some intelligence.

The confusion became widespread when the NRA switched their previous position and started shilling for gun manufacturers. Throughout most of our history, there was no confusion about the second amendment. Interesting counter to your spin piece:

Sandy Hook massacre: The NRA's gun 'rights' are a fabrication of modern times - CSMonitor.com

 

[konradv]

It is confusing to intelligent people.

Intelligent people always understand the 2nd Amendment.

You shouldn't out yourself like that.

Here is a good lesson on how to read the Second Amendment.

A Primer on the Constitutional Right to Keep and Bear Arms <<---Link

Here is the opening excerpt.....

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. - The Second Amendment



The Second Amendment is among the most misunderstood provisions of the U.S. Constitution. That is not because it is particularly difficult to understand. On the contrary, for more than a hundred years after it was adopted, hardly anyone seemed the least bit confused about what it meant. The confusion, and some serious mistakes, only became widespread in the twentieth century, when influential people began to think it was a good idea to disarm the civilian population. Because the plain meaning of the Second Amendment rather obviously creates an obstacle to these disarmament schemes, the temptation to misinterpret this provision of the Constitution became very strong.

Read the rest of it and learn something. Perhaps your confusion will go away and you can actually say you are starting to gain some intelligence.

The confusion became widespread when the NRA switched their previous position and started shilling for gun manufacturers. Throughout most of our history, there was no confusion about the second amendment. Interesting counter to your spin piece:

Sandy Hook massacre: The NRA's gun 'rights' are a fabrication of modern times - CSMonitor.com

The confusion seems to be over an individual vs collective right. To me the 2nd would seem to be collective in that it mentions "the people" vs amendments like the 5th where the word "person" is used, making it an individual right. Therefore, totally banning guns would be a violation, but requiring things like registration and competency and background checks would not. "The people" also have the right: A) to make sure guns don't get into the wrong hands, i.e. criminals and the insane and B) to know if guns are being stockpiled by whom and where. Remember, just because someone says they're doing it because they don't trust the government, doesn't automatically mean we should trust them. The 2nd amendment isn't a suicide pact.

 

[bayoubill]

It is confusing to intelligent people.

Intelligent people always understand the 2nd Amendment.

You shouldn't out yourself like that.

Here is a good lesson on how to read the Second Amendment.

A Primer on the Constitutional Right to Keep and Bear Arms <<---Link

Here is the opening excerpt.....

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. - The Second Amendment



The Second Amendment is among the most misunderstood provisions of the U.S. Constitution. That is not because it is particularly difficult to understand. On the contrary, for more than a hundred years after it was adopted, hardly anyone seemed the least bit confused about what it meant. The confusion, and some serious mistakes, only became widespread in the twentieth century, when influential people began to think it was a good idea to disarm the civilian population. Because the plain meaning of the Second Amendment rather obviously creates an obstacle to these disarmament schemes, the temptation to misinterpret this provision of the Constitution became very strong.

Read the rest of it and learn something. Perhaps your confusion will go away and you can actually say you are starting to gain some intelligence.

The confusion became widespread when the NRA switched their previous position and started shilling for gun manufacturers. Throughout most of our history, there was no confusion about the second amendment. Interesting counter to your spin piece:

Sandy Hook massacre: The NRA's gun 'rights' are a fabrication of modern times - CSMonitor.com

Go back and read the background writings of the Framers regarding the Second Amendment... then tell me you honestly believe that their intention was only that we could have guns to hunt for game and shoot the occasional bad guy who broke into our houses with bad intent... go ahead... I dare you to do it...

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Nazi Weapons Act of 1938 (Translated to English)

Classified guns for "sporting purposes".
All citizens who wished to purchase firearms had to register with the Nazi officials and have a background check.
Presumed German citizens were hostile and thereby exempted Nazis from the gun control law.
Gave Nazis unrestricted power to decide what kinds of firearms could, or could not be owned by private persons.
The types of ammunition that were legal were subject to control by bureaucrats.
Juveniles under 18 years could not buy firearms and ammunition.

That sounds like something liberals would push for.

 

[Ravi]

Intelligent people always understand the 2nd Amendment.

You shouldn't out yourself like that.

Here is a good lesson on how to read the Second Amendment.

A Primer on the Constitutional Right to Keep and Bear Arms <<---Link

Here is the opening excerpt.....

Read the rest of it and learn something. Perhaps your confusion will go away and you can actually say you are starting to gain some intelligence.

The confusion became widespread when the NRA switched their previous position and started shilling for gun manufacturers. Throughout most of our history, there was no confusion about the second amendment. Interesting counter to your spin piece:

Sandy Hook massacre: The NRA's gun 'rights' are a fabrication of modern times - CSMonitor.com

Go back and read the background writings of the Framers regarding the Second Amendment... then tell me you honestly believe that their intention was only that we could have guns to hunt for game and shoot the occasional bad guy who broke into our houses with bad intent... go ahead... I dare you to do it...

Where did I ever make such a claim?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Intelligent people always understand the 2nd Amendment.

You shouldn't out yourself like that.

Here is a good lesson on how to read the Second Amendment.

A Primer on the Constitutional Right to Keep and Bear Arms <<---Link

Here is the opening excerpt.....

Read the rest of it and learn something. Perhaps your confusion will go away and you can actually say you are starting to gain some intelligence.

The confusion became widespread when the NRA switched their previous position and started shilling for gun manufacturers. Throughout most of our history, there was no confusion about the second amendment. Interesting counter to your spin piece:

Sandy Hook massacre: The NRA's gun 'rights' are a fabrication of modern times - CSMonitor.com

The confusion seems to be over an individual vs collective right. To me the 2nd would seem to be collective in that it mentions "the people" vs amendments like the 5th where the word "person" is used, making it an individual right. Therefore, totally banning guns would be a violation, but requiring things like registration and competency and background checks would not. "The people" also have the right: A) to make sure guns don't get into the wrong hands, i.e. criminals and the insane and B) to know if guns are being stockpiled by whom and where. Remember, just because someone says they're doing it because they don't trust the government, doesn't automatically mean we should trust them. The 2nd amendment isn't a suicide pact.

So, a person isn't a person unless he's part of the collective?

 

[konradv]

So, a person isn't a person unless he's part of the collective?

That all you got, a stupid one-liner? It's obviously not what I said, revealing that you can't deal with what I did say.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

So, a person isn't a person unless he's part of the collective?

That all you got, a stupid one-liner? It's obviously not what I said, revealing that you can't deal with what I did say.

Nope, just making an observation. Could you be a little more specific, if the second amendment was meant for a collective how would it have been applied?

 

[AnthonyMcPherso]

The Amemdments to the constitution which were referred to as "The Bill of Rights", of which the Second Amendment is one, was to protect the rights of the STATES AND the INDIVIDUAL from the Federal government.

IF anyone who is not honest (or maybe educated) claims that the right to have a weapon referrs to the "National Guard" etc, then they must realize that the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT CAN FEDERALIZE the National Guard at the WHIM of the President! At the WHIM of ONE MAN!

They did this in several southern states if you recall, and although it was for a "good reason" at that time, it shows that ourprotection can be circumvented. Will the next time be for a "good reason"?

Before HUNDREDS were massacured by the mobs, the citizens of Navoo, Ill. didn't oppose their disarming by the Federal troops. Their militias weapons were confiscated.

Before WWII, the people in Europe couldn't believe that the politicians taking power could possibly be "that evil" because THEIR country was modern and civilized.

I'm sure that no matter how horrible the people have it in Parts of mexico controlled by the drug cartels, the public still didn't believe that the U.S. would supply the drug gang leaders with thousands of more weapons to kill them with.