The Right To Bear Arms

[bigrebnc1775]

Kidding me right, so the citizens who own and bear arms, and have done so since the beginning of this nation, were all just dumb idiots according to you and your thinking today ? We have been wrong all this time now ? Best check your history, because it didn't start in 2008, and I am talking about " The United States of America".

There is nothing that says you can't have firearms in the Constitution. There is also nothing that says you can have firearms in the Constitution. The 2nd amendment specifically says "militia". It was not referring to the general population or it would have said so. It doesn't.

Allow me to reference Amendment V

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Militia is specifically referred to as an organization separate from simple citizenship. If you are authorized to have a firearm it can not be taken away. You don't automatically get to have one.

You do realize that according to law, the "Militia" is comprised of every able bodied male between 18 and 45, do you not?

There is also a portion of the militia that has no connection with the national guard, It's called the unorganized militia

 

[emptystep]

Kidding me right, so the citizens who own and bear arms, and have done so since the beginning of this nation, were all just dumb idiots according to you and your thinking today ? We have been wrong all this time now ? Best check your history, because it didn't start in 2008, and I am talking about " The United States of America".

There is nothing that says you can't have firearms in the Constitution. There is also nothing that says you can have firearms in the Constitution. The 2nd amendment specifically says "militia". It was not referring to the general population or it would have said so. It doesn't.

Allow me to reference Amendment V

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Militia is specifically referred to as an organization separate from simple citizenship. If you are authorized to have a firearm it can not be taken away. You don't automatically get to have one.

You do realize that according to law, the "Militia" is comprised of every able bodied male between 18 and 45, do you not?

In colonial times, the Thirteen Colonies used a militia system for defense. Colonial militia laws—and after independence those of the United States and the various states—required able-bodied males to enroll in the militia, to undergo a minimum of military training, and to serve for limited periods of time in war or emergency. This earliest form of conscription involved selective drafts of militiamen for service in particular campaigns. Following this system in its essentials, the Continental Congress in 1778 recommended that the states draft men from their militias for one year's service in the Continental army; this first national conscription was irregularly applied and failed to fill the Continental ranks.

For long-term operations, conscription was occasionally used when volunteers or paid substitutes were insufficient to raise the needed manpower. During the American Revolutionary War, the states sometimes drafted men for militia duty or to fill state Continental Army units, but the central government did not have the authority to conscript. President James Madison and his Secretary of War James Monroe unsuccessfully attempted to create a national draft of 40,000 men during the War of 1812.[3] This proposal was fiercely criticized on the House floor by antiwar Congressman Daniel Webster of Massachusetts.[4

]

Have you done your minimum military training or been drafted? No? Guess what? Your not in the Militia.

 

[Contumacious]

There is nothing that says you can't have firearms in the Constitution. There is also nothing that says you can have firearms in the Constitution. The 2nd amendment specifically says "militia". It was not referring to the general population or it would have said so. It doesn't.

Allow me to reference Amendment V


Militia is specifically referred to as an organization separate from simple citizenship. If you are authorized to have a firearm it can not be taken away. You don't automatically get to have one.

You do realize that according to law, the "Militia" is comprised of every able bodied male between 18 and 45, do you not?

In colonial times, the Thirteen Colonies used a militia system for defense. Colonial militia laws—and after independence those of the United States and the various states—required able-bodied males to enroll in the militia, to undergo a minimum of military training, and to serve for limited periods of time in war or emergency. This earliest form of conscription involved selective drafts of militiamen for service in particular campaigns. Following this system in its essentials, the Continental Congress in 1778 recommended that the states draft men from their militias for one year's service in the Continental army; this first national conscription was irregularly applied and failed to fill the Continental ranks.

For long-term operations, conscription was occasionally used when volunteers or paid substitutes were insufficient to raise the needed manpower. During the American Revolutionary War, the states sometimes drafted men for militia duty or to fill state Continental Army units, but the central government did not have the authority to conscript. President James Madison and his Secretary of War James Monroe unsuccessfully attempted to create a national draft of 40,000 men during the War of 1812.[3] This proposal was fiercely criticized on the House floor by antiwar Congressman Daniel Webster of Massachusetts.[4

]

Have you done your minimum military training or been drafted? No? Guess what? Your not in the Militia.

Have they ever done an EEG on your to see if you have the minimum amount of brain waves showing that your brain is functional?

.

 

[emptystep]

You do realize that according to law, the "Militia" is comprised of every able bodied male between 18 and 45, do you not?

In colonial times, the Thirteen Colonies used a militia system for defense. Colonial militia laws—and after independence those of the United States and the various states—required able-bodied males to enroll in the militia, to undergo a minimum of military training, and to serve for limited periods of time in war or emergency. This earliest form of conscription involved selective drafts of militiamen for service in particular campaigns. Following this system in its essentials, the Continental Congress in 1778 recommended that the states draft men from their militias for one year's service in the Continental army; this first national conscription was irregularly applied and failed to fill the Continental ranks.

For long-term operations, conscription was occasionally used when volunteers or paid substitutes were insufficient to raise the needed manpower. During the American Revolutionary War, the states sometimes drafted men for militia duty or to fill state Continental Army units, but the central government did not have the authority to conscript. President James Madison and his Secretary of War James Monroe unsuccessfully attempted to create a national draft of 40,000 men during the War of 1812.[3] This proposal was fiercely criticized on the House floor by antiwar Congressman Daniel Webster of Massachusetts.[4

]

Have you done your minimum military training or been drafted? No? Guess what? Your not in the Militia.

Have they ever done an EEG on your to see if you have the minimum amount of brain waves showing that your brain is functional?

.

By your logic all firemen are between the ages 18 and 65. Yeah! I'm a fireman!

 

[Contumacious]

]

Have you done your minimum military training or been drafted? No? Guess what? Your not in the Militia.

Have they ever done an EEG on your to see if you have the minimum amount of brain waves showing that your brain is functional?

.

By your logic all firemen are between the ages 18 and 65. Yeah! I'm a fireman!

By your logic Americans are between the ages of 6 and 12 months and require the guidance of bureaucrats.

.

 

[Lakhota]

 

[Lakhota]

 

[bigrebnc1775]

You like bumping your failed thread don't you?

 

[Lakhota]

Were the founding fathers stupid? If not, why did they clusterfuck the 2nd Amendment?

 

[Darkwind]

I agree about modifying the 2nd, it should say, "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"

But that is exactly the point. You would have to modify the 2nd amendment to refer to "the people."

As passed by the Congress:

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 "free state' is the United States of America. A well regulated Militia would be like the Minutemen, in nowadays terms that is the US Army and the National Guard. The right to keep and bear arms means that federal law does not allow Massachusetts to take the weapons away from the National Guard.

It did not mean that any slave could own a gun and it did not mean that the local law official could not confiscate the local idiot's gun if he felt the need to protect the community. The American public has absolutely no provision under the Constitution for individual gun ownership.

It means no such thing. Those who think that the Second Amendment needs to be rewritten do not understand or comprehend what they read.

A Primer on the Constitutional Right to Keep and Bear Arms

Succinctly and accurately details the language of the Second Amendment and shows why the militia is not a requirement for the right of the citizen to keep and bear arms. Additionally, any nonsense about hunting, self defense or any of that other Bovine Squeeze is nothing more than fearful justification.

There are no requirements for keeping and owning firearms for the American citizen.

We simply have the right (without justification) and government is forbidden from infringing upon it.

 

[Lakhota]

I agree about modifying the 2nd, it should say, "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"

But that is exactly the point. You would have to modify the 2nd amendment to refer to "the people."

As passed by the Congress:

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 "free state' is the United States of America. A well regulated Militia would be like the Minutemen, in nowadays terms that is the US Army and the National Guard. The right to keep and bear arms means that federal law does not allow Massachusetts to take the weapons away from the National Guard.

It did not mean that any slave could own a gun and it did not mean that the local law official could not confiscate the local idiot's gun if he felt the need to protect the community. The American public has absolutely no provision under the Constitution for individual gun ownership.

It means no such thing. Those who think that the Second Amendment needs to be rewritten do not understand or comprehend what they read.

A Primer on the Constitutional Right to Keep and Bear Arms

Succinctly and accurately details the language of the Second Amendment and shows why the militia is not a requirement for the right of the citizen to keep and bear arms. Additionally, any nonsense about hunting, self defense or any of that other Bovine Squeeze is nothing more than fearful justification.

There are no requirements for keeping and owning firearms for the American citizen.

We simply have the right (without justification) and government is forbidden from infringing upon it.

BULLSHIT!!!!! The 2nd Amendment has been "infringed" on several times - and will again.

 

[bayoubill]

Were the founding fathers stupid? If not, why did they clusterfuck the 2nd Amendment?

it kept getting rewritten, and they were tired by the time the final version came out...

 

[Lakhota]

Were the founding fathers stupid? If not, why did they clusterfuck the 2nd Amendment?

it kept getting rewritten, and they were tired by the time the final version came out...

So we live with their tired clusterfuck since 1791...?

 

[bayoubill]

Were the founding fathers stupid? If not, why did they clusterfuck the 2nd Amendment?

it kept getting rewritten, and they were tired by the time the final version came out...

So we live with their tired clusterfuck since 1791...?

the final wording of the Second Amendment might seem a bit strange...

but the intent of the persons who wrote it were clear, if you bothered to read their background writings, of which we have a plethora...

to whit: citizens should always be able to have, by arms, a means to take on a federal government that somehow had became too oppressive to bear...

 

[Lakhota]

it kept getting rewritten, and they were tired by the time the final version came out...

So we live with their tired clusterfuck since 1791...?

the final wording of the Second Amendment might seem a bit strange...

but the intent of the persons who wrote it were clear, if you bothered to read their background writings, of which we have a plethora...

to whit: citizens should always be able to have, by arms, a means to take on a federal government that somehow had became too oppressive to bear...

Ahem, their so-called "background writings" don't mean shit. All that matters is the final product - that they RATIFIED.

 

[percysunshine]

It is confusing to intelligent people.

I see you have everything figured out.

 

[Bfgrn]

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...

Pretty bold bluster from someone who clearly hasn't read the background writings of the Framers regarding the Second Amendment.

If you did, you would know what the background writings of the Framers regarding the Second Amendment said.

Our Founding Fathers never imagined a well-armed citizenry to keep the American government itself in check. It was all about protecting the American government from both foreign and domestic threats.

Poring over the first-hand documents from 1789 that detailed the First Congress’ debate on arms and militia, you’ll see a constant theme: the 2nd Amendment was created to protect the American government.

The James Madison resolution on the issue clearly stated that the right to bear arms “shall not be infringed” since a “well-regulated militia” is the “best security of a free country.”

Virginia’s support of a right to bear arms was based on the same rationale: “A well regulated Militia composed of the body of the people trained to arms is the proper, natural and safe defence of a free State”

Ultimately, as we know the agreed upon 2nd Amendment reads: “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.”

That reads like a conditional statement. If we as a fledgling new nation are committed to our own security, then it’s best we have a regulated militia. And to maintain this defensive militia, we must allow Americans to keep and bear arms.

The other defensive option would have been a standing army.

But at the time, our Founding Fathers believed a militia was the one best defense for the nation since a standing army was, to quote Jefferson, “an engine of oppression.”

Our Founding Fathers were scared senseless of standing armies. It was well-accepted among the Members of Congress during that first gun debate that “standing armies in a time of peace are dangerous to liberty.” Those were the exact words used in the state of New York’s amendment to the gun debate.

Later, in an 1814 letter to Thomas Cooper, Jefferson wrote of standing armies: “The Greeks and Romans had no standing armies, yet they defended themselves. The Greeks by their laws, and the Romans by the spirit of their people, took care to put into the hands of their rulers no such engine of oppression as a standing army. Their system was to make every man a soldier and oblige him to repair to the standard of his country whenever that was reared. This made them invincible; and the same remedy will make us so.”

Had the early framers of the Constitution embraced a standing army during times of peace, then there would be no need for a regulated militia, and thus no need for the 2nd Amendment.

more

 

[bayoubill]

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...

Pretty bold bluster from someone who clearly hasn't read the background writings of the Framers regarding the Second Amendment.

If you did, you would know what the background writings of the Framers regarding the Second Amendment said.

Our Founding Fathers never imagined a well-armed citizenry to keep the American government itself in check. It was all about protecting the American government from both foreign and domestic threats.

Poring over the first-hand documents from 1789 that detailed the First Congress’ debate on arms and militia, you’ll see a constant theme: the 2nd Amendment was created to protect the American government.

The James Madison resolution on the issue clearly stated that the right to bear arms “shall not be infringed” since a “well-regulated militia” is the “best security of a free country.”

Virginia’s support of a right to bear arms was based on the same rationale: “A well regulated Militia composed of the body of the people trained to arms is the proper, natural and safe defence of a free State”

Ultimately, as we know the agreed upon 2nd Amendment reads: “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.”

That reads like a conditional statement. If we as a fledgling new nation are committed to our own security, then it’s best we have a regulated militia. And to maintain this defensive militia, we must allow Americans to keep and bear arms.

The other defensive option would have been a standing army.

But at the time, our Founding Fathers believed a militia was the one best defense for the nation since a standing army was, to quote Jefferson, “an engine of oppression.”

Our Founding Fathers were scared senseless of standing armies. It was well-accepted among the Members of Congress during that first gun debate that “standing armies in a time of peace are dangerous to liberty.” Those were the exact words used in the state of New York’s amendment to the gun debate.

Later, in an 1814 letter to Thomas Cooper, Jefferson wrote of standing armies: “The Greeks and Romans had no standing armies, yet they defended themselves. The Greeks by their laws, and the Romans by the spirit of their people, took care to put into the hands of their rulers no such engine of oppression as a standing army. Their system was to make every man a soldier and oblige him to repair to the standard of his country whenever that was reared. This made them invincible; and the same remedy will make us so.”

Had the early framers of the Constitution embraced a standing army during times of peace, then there would be no need for a regulated militia, and thus no need for the 2nd Amendment.

more

meh... I'm confused...

are you responding to what I wrote...?

it sounds like you're agreeing with me...

even though the tenor seems to be in opposition to what I wrote...

 

[Bfgrn]

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...

Pretty bold bluster from someone who clearly hasn't read the background writings of the Framers regarding the Second Amendment.

If you did, you would know what the background writings of the Framers regarding the Second Amendment said.

Our Founding Fathers never imagined a well-armed citizenry to keep the American government itself in check. It was all about protecting the American government from both foreign and domestic threats.

Poring over the first-hand documents from 1789 that detailed the First Congress’ debate on arms and militia, you’ll see a constant theme: the 2nd Amendment was created to protect the American government.

The James Madison resolution on the issue clearly stated that the right to bear arms “shall not be infringed” since a “well-regulated militia” is the “best security of a free country.”

Virginia’s support of a right to bear arms was based on the same rationale: “A well regulated Militia composed of the body of the people trained to arms is the proper, natural and safe defence of a free State”

Ultimately, as we know the agreed upon 2nd Amendment reads: “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.”

That reads like a conditional statement. If we as a fledgling new nation are committed to our own security, then it’s best we have a regulated militia. And to maintain this defensive militia, we must allow Americans to keep and bear arms.

The other defensive option would have been a standing army.

But at the time, our Founding Fathers believed a militia was the one best defense for the nation since a standing army was, to quote Jefferson, “an engine of oppression.”

Our Founding Fathers were scared senseless of standing armies. It was well-accepted among the Members of Congress during that first gun debate that “standing armies in a time of peace are dangerous to liberty.” Those were the exact words used in the state of New York’s amendment to the gun debate.

Later, in an 1814 letter to Thomas Cooper, Jefferson wrote of standing armies: “The Greeks and Romans had no standing armies, yet they defended themselves. The Greeks by their laws, and the Romans by the spirit of their people, took care to put into the hands of their rulers no such engine of oppression as a standing army. Their system was to make every man a soldier and oblige him to repair to the standard of his country whenever that was reared. This made them invincible; and the same remedy will make us so.”

Had the early framers of the Constitution embraced a standing army during times of peace, then there would be no need for a regulated militia, and thus no need for the 2nd Amendment.

more

meh... I'm confused...

are you responding to what I wrote...?

it sounds like you're agreeing with me...

even though the tenor seems to be in opposition to what I wrote...

Reading without reflecting is like eating without digesting.
Edmund Burke

I don't agree with you. If you actually read what our founding fathers wrote, you wouldn't make this ignorant statement:

to whit: citizens should always be able to have, by arms, a means to take on a federal government that somehow had became too oppressive to bear...

 

[GuyPinestra]

You Libs can keep spinning this shit all you want, you're not getting the guns.