The Right To Bear Arms

[2aguy]

Before 2A was drafted, several colonists used firearms to defend themselves because they usually lived far from each other. At the same time, communities also established militias for various purposes, including slave patrols. The right to defend oneself was considered natural, with the right to bear arms connected to it and part of English common law.

After the Revolutionary War, Washington wrote about the poor quality of some militias.

While 2A was drafted and revised several times, framers debates on the need to avoid a large standing army, state rights to have their own armed groups, the desire to avoid tyranny, and threats including European invaders, whites who could rebel, slave riots, and Native Americans. They negotiated and ratified an amendment that argued that to ensure the availability of regulated militias, the right to bear arms would not be infringed. The idea sounds too obvious because several colonists were already armed and it was considered a natural right, part of the need for self-defense. This explains why 2A doesn't grant the right to bear arms but protects it: the right is natural and exists even without 2A, the Constitution, or even a nation. Still, the added something obvious because they wanted to show citizens that their right to defend themselves would not be infringed.

So, what's the connection between that and regulated militias? The framers didn't argue that the right to bear arms is granted by the government or that the right only exists if there are regulated militias. Rather, the right to defend oneself, which is natural, was used to justify the need to defend the country. Since they didn't want a large standing army, they resorted to militias, and since they didn't want ill-trained militias, they made sure that there were regulated ones.

What does "regulated" mean? It is defined in Art. 1 Sec. 8, which states who will organize these militias and their purpose, which is to serve the government.

How was the formation of regulated militias made operational? It is explained in the Militia Acts, which required all white males of a certain age range, and with few exceptions, to obtain battle rifles and report for training.

Thus, the purpose of 2A is not merely to protect the right to bear arms but to use it to ensure mandatory military service, which is what happened via the Militia Acts.

The problem is that what Washington complained about persisted as armies became more professional and complex. The country learned that the hard way during the War of 1812, when they realized that a small standing army with militias would not be enough to deal with professional armies. It still took awhile, even when blacks were included among males to serve given a subsequent Militia Act. But it was the last one, in 1903, that led to the formation of the National Guard, and eventually made 2A irrelevant. As military forces became increasingly complex, the country had to rely on reserves trained in the same way as the standing army, with conscription employed in case more troops were needed.

Today, what is left of 2A is the Selective Service System, where male citizens are merely required to register, with the government given the option to conscript them if necessary.

But, still... the federal government should have no gun laws. They are still ALL unconstitutional, as the intent of the 2A was to limit federal power.

Until somebody amends the 2A, fed gov power over arms should be NOTHING. ZERO.

.

Some want to simply ignore it and call it antiquated. That is improper.

.

The only time the Feds should get involved is when the States are unable to do it themselves. For instance, the 1934 Firearms act. What good does it do for , just for argument sake, for Illinois to pass a similar full auto gun ban when they a crime boss can just step over the border into Indiana and buy the auto weapon and bring it back into Chicago and continue spraying the streets with them. It wasn't just a Chicago problem, it was also a problem of almost every metro city in the United States with Organized Crime. So the Feds do what the states can't do and pass a central law. Like it or not, that is about the only one that has ever withstood time. Sooner or later, look for them to pass the Universal Background Checks the same way. Bump Stocks are also being done the same way. If your states wants to play this silly assed "No Regulation Ever" game, then it just might come to pass that the other states might force the feds to go that route. And you ain't going to like the Interstate Commerce side of things.

I don't disagree with your reasoning, but any federal gun law is a bad idea because it was not what the constitution originally intended.

Another way it could have been handled would be for each state to prosecute people in its state who deliberately conspired to violate the laws of anther state.
That requires cooperation between states, but much better than a whole federal mechanism that can not ever really work well.
Another way would have been to simply not make full auto illegal anywhere, since it was really Prohibition that was the whole problem, and not full auto firearms.
Full auto is trivial to make almost any gun into, and no one really wants to. There crimes with full auto are so rare as to be totally irrelevant. The only one I can think of is the LA bank robbery about a decade ago.

The universal background check would not be an issue if not for the assault weapon and confiscation insanity. There just is no such thing as an assault weapon, and no one should trust any government with records like that, since they already say they want to confiscate. And that clearly is illegal and the line in the sand.

The federal government should not claim it has to do something when they are the ones who broke it in the first place. There was no problem with Thompson machineguns being sold out of the back of magazine ads for $17, until the feds started Alcohol Prohibition and suddenly millions of dollars in alcohol revenue could not use banks or police protection.

I am going to use Chicago as an example both prior to 2016 and before.

Before 2016, the guns used in gun crimes in Chicago, over 60% were purchased in Illnois. There was no market to import firearms for criminal acts since all one had to do is go into the county and buy guns from private sellers by the car load and transport them back into Chicago.

In 2016, Illinois passed a Universal Background Check for the entire state and aggressively enforced it. All of a sudden, the guns used in crimes purchased or stolen in Chicago from Illinois dropped to below 20%. But the number of guns did not decrease though even though law enforcement actively collected quite a few that were used during crimes. Where did these extra guns come from? Most of them came from personal sales from Indiana who does not have universal background checks. Buying those weapon in Indiana is not against the law. But transporting them to Indiana is a felony for both the state of Illinois and the Federals. That doesn't even slow them down because Indiana, more or less, told Illinois to just go pound sand. New Mexico has the same problem with Arizona and Texas. California has the same problem with Arizona and Nevada. Colorado has the same problem with Kansas. But it appears that most of us are a bit more civilized than Chicago or Detroit.

AT what point does the states that have these illegal guns come streaming in finally push to have the Feds do something about it since it's really a National Problem? One beyond anything any one or group of states can do anything about? Do we start building walls between the states and put up check points everyone must pass through? Do we put mandatory checkpoints on the borders between states to stop all cars coming from the offending states so that ALL cars can be searched for weapons? Or do we force the states to go to universal background checks and aggressively enforce them either by the State or allow the Feds to enforce it.

This is the reason that the 1934 Firearms Act was created in the first place. What good does it do if a particular state bans the Thompson when all the mob guys have to do is go for a short drive one state over (40 minutes) and buy them over the counter and bring them back. They passed that law not because the mobsters were mowing each other down. They passed it because they were also mowing down innocent bystanders. The same is happening now in places like Chicago and Detroit. It happens so much, it's not even that much newsworthy.

I can't give you the exact figures but it's pretty high but the majority of the population support the Universal Background Check. Sooner or later, it's going to happen on the federal level. And look for it to stand up in court as well. But lets say it doesn't. The Feds have ways to force a state to do something. Like if a gun manufacturer ships to a state that isn't using a universal background check, they can tax them into non existance. If they they move to that state that doesn't require universal background checks, the Feds and not allow them to ship outside that state through the Interstate Commerce. It's going to happen. We can keep fighting it and have a bunch of morons pass something we don't want or we can work with them and get something that will actually work. So far, my bet is on the bunch of morons.

Moron.....the majority of people who answer the Universal Background surveys don't understand anything about them, first and foremost that we already have Federal background checks for gun purchases.......so any poll that doesn't actually state that Universal Background checks do not stop criminals from getting guns, and that almost every mass shooter already passed a mandated Federal background check already in place, is a useless poll......

The only reason the anti gunners want universal background checks is to demand universal gun registration....that's it.

Britain, an island....can't stop the increasing flow of illegal guns into their country, dittos Australia.....we have Mexican drug cartels building gun factories on our southern border......you are an idiot...criminals will get guns, and will not be stopped by background checks of any kind.........

 

[Daryl Hunt]

The problem was not so much whether or not guns used were illegal but whether or not militias were disciplined and sufficiently equipped. Washington's complaint was that several of them lacked both.

The gov't realized that they could not rely so much on militias after 1812, which is why they focused on increasing the size of the standing army. Ultimately, with the last Militia Act, they established the National Guard, which made the need for regulated militias irrelevant.

Today, the government focuses on voluntary service via the National Guard and conscription if more troops are needed. The only thing required of male citizens is to register.

During the Civil War, it was Patriotic for the States to send their State Guards to fight. The Feds were still under the 75,000 total army limit but the Guards weren't. And the States came to the rescue. But it was quickly noted that the 75,000 limit was out of date and was largely ignored.

But when the Spanish American War started or was winding up in 1898, they passed the first National Guard Act and removed the limit of the number of troops the Federals could have in it's army. The Navy (hence the Marines) never had a limit from day one. But the States largely ignored the new law and the Feds really didn't have a lot to back it up with.

When the "Great War" started up, Congress went to work on a National Guard Act in 1916 and finally got it signed into law in 1917 that created the modern National Guard where the Feds armed and trained the National Guard. But it was more than that. The States could still have their own militias called the SDF or State Defense Force that the State supported without Federal help, also known as State Guards. This way, the 2nd amendment was still in force even if it really didn't mean a whole lot of anything for defense of the state from the Federal Government. So the Feds passed laws that were adopted by the Military that prevented the Federal Troops from being used by the Feds to police the state unless it was a National Emergency. That has been used once and that was under Eisenhower although a few Governors demanded it to be used before that an were told to go pound sand. When Westinghouse, in 1946 demanded National Guard Troops to break the strike of appliance workers, Truman said he would nationalize the National Guard to protect the workers. The Management had no choice but to abide by it's promises it made to the workers during the war. When it was the old State Guard, the Governor would have had his "Private Army" come in and start shooting.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

Before 2A was drafted, several colonists used firearms to defend themselves because they usually lived far from each other. At the same time, communities also established militias for various purposes, including slave patrols. The right to defend oneself was considered natural, with the right to bear arms connected to it and part of English common law.

After the Revolutionary War, Washington wrote about the poor quality of some militias.

While 2A was drafted and revised several times, framers debates on the need to avoid a large standing army, state rights to have their own armed groups, the desire to avoid tyranny, and threats including European invaders, whites who could rebel, slave riots, and Native Americans. They negotiated and ratified an amendment that argued that to ensure the availability of regulated militias, the right to bear arms would not be infringed. The idea sounds too obvious because several colonists were already armed and it was considered a natural right, part of the need for self-defense. This explains why 2A doesn't grant the right to bear arms but protects it: the right is natural and exists even without 2A, the Constitution, or even a nation. Still, the added something obvious because they wanted to show citizens that their right to defend themselves would not be infringed.

So, what's the connection between that and regulated militias? The framers didn't argue that the right to bear arms is granted by the government or that the right only exists if there are regulated militias. Rather, the right to defend oneself, which is natural, was used to justify the need to defend the country. Since they didn't want a large standing army, they resorted to militias, and since they didn't want ill-trained militias, they made sure that there were regulated ones.

What does "regulated" mean? It is defined in Art. 1 Sec. 8, which states who will organize these militias and their purpose, which is to serve the government.

How was the formation of regulated militias made operational? It is explained in the Militia Acts, which required all white males of a certain age range, and with few exceptions, to obtain battle rifles and report for training.

Thus, the purpose of 2A is not merely to protect the right to bear arms but to use it to ensure mandatory military service, which is what happened via the Militia Acts.

The problem is that what Washington complained about persisted as armies became more professional and complex. The country learned that the hard way during the War of 1812, when they realized that a small standing army with militias would not be enough to deal with professional armies. It still took awhile, even when blacks were included among males to serve given a subsequent Militia Act. But it was the last one, in 1903, that led to the formation of the National Guard, and eventually made 2A irrelevant. As military forces became increasingly complex, the country had to rely on reserves trained in the same way as the standing army, with conscription employed in case more troops were needed.

Today, what is left of 2A is the Selective Service System, where male citizens are merely required to register, with the government given the option to conscript them if necessary.

But, still... the federal government should have no gun laws. They are still ALL unconstitutional, as the intent of the 2A was to limit federal power.

Until somebody amends the 2A, fed gov power over arms should be NOTHING. ZERO.

.

Some want to simply ignore it and call it antiquated. That is improper.

.

The only time the Feds should get involved is when the States are unable to do it themselves. For instance, the 1934 Firearms act. What good does it do for , just for argument sake, for Illinois to pass a similar full auto gun ban when they a crime boss can just step over the border into Indiana and buy the auto weapon and bring it back into Chicago and continue spraying the streets with them. It wasn't just a Chicago problem, it was also a problem of almost every metro city in the United States with Organized Crime. So the Feds do what the states can't do and pass a central law. Like it or not, that is about the only one that has ever withstood time. Sooner or later, look for them to pass the Universal Background Checks the same way. Bump Stocks are also being done the same way. If your states wants to play this silly assed "No Regulation Ever" game, then it just might come to pass that the other states might force the feds to go that route. And you ain't going to like the Interstate Commerce side of things.

I don't disagree with your reasoning, but any federal gun law is a bad idea because it was not what the constitution originally intended.

Another way it could have been handled would be for each state to prosecute people in its state who deliberately conspired to violate the laws of anther state.
That requires cooperation between states, but much better than a whole federal mechanism that can not ever really work well.
Another way would have been to simply not make full auto illegal anywhere, since it was really Prohibition that was the whole problem, and not full auto firearms.
Full auto is trivial to make almost any gun into, and no one really wants to. There crimes with full auto are so rare as to be totally irrelevant. The only one I can think of is the LA bank robbery about a decade ago.

The universal background check would not be an issue if not for the assault weapon and confiscation insanity. There just is no such thing as an assault weapon, and no one should trust any government with records like that, since they already say they want to confiscate. And that clearly is illegal and the line in the sand.

The federal government should not claim it has to do something when they are the ones who broke it in the first place. There was no problem with Thompson machineguns being sold out of the back of magazine ads for $17, until the feds started Alcohol Prohibition and suddenly millions of dollars in alcohol revenue could not use banks or police protection.

I am going to use Chicago as an example both prior to 2016 and before.

Before 2016, the guns used in gun crimes in Chicago, over 60% were purchased in Illnois. There was no market to import firearms for criminal acts since all one had to do is go into the county and buy guns from private sellers by the car load and transport them back into Chicago.

In 2016, Illinois passed a Universal Background Check for the entire state and aggressively enforced it. All of a sudden, the guns used in crimes purchased or stolen in Chicago from Illinois dropped to below 20%. But the number of guns did not decrease though even though law enforcement actively collected quite a few that were used during crimes. Where did these extra guns come from? Most of them came from personal sales from Indiana who does not have universal background checks. Buying those weapon in Indiana is not against the law. But transporting them to Indiana is a felony for both the state of Illinois and the Federals. That doesn't even slow them down because Indiana, more or less, told Illinois to just go pound sand. New Mexico has the same problem with Arizona and Texas. California has the same problem with Arizona and Nevada. Colorado has the same problem with Kansas. But it appears that most of us are a bit more civilized than Chicago or Detroit.

AT what point does the states that have these illegal guns come streaming in finally push to have the Feds do something about it since it's really a National Problem? One beyond anything any one or group of states can do anything about? Do we start building walls between the states and put up check points everyone must pass through? Do we put mandatory checkpoints on the borders between states to stop all cars coming from the offending states so that ALL cars can be searched for weapons? Or do we force the states to go to universal background checks and aggressively enforce them either by the State or allow the Feds to enforce it.

This is the reason that the 1934 Firearms Act was created in the first place. What good does it do if a particular state bans the Thompson when all the mob guys have to do is go for a short drive one state over (40 minutes) and buy them over the counter and bring them back. They passed that law not because the mobsters were mowing each other down. They passed it because they were also mowing down innocent bystanders. The same is happening now in places like Chicago and Detroit. It happens so much, it's not even that much newsworthy.

I can't give you the exact figures but it's pretty high but the majority of the population support the Universal Background Check. Sooner or later, it's going to happen on the federal level. And look for it to stand up in court as well. But lets say it doesn't. The Feds have ways to force a state to do something. Like if a gun manufacturer ships to a state that isn't using a universal background check, they can tax them into non existance. If they they move to that state that doesn't require universal background checks, the Feds and not allow them to ship outside that state through the Interstate Commerce. It's going to happen. We can keep fighting it and have a bunch of morons pass something we don't want or we can work with them and get something that will actually work. So far, my bet is on the bunch of morons.

Moron.....the majority of people who answer the Universal Background surveys don't understand anything about them, first and foremost that we already have Federal background checks for gun purchases.......so any poll that doesn't actually state that Universal Background checks do not stop criminals from getting guns, and that almost every mass shooter already passed a mandated Federal background check already in place, is a useless poll......

The only reason the anti gunners want universal background checks is to demand universal gun registration....that's it.

Britain, an island....can't stop the increasing flow of illegal guns into their country, dittos Australia.....we have Mexican drug cartels building gun factories on our southern border......you are an idiot...criminals will get guns, and will not be stopped by background checks of any kind.........

You are making some rather ridiculous statements here. Put in enough truths mixed with lies to make it sound true. It's still making shit up. You are a prime example of the morons making laws I used in my example. Guess what, you just won another award.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Most of them came from personal sales from Indiana who does not have universal background checks. Buying those weapon in Indiana is not against the law. But transporting them to Indiana is a felony for both the state of Illinois and the Federals. That doesn't even slow them down....

Just so we're clear...
The federal laws that ban interstate sales of firearms w/o the involvement if a FFL and a background check did not slow down the interstate sales of firearms.
Pause.... let that sink in....
OK - thanks.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

Most of them came from personal sales from Indiana who does not have universal background checks. Buying those weapon in Indiana is not against the law. But transporting them to Indiana is a felony for both the state of Illinois and the Federals. That doesn't even slow them down....

Just so we're clear...
The federal laws that ban interstate sales of firearms w/o the involvement if a FFL and a background check did not slow down the interstate sales of firearms.
Pause.... let that sink in....
OK - thanks.

They haven't gone to those yet. But if things keep going sour, it might come to that. I am not saying it will but it's an option for rogue states.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Most of them came from personal sales from Indiana who does not have universal background checks. Buying those weapon in Indiana is not against the law. But transporting them to Indiana is a felony for both the state of Illinois and the Federals. That doesn't even slow them down....

Just so we're clear...
The federal laws that ban interstate sales of firearms w/o the involvement if a FFL and a background check did not slow down the interstate sales of firearms.
Pause.... let that sink in....
OK - thanks.

They haven't gone to those yet.

They have - 50 years ago.. YOU described them.
"Buying those weapon in Indiana is not against the law. But transporting them to Indiana is a felony for both the state of Illinois and the Federals."
"That doesn't even slow them down...." you said.
Let us know when that sinks in.]

 

[Deno]

By Peter Weber

That's the opinion of Rupert Murdoch's conservative New York Post. And it's not as far-fetched as it may seem.

Well, let's read the text of the Second Amendment, says Jeffrey Sachs at The Huffington Post:

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.​

It's astonishingly clear that "the Second Amendment is a relic of the founding era more than two centuries ago," and "its purpose is long past."

As Justice John Paul Stevens argues persuasively, the amendment should not block the ability of society to keep itself safe through gun control legislation. That was never its intent. This amendment was about militias in the 1790s, and the fear of the anti-federalists of a federal army. Since that issue is long moot, we need not be governed in our national life by doctrines on now-extinct militias from the 18th century.​

"Fair-minded readers have to acknowledge that the text is ambiguous," says Cass Sunstein at Bloomberg View. Justice Antonin Scalia, who wrote the majority opinion in Heller, was laying out his interpretation of a "genuinely difficult" legal question, and "I am not saying that the court was wrong." More to the point: Right or wrong, obsolete or relevant, the Second Amendment essentially means what five justices on the Supreme Court say it means. So "we should respect the fact that the individual right to have guns has been established," but even the pro-gun interpretation laid out by Scalia explicitly allows for banning the kinds of weapons the shooter used to murder 20 first-graders. The real problem is in the political arena, where "opponents of gun control, armed with both organization and money, have been invoking the Second Amendment far more recklessly," using "wild and unsupportable claims about the meaning of the Constitution" to shut down debate on what sort of regulations might save lives.

More: Is the Second Amendment obsolete? - The Week

Out of my cold dead hands Mother Flucker……………..

Come and get "em"...…………….

 

[Rustic]

But, still... the federal government should have no gun laws. They are still ALL unconstitutional, as the intent of the 2A was to limit federal power.

Until somebody amends the 2A, fed gov power over arms should be NOTHING. ZERO.

.

Some want to simply ignore it and call it antiquated. That is improper.

.

The only time the Feds should get involved is when the States are unable to do it themselves. For instance, the 1934 Firearms act. What good does it do for , just for argument sake, for Illinois to pass a similar full auto gun ban when they a crime boss can just step over the border into Indiana and buy the auto weapon and bring it back into Chicago and continue spraying the streets with them. It wasn't just a Chicago problem, it was also a problem of almost every metro city in the United States with Organized Crime. So the Feds do what the states can't do and pass a central law. Like it or not, that is about the only one that has ever withstood time. Sooner or later, look for them to pass the Universal Background Checks the same way. Bump Stocks are also being done the same way. If your states wants to play this silly assed "No Regulation Ever" game, then it just might come to pass that the other states might force the feds to go that route. And you ain't going to like the Interstate Commerce side of things.

I don't disagree with your reasoning, but any federal gun law is a bad idea because it was not what the constitution originally intended.

Another way it could have been handled would be for each state to prosecute people in its state who deliberately conspired to violate the laws of anther state.
That requires cooperation between states, but much better than a whole federal mechanism that can not ever really work well.
Another way would have been to simply not make full auto illegal anywhere, since it was really Prohibition that was the whole problem, and not full auto firearms.
Full auto is trivial to make almost any gun into, and no one really wants to. There crimes with full auto are so rare as to be totally irrelevant. The only one I can think of is the LA bank robbery about a decade ago.

The universal background check would not be an issue if not for the assault weapon and confiscation insanity. There just is no such thing as an assault weapon, and no one should trust any government with records like that, since they already say they want to confiscate. And that clearly is illegal and the line in the sand.

The federal government should not claim it has to do something when they are the ones who broke it in the first place. There was no problem with Thompson machineguns being sold out of the back of magazine ads for $17, until the feds started Alcohol Prohibition and suddenly millions of dollars in alcohol revenue could not use banks or police protection.

I am going to use Chicago as an example both prior to 2016 and before.

Before 2016, the guns used in gun crimes in Chicago, over 60% were purchased in Illnois. There was no market to import firearms for criminal acts since all one had to do is go into the county and buy guns from private sellers by the car load and transport them back into Chicago.

In 2016, Illinois passed a Universal Background Check for the entire state and aggressively enforced it. All of a sudden, the guns used in crimes purchased or stolen in Chicago from Illinois dropped to below 20%. But the number of guns did not decrease though even though law enforcement actively collected quite a few that were used during crimes. Where did these extra guns come from? Most of them came from personal sales from Indiana who does not have universal background checks. Buying those weapon in Indiana is not against the law. But transporting them to Indiana is a felony for both the state of Illinois and the Federals. That doesn't even slow them down because Indiana, more or less, told Illinois to just go pound sand. New Mexico has the same problem with Arizona and Texas. California has the same problem with Arizona and Nevada. Colorado has the same problem with Kansas. But it appears that most of us are a bit more civilized than Chicago or Detroit.

AT what point does the states that have these illegal guns come streaming in finally push to have the Feds do something about it since it's really a National Problem? One beyond anything any one or group of states can do anything about? Do we start building walls between the states and put up check points everyone must pass through? Do we put mandatory checkpoints on the borders between states to stop all cars coming from the offending states so that ALL cars can be searched for weapons? Or do we force the states to go to universal background checks and aggressively enforce them either by the State or allow the Feds to enforce it.

This is the reason that the 1934 Firearms Act was created in the first place. What good does it do if a particular state bans the Thompson when all the mob guys have to do is go for a short drive one state over (40 minutes) and buy them over the counter and bring them back. They passed that law not because the mobsters were mowing each other down. They passed it because they were also mowing down innocent bystanders. The same is happening now in places like Chicago and Detroit. It happens so much, it's not even that much newsworthy.

I can't give you the exact figures but it's pretty high but the majority of the population support the Universal Background Check. Sooner or later, it's going to happen on the federal level. And look for it to stand up in court as well. But lets say it doesn't. The Feds have ways to force a state to do something. Like if a gun manufacturer ships to a state that isn't using a universal background check, they can tax them into non existance. If they they move to that state that doesn't require universal background checks, the Feds and not allow them to ship outside that state through the Interstate Commerce. It's going to happen. We can keep fighting it and have a bunch of morons pass something we don't want or we can work with them and get something that will actually work. So far, my bet is on the bunch of morons.

Moron.....the majority of people who answer the Universal Background surveys don't understand anything about them, first and foremost that we already have Federal background checks for gun purchases.......so any poll that doesn't actually state that Universal Background checks do not stop criminals from getting guns, and that almost every mass shooter already passed a mandated Federal background check already in place, is a useless poll......

The only reason the anti gunners want universal background checks is to demand universal gun registration....that's it.

Britain, an island....can't stop the increasing flow of illegal guns into their country, dittos Australia.....we have Mexican drug cartels building gun factories on our southern border......you are an idiot...criminals will get guns, and will not be stopped by background checks of any kind.........

You are making some rather ridiculous statements here. Put in enough truths mixed with lies to make it sound true. It's still making shit up. You are a prime example of the morons making laws I used in my example. Guess what, you just won another award.
View attachment 253025
View attachment 253026View attachment 253027

What is Ridiculous is the federal government thinking it knows what’s best for the average US citizen when it comes to firearms ownership... lol
That being personal firearm ownership, that happens to Be none of the federal governments business...

 

[NoVote]

I reserve the right to keep and arm bears....

 

[danielpalos]

Before 2A was drafted, several colonists used firearms to defend themselves because they usually lived far from each other. At the same time, communities also established militias for various purposes, including slave patrols. The right to defend oneself was considered natural, with the right to bear arms connected to it and part of English common law.

After the Revolutionary War, Washington wrote about the poor quality of some militias.

While 2A was drafted and revised several times, framers debates on the need to avoid a large standing army, state rights to have their own armed groups, the desire to avoid tyranny, and threats including European invaders, whites who could rebel, slave riots, and Native Americans. They negotiated and ratified an amendment that argued that to ensure the availability of regulated militias, the right to bear arms would not be infringed. The idea sounds too obvious because several colonists were already armed and it was considered a natural right, part of the need for self-defense. This explains why 2A doesn't grant the right to bear arms but protects it: the right is natural and exists even without 2A, the Constitution, or even a nation. Still, the added something obvious because they wanted to show citizens that their right to defend themselves would not be infringed.

So, what's the connection between that and regulated militias? The framers didn't argue that the right to bear arms is granted by the government or that the right only exists if there are regulated militias. Rather, the right to defend oneself, which is natural, was used to justify the need to defend the country. Since they didn't want a large standing army, they resorted to militias, and since they didn't want ill-trained militias, they made sure that there were regulated ones.

What does "regulated" mean? It is defined in Art. 1 Sec. 8, which states who will organize these militias and their purpose, which is to serve the government.

How was the formation of regulated militias made operational? It is explained in the Militia Acts, which required all white males of a certain age range, and with few exceptions, to obtain battle rifles and report for training.

Thus, the purpose of 2A is not merely to protect the right to bear arms but to use it to ensure mandatory military service, which is what happened via the Militia Acts.

The problem is that what Washington complained about persisted as armies became more professional and complex. The country learned that the hard way during the War of 1812, when they realized that a small standing army with militias would not be enough to deal with professional armies. It still took awhile, even when blacks were included among males to serve given a subsequent Militia Act. But it was the last one, in 1903, that led to the formation of the National Guard, and eventually made 2A irrelevant. As military forces became increasingly complex, the country had to rely on reserves trained in the same way as the standing army, with conscription employed in case more troops were needed.

Today, what is left of 2A is the Selective Service System, where male citizens are merely required to register, with the government given the option to conscript them if necessary.

But, still... the federal government should have no gun laws. They are still ALL unconstitutional, as the intent of the 2A was to limit federal power.

Until somebody amends the 2A, fed gov power over arms should be NOTHING. ZERO.

.

Some want to simply ignore it and call it antiquated. That is improper.

.

Our Second Amendment is about the security of a free State not individual rights; it expressly says so in the first clause.

BS. The entire Bill of Rights is a list of absolute restrictions on federal authority. Nothing else.
If the 2nd amendment was only about "the security of a free state", whatever that is, then it would not have said, that the right of the PEOPLE to bear arms shall not be infringed.
It would have said the authority of a free state to bear arms shall not be infringed.
ONLY individuals have rights.
Whenever you read the word "rights", the writing is referring to individuals.

Where does it say that in our federal Constitution? It is express not implied. All terms in our Second Amendment are collective and plural.

 

[danielpalos]

By Peter Weber

That's the opinion of Rupert Murdoch's conservative New York Post. And it's not as far-fetched as it may seem.

Well, let's read the text of the Second Amendment, says Jeffrey Sachs at The Huffington Post:

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.​

It's astonishingly clear that "the Second Amendment is a relic of the founding era more than two centuries ago," and "its purpose is long past."

As Justice John Paul Stevens argues persuasively, the amendment should not block the ability of society to keep itself safe through gun control legislation. That was never its intent. This amendment was about militias in the 1790s, and the fear of the anti-federalists of a federal army. Since that issue is long moot, we need not be governed in our national life by doctrines on now-extinct militias from the 18th century.​

"Fair-minded readers have to acknowledge that the text is ambiguous," says Cass Sunstein at Bloomberg View. Justice Antonin Scalia, who wrote the majority opinion in Heller, was laying out his interpretation of a "genuinely difficult" legal question, and "I am not saying that the court was wrong." More to the point: Right or wrong, obsolete or relevant, the Second Amendment essentially means what five justices on the Supreme Court say it means. So "we should respect the fact that the individual right to have guns has been established," but even the pro-gun interpretation laid out by Scalia explicitly allows for banning the kinds of weapons the shooter used to murder 20 first-graders. The real problem is in the political arena, where "opponents of gun control, armed with both organization and money, have been invoking the Second Amendment far more recklessly," using "wild and unsupportable claims about the meaning of the Constitution" to shut down debate on what sort of regulations might save lives.

More: Is the Second Amendment obsolete? - The Week

Out of my cold dead hands Mother Flucker……………..

Come and get "em"...…………….

don't make me Have to muster and get to know my heavy weapons section.

 

[Rigby5]

Well, at least bump stocks finally got banned. That's a start...

I have no interests in bump stocks, so it does not at all matter.
However, the general population is supposed to be the only citizen soldiers we rely on.
There is not supposed to be any paid police or mercenary military.
So only the general population is supposed to have military grade weapons.
The paid police and military we have now will do what ever those who pay them, tell them to do, like shoot Blacks or invade innocent countries. Those are the dangerous people we have to disarm.

 

[Rustic]

Well, at least bump stocks finally got banned. That's a start...

I have no interests in bump stocks, so it does not at all matter.
However, the general population is supposed to be the only citizen soldiers we rely on.
There is not supposed to be any paid police or mercenary military.
So only the general population is supposed to have military grade weapons.
The paid police and military we have now will do what ever those who pay them, tell them to do, like shoot Blacks or invade innocent countries. Those are the dangerous people we have to disarm.

Funny thing is the banning of bump stocks will not save a single soul… Washington Redskin got into the fucking fire water again obviously

 

[Rigby5]

Before 2A was drafted, several colonists used firearms to defend themselves because they usually lived far from each other. At the same time, communities also established militias for various purposes, including slave patrols. The right to defend oneself was considered natural, with the right to bear arms connected to it and part of English common law.

After the Revolutionary War, Washington wrote about the poor quality of some militias.

While 2A was drafted and revised several times, framers debates on the need to avoid a large standing army, state rights to have their own armed groups, the desire to avoid tyranny, and threats including European invaders, whites who could rebel, slave riots, and Native Americans. They negotiated and ratified an amendment that argued that to ensure the availability of regulated militias, the right to bear arms would not be infringed. The idea sounds too obvious because several colonists were already armed and it was considered a natural right, part of the need for self-defense. This explains why 2A doesn't grant the right to bear arms but protects it: the right is natural and exists even without 2A, the Constitution, or even a nation. Still, the added something obvious because they wanted to show citizens that their right to defend themselves would not be infringed.

So, what's the connection between that and regulated militias? The framers didn't argue that the right to bear arms is granted by the government or that the right only exists if there are regulated militias. Rather, the right to defend oneself, which is natural, was used to justify the need to defend the country. Since they didn't want a large standing army, they resorted to militias, and since they didn't want ill-trained militias, they made sure that there were regulated ones.

What does "regulated" mean? It is defined in Art. 1 Sec. 8, which states who will organize these militias and their purpose, which is to serve the government.

How was the formation of regulated militias made operational? It is explained in the Militia Acts, which required all white males of a certain age range, and with few exceptions, to obtain battle rifles and report for training.

Thus, the purpose of 2A is not merely to protect the right to bear arms but to use it to ensure mandatory military service, which is what happened via the Militia Acts.

The problem is that what Washington complained about persisted as armies became more professional and complex. The country learned that the hard way during the War of 1812, when they realized that a small standing army with militias would not be enough to deal with professional armies. It still took awhile, even when blacks were included among males to serve given a subsequent Militia Act. But it was the last one, in 1903, that led to the formation of the National Guard, and eventually made 2A irrelevant. As military forces became increasingly complex, the country had to rely on reserves trained in the same way as the standing army, with conscription employed in case more troops were needed.

Today, what is left of 2A is the Selective Service System, where male citizens are merely required to register, with the government given the option to conscript them if necessary.

But, still... the federal government should have no gun laws. They are still ALL unconstitutional, as the intent of the 2A was to limit federal power.

Until somebody amends the 2A, fed gov power over arms should be NOTHING. ZERO.

.

Some want to simply ignore it and call it antiquated. That is improper.

.

The only time the Feds should get involved is when the States are unable to do it themselves. For instance, the 1934 Firearms act. What good does it do for , just for argument sake, for Illinois to pass a similar full auto gun ban when they a crime boss can just step over the border into Indiana and buy the auto weapon and bring it back into Chicago and continue spraying the streets with them. It wasn't just a Chicago problem, it was also a problem of almost every metro city in the United States with Organized Crime. So the Feds do what the states can't do and pass a central law. Like it or not, that is about the only one that has ever withstood time. Sooner or later, look for them to pass the Universal Background Checks the same way. Bump Stocks are also being done the same way. If your states wants to play this silly assed "No Regulation Ever" game, then it just might come to pass that the other states might force the feds to go that route. And you ain't going to like the Interstate Commerce side of things.

I don't disagree with your reasoning, but any federal gun law is a bad idea because it was not what the constitution originally intended.

Another way it could have been handled would be for each state to prosecute people in its state who deliberately conspired to violate the laws of anther state.
That requires cooperation between states, but much better than a whole federal mechanism that can not ever really work well.
Another way would have been to simply not make full auto illegal anywhere, since it was really Prohibition that was the whole problem, and not full auto firearms.
Full auto is trivial to make almost any gun into, and no one really wants to. There crimes with full auto are so rare as to be totally irrelevant. The only one I can think of is the LA bank robbery about a decade ago.

The universal background check would not be an issue if not for the assault weapon and confiscation insanity. There just is no such thing as an assault weapon, and no one should trust any government with records like that, since they already say they want to confiscate. And that clearly is illegal and the line in the sand.

The federal government should not claim it has to do something when they are the ones who broke it in the first place. There was no problem with Thompson machineguns being sold out of the back of magazine ads for $17, until the feds started Alcohol Prohibition and suddenly millions of dollars in alcohol revenue could not use banks or police protection.

I am going to use Chicago as an example both prior to 2016 and before.

Before 2016, the guns used in gun crimes in Chicago, over 60% were purchased in Illnois. There was no market to import firearms for criminal acts since all one had to do is go into the county and buy guns from private sellers by the car load and transport them back into Chicago.

In 2016, Illinois passed a Universal Background Check for the entire state and aggressively enforced it. All of a sudden, the guns used in crimes purchased or stolen in Chicago from Illinois dropped to below 20%. But the number of guns did not decrease though even though law enforcement actively collected quite a few that were used during crimes. Where did these extra guns come from? Most of them came from personal sales from Indiana who does not have universal background checks. Buying those weapon in Indiana is not against the law. But transporting them to Indiana is a felony for both the state of Illinois and the Federals. That doesn't even slow them down because Indiana, more or less, told Illinois to just go pound sand. New Mexico has the same problem with Arizona and Texas. California has the same problem with Arizona and Nevada. Colorado has the same problem with Kansas. But it appears that most of us are a bit more civilized than Chicago or Detroit.

AT what point does the states that have these illegal guns come streaming in finally push to have the Feds do something about it since it's really a National Problem? One beyond anything any one or group of states can do anything about? Do we start building walls between the states and put up check points everyone must pass through? Do we put mandatory checkpoints on the borders between states to stop all cars coming from the offending states so that ALL cars can be searched for weapons? Or do we force the states to go to universal background checks and aggressively enforce them either by the State or allow the Feds to enforce it.

This is the reason that the 1934 Firearms Act was created in the first place. What good does it do if a particular state bans the Thompson when all the mob guys have to do is go for a short drive one state over (40 minutes) and buy them over the counter and bring them back. They passed that law not because the mobsters were mowing each other down. They passed it because they were also mowing down innocent bystanders. The same is happening now in places like Chicago and Detroit. It happens so much, it's not even that much newsworthy.

I can't give you the exact figures but it's pretty high but the majority of the population support the Universal Background Check. Sooner or later, it's going to happen on the federal level. And look for it to stand up in court as well. But lets say it doesn't. The Feds have ways to force a state to do something. Like if a gun manufacturer ships to a state that isn't using a universal background check, they can tax them into non existance. If they they move to that state that doesn't require universal background checks, the Feds and not allow them to ship outside that state through the Interstate Commerce. It's going to happen. We can keep fighting it and have a bunch of morons pass something we don't want or we can work with them and get something that will actually work. So far, my bet is on the bunch of morons.

Logical and rational, but still wrong in my opinion.

The problems in Chicago have nothing at all to do with guns, so there would be no advantage in having federal assistance in implementing Chicago's incorrect solution.
The problem in Chicago is well known and understood. The causes of crime are the classic poverty, injustice, lack of opportunity, etc., as well as the deliberately created War on Drugs. The War on Drugs caused a well paid underground economy that can't rely on banks or police, so requires everyone involved to be armed. That is identical to what Prohibition did. It caused gangs to prey on each other, and caused them to commence an arms war of escalating violence. End the War on Drugs, and likely it all goes away. Nor is the War on Drugs legal either. The authority for government comes from the defense of the rights of individuals, and the war on drugs defends no one. It is a classic act of authoritarianism. There is no legal basis for it.
All the crime in Chicago is caused by the government.
From Prohibition, we know exactly what the War on Drugs had to do, so then the War on Drugs has to be an intentionally created excuse to cause crime, as a fake excuse to disarm, incarcerate, confiscate, intimidate, and murder.

Lets assume that to prevent guns from outside Chicago and outside of IL, all guns in the entirely country became illegal and were confiscated? Would that reduce crime in Chicago? Absolutely not one bit.
First of all, none of the drugs coming into Chicago are from the US. They are all smuggled in from outside. And all those drug smugglers have to be armed, to protect themselves from other gangs, so they already are smuggling guns. All a total US ban on guns would do is so greatly raise prices, that they would switch over to more guns and less drugs. Which in many ways would be an improvement. There not only are hundreds of gun manufacturers in South America, Asia, Eastern Europe, etc., who would love for the profits that a US gun ban would cause, but it is easy to make home brew submachine guns like a Sten. In fact, in WWII the military produced simple kits to make even bolt action rifles into submachine guns, called the Pederson Kit. This is a trivial procedure. You just remove the locking lugs and add springs and weight to slow the bolt down.
But most important of all is that guns are NEVER the cause or source of crime, so it is always pointless, foolish, and counter productive to do anything at all about the guns themselves. If you fix the causes of crime, then all the problems go away. If you do NOT fix the causes of crime, then you not only deserve the high crime, but then high crime is good, as a means of punishing those who refuse to stop the causes of crime.
Crime is the just deserts of bad government that allows injustice, poverty, lack of opportunity, etc. You don't want to incarcerate those trying to survive, like those dealing drugs, but you want to lynch the corrupt politicians, bureaucrats, and government employees who deliberately caused the situation to happen.

Crime is the canary in the coal mine, telling you when there are problems.
Gun control is like killing that canary and lying about the fact the problems are even worse.

 

[Rigby5]

Well, at least bump stocks finally got banned. That's a start...

How? With thousands of these in private hands, one was used in one attack in a country of over 320 million people.......are you really that deranged that you would think a ban on a gimmick used once for crime makes any difference?

It doesn't happen over night. It will take up to 10 years to get most of them. And some will stay in some gun locker for a very long time and you will never be aware that it's there. It took them about 10 years to get a handle on the Thompson MG.

No, it will never happen.
The war on drugs was started under Nixon in 1971.
It was never won, never ended, and only got much, much worse every single year.
And it is the War on Drugs that is the most responsible for the excessive amount and use of weapons, just as Prohibition did.
The 1934 gun control act did NOT at all solve the problem of the Thompson machineguns, but it was the end of Prohibition in 1929 that ended the Thompson machinegun problem.

You can not at all solve any weapons problem by legislation.
Weapons are easy to make, and all legislation does is make them more profitable.

 

[Rigby5]

But, still... the federal government should have no gun laws. They are still ALL unconstitutional, as the intent of the 2A was to limit federal power.

Until somebody amends the 2A, fed gov power over arms should be NOTHING. ZERO.

.

Some want to simply ignore it and call it antiquated. That is improper.

.

You can have gun laws because rights may be abridged, i.e., limited for various reasons. That's why, for example, convicts don't have the right to bear arms.

For these laws to be passed, a majority vote is needed.

Also, the purpose of 2A is not to limit federal power but to enhance it. That's why what defines regulated militias is seen in Art. 1 Sec. 8 and what makes them operational are the Militia Acts, which called for mandatory military service for male citizens.

There's no need to amend 2A to stop gun control. What you need to do is to convince more citizens to vote against it (i,e., gun control).

Finally, 2A is irrelevant because the gov't no longer needs regulated militias to supplement the army. Rather, it's been using the National Guard since 1903, and for citizens, conscription and the Selective Service System.

That is all totally wrong.
Actually convicts do have a right to defend themselves, so likely it is illegal to prevent felons from being armed after all parole and other restrictions are over.
And although you can have gun laws, clearly you can NOT have any federal gun jurisdiction at all. That is the whole point of the Bill of Rights.

The ENTIRE Bill of Rights is ONLY restrictions on the federal government!
That is exactly what the Bill of Rights says, as well as every single politician at the time who was involved.
The states were hesitate to sign up for a new big government that could be abusive, just as England had been, so the sole purpose of the Bill of Rights just as an additional set of absolute restriction and limits in federal powers.
The fact different articles of the Constitution define how state militias could be called upon for federal use in national emergencies, has nothing to do with the 2nd amendment or the Bill of Rights.

You do not have to amend the Bill of Rights or 2nd Amendment to stop gun control because that is exactly what the 2nd amendment says and is supposed to do. It says there must be no federal gun jurisdiction at all.
You would need a constitutional amendment in order to GIVE any federal weapons jurisdiction. There is NONE in the constitution now. And without any explicit weapons jurisdiction anywhere in the constitution, any and all federal weapons laws are totally illegal.

And you are totally wrong about the current need for militias.
The National Guard may or may not be what the federal government wishes to be able to call up in a national emergency, but national emergencies is not what militias are primarily for. Militias are to protect state, municipality, home, and self.
And if you look at the conscription system of the selective service system, it is NOT federally run. Each state runs it through their own state appointed boards. The feds have no jurisdiction over selective service system.

In fact, ALL of the current problems of police murdering unarmed Blacks, etc., of the Pentagon lying about WMD and invading innocent countries, etc., is all due to illegally creating mercenary police and military that work for pay. That is not what the founders intended. They wanted citizen soldiers only, who then would not be corrupted by pay.
The whole current military and police complex is totally corrupt and is causing all of our major problems.

 

[Rigby5]

The problem was not so much whether or not guns used were illegal but whether or not militias were disciplined and sufficiently equipped. Washington's complaint was that several of them lacked both.

The gov't realized that they could not rely so much on militias after 1812, which is why they focused on increasing the size of the standing army. Ultimately, with the last Militia Act, they established the National Guard, which made the need for regulated militias irrelevant.

Today, the government focuses on voluntary service via the National Guard and conscription if more troops are needed. The only thing required of male citizens is to register.

Wrong.
The last time we were invaded was 1812, so that was the last time we needed any large military force. The reason the standing army was increased after that, was corruption.
The military should not have been increased, and the purpose of doing so was in order to massacre natives, illegally invade Mexico several times, to illegally invade Cuba/Philippines, join with the terrorists in WWI, etc.
If we had stayed with the citizen soldiers the founders wanted, likely all those illegal wars would have been much harder to sell.
And the military is still likely the single most corrupt part of government, such as the illegal wars in Vietnam, Panama, Grenada, Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Syria, etc.

 

[Rigby5]

Before 2A was drafted, several colonists used firearms to defend themselves because they usually lived far from each other. At the same time, communities also established militias for various purposes, including slave patrols. The right to defend oneself was considered natural, with the right to bear arms connected to it and part of English common law.

After the Revolutionary War, Washington wrote about the poor quality of some militias.

While 2A was drafted and revised several times, framers debates on the need to avoid a large standing army, state rights to have their own armed groups, the desire to avoid tyranny, and threats including European invaders, whites who could rebel, slave riots, and Native Americans. They negotiated and ratified an amendment that argued that to ensure the availability of regulated militias, the right to bear arms would not be infringed. The idea sounds too obvious because several colonists were already armed and it was considered a natural right, part of the need for self-defense. This explains why 2A doesn't grant the right to bear arms but protects it: the right is natural and exists even without 2A, the Constitution, or even a nation. Still, the added something obvious because they wanted to show citizens that their right to defend themselves would not be infringed.

So, what's the connection between that and regulated militias? The framers didn't argue that the right to bear arms is granted by the government or that the right only exists if there are regulated militias. Rather, the right to defend oneself, which is natural, was used to justify the need to defend the country. Since they didn't want a large standing army, they resorted to militias, and since they didn't want ill-trained militias, they made sure that there were regulated ones.

What does "regulated" mean? It is defined in Art. 1 Sec. 8, which states who will organize these militias and their purpose, which is to serve the government.

How was the formation of regulated militias made operational? It is explained in the Militia Acts, which required all white males of a certain age range, and with few exceptions, to obtain battle rifles and report for training.

Thus, the purpose of 2A is not merely to protect the right to bear arms but to use it to ensure mandatory military service, which is what happened via the Militia Acts.

The problem is that what Washington complained about persisted as armies became more professional and complex. The country learned that the hard way during the War of 1812, when they realized that a small standing army with militias would not be enough to deal with professional armies. It still took awhile, even when blacks were included among males to serve given a subsequent Militia Act. But it was the last one, in 1903, that led to the formation of the National Guard, and eventually made 2A irrelevant. As military forces became increasingly complex, the country had to rely on reserves trained in the same way as the standing army, with conscription employed in case more troops were needed.

Today, what is left of 2A is the Selective Service System, where male citizens are merely required to register, with the government given the option to conscript them if necessary.

But, still... the federal government should have no gun laws. They are still ALL unconstitutional, as the intent of the 2A was to limit federal power.

Until somebody amends the 2A, fed gov power over arms should be NOTHING. ZERO.

.

Some want to simply ignore it and call it antiquated. That is improper.

.

Our Second Amendment is about the security of a free State not individual rights; it expressly says so in the first clause.

BS. The entire Bill of Rights is a list of absolute restrictions on federal authority. Nothing else.
If the 2nd amendment was only about "the security of a free state", whatever that is, then it would not have said, that the right of the PEOPLE to bear arms shall not be infringed.
It would have said the authority of a free state to bear arms shall not be infringed.
ONLY individuals have rights.
Whenever you read the word "rights", the writing is referring to individuals.

Where does it say that in our federal Constitution? It is express not implied. All terms in our Second Amendment are collective and plural.

You would have to know nothing of the Bill of Rights to not know they are just all federal restrictions.

{...
The Bill of Rights limits the (federal) government by enumerating the rights of the people and listing the things the (federal) government cannot do. For example, the Bill of Rights states that the government cannot pass a law limiting the freedom of speech or religion.

The Bill of Rights is a term that refers to the first 10 amendments of the Constitution of the United States. The lack of a Bill of Rights was one of the main points of disagreement between federalists and anti-federalists. James Madison wrote the 10 amendments as a response to calls from several states for constitutional protection for individual liberties. The end result, approved by the House and ratified in 1791, is a list of limits on the powers of government. According to the Third Amendment, no soldier can be quartered in a private house in a time of peace without the consent of the owner. The Fourth Amendment prohibits the government from intruding in a citizen's home. According to the Fifth Amendment, no one can be held to answer for a capital crime in the absence of a grand jury. The Eighth Amendment prevents the government from imposing excessive bail or fines on citizens and from inflicting cruel and unusual punishments.
...}

How Does the Bill of Rights Limit the Government?

As to the exact wording of the Bill of Rights, here is the preamble and beginning:

{...
The Preamble to The Bill of Rights
Congress of the United States
begun and held at the City of New-York, on
Wednesday the fourth of March, one thousand seven hundred and eighty nine.

THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution.

RESOLVED by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, two thirds of both Houses concurring, that the following Articles be proposed to the Legislatures of the several States, as amendments to the Constitution of the United States, all, or any of which Articles, when ratified by three fourths of the said Legislatures, to be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of the said Constitution; viz.

ARTICLES in addition to, and Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America, proposed by Congress, and ratified by the Legislatures of the several States, pursuant to the fifth Article of the original Constitution.

Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Amendment II
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 Bill of Rights: A Transcription


It should be totally clear that the Bill of Rights was entirely additional prohibitions, limits, and restrictions on federal authority, powers, and jurisdictions.

 

[hadit]

Well, at least bump stocks finally got banned. That's a start...

Makes you feel good, does nothing to stop gun deaths.

 

[Rustic]

Well, at least bump stocks finally got banned. That's a start...

Makes you feel good, does nothing to stop gun deaths.

You have to excuse Washington redskin... He gets into the fire water more often than not