What would you do with the second amendment?

[sparky]

What to do with the Second Amendment?

We really only have so many choices Joe.

The road we're on now is a 2A interpretation via the gun industry>

How the NRA Rewrote the Second Amendment

Lobbying the best Congress $$$ can buy has it's advantages.

But let's take a trip in the wayback machine......

“Anti-Federalists” opposed this new Constitution. The foes worried, among other things, that the new government would establish a “standing army” of professional soldiers and would disarm the 13 state militias, made up of part-time citizen-soldiers and revered as bulwarks against tyranny. These militias were the product of a world of civic duty and governmental compulsion utterly alien to us today. Every white man age 16 to 60 was enrolled. He was actually required to own—and bring—a musket or other military weapon.

I do believe one of our more educated posters here created a thread on this colonial requirement, all rather enlightening , i had no idea as well.

By FF standards , the militia of the 'people' was a big deal , a militia that did not hail to centralized power ,IE~ the FF's were anti-federalists

But there's this fly in the ointment oath , which everyone who has served has taken , as well as claims stands for life, IE~ federalists

It's quite the dilemma to imagine 10thers forming a 'people's militia' ,who openly hail to the constitutional right of individual state militia w/o acknowledging a federal entity

And even odder imagining them soliciting ex vets to do so ,essentially requiring them to revoke former oath TO central authorities

But that's where the 'well regulated' part of militia rubber would meet the constitutional road our FF's visualized.

Personally, i wouldn't mind every able bodied 16-60 yr old properly trained in the use and ownership of FA's vs. what i see as 'gun anarchy' along with too many idiots w/guns (i've many stories) And what better resource(s) that the VFW & AL could one want ?

I'd also love to see 'the people' feared by governance vs. some militarized police state doing the exact opposite

Idealist?

Probably , but any real change would take the 'people' on the same page

~S~

 

[Pop23]

What to do with the Second Amendment?

We really only have so many choices Joe.

The road we're on now is a 2A interpretation via the gun industry>

How the NRA Rewrote the Second Amendment

Lobbying the best Congress $$$ can buy has it's advantages.

But let's take a trip in the wayback machine......

“Anti-Federalists” opposed this new Constitution. The foes worried, among other things, that the new government would establish a “standing army” of professional soldiers and would disarm the 13 state militias, made up of part-time citizen-soldiers and revered as bulwarks against tyranny. These militias were the product of a world of civic duty and governmental compulsion utterly alien to us today. Every white man age 16 to 60 was enrolled. He was actually required to own—and bring—a musket or other military weapon.

I do believe one of our more educated posters here created a thread on this colonial requirement, all rather enlightening , i had no idea as well.

By FF standards , the militia of the 'people' was a big deal , a militia that did not hail to centralized power ,IE~ the FF's were anti-federalists

But there's this fly in the ointment oath , which everyone who has served has taken , as well as claims stands for life, IE~ federalists

It's quite the dilemma to imagine 10thers forming a 'people's militia' ,who openly hail to the constitutional right of individual state militia w/o acknowledging a federal entity

And even odder imagining them soliciting ex vets to do so ,essentially requiring them to revoke former oath TO central authorities

But that's where the 'well regulated' part of militia rubber would meet the constitutional road our FF's visualized.

Personally, i wouldn't mind every able bodied 16-60 yr old properly trained in the use and ownership of FA's vs. what i see as 'gun anarchy' along with too many idiots w/guns (i've many stories) And what better resource(s) that the VFW & AL could one want ?

I'd also love to see 'the people' feared by governance vs. some militarized police state doing the exact opposite

Idealist?

Probably , but any real change would take the 'people' on the same page

~S~

Odd? Why? when the oath is to the Constitution, not the Government.

 

[sparky]

well see, that's the thing pops....~S~

 

[Pop23]

well see, that's the thing pops....~S~

You slanted your entire rant as though the Soldier pledges an oath to the Government. Unless I am wildly mistaken, that is not the case, and for sound reasoning. You don't see that?

 

[sparky]

You slanted your entire rant as though the Soldier pledges an oath to the Government. Unless I am wildly mistaken, that is not the case, and for sound reasoning. You don't see that?

It is a view presented to me Pops, not one i made up

I can,however, be corrected.

Fact is, i'd invite it

~S~

 

[Pop23]

You slanted your entire rant as though the Soldier pledges an oath to the Government. Unless I am wildly mistaken, that is not the case, and for sound reasoning. You don't see that?

It is a view presented to me Pops, not one i made up

I can,however, be corrected.

Fact is, i'd invite it

~S~

Sorry if I misintrepreted the post. The Soldier makes the Oath to uphold the "Constitution" or the principles within the Document, not the Government as Governments can change during the tour of Service, but their commitment to the principles that they serve "the people", in their best interest of being free, should never waiver.

 

[candycorn]

Nothing (first choice). Second choice, let’s have an exercise between the first Army and gun owners. Hopefully the owners will see the silliness of the “we have to defend ourselves against the gubberment” when they are rolled up in about 10 mins; this rendering the 2nd Amendment null and void

 

[Pop23]

Nothing (first choice). Second choice, let’s have an exercise between the first Army and gun owners. Hopefully the owners will see the silliness of the “we have to defend ourselves against the gubberment” when they are rolled up in about 10 mins; this rendering the 2nd Amendment null and void

Wow, an exersize, that's the ticket. Shooting your'e own brother is equal to pretend shooting, right?

 

[Rustic]

Nothing (first choice). Second choice, let’s have an exercise between the first Army and gun owners. Hopefully the owners will see the silliness of the “we have to defend ourselves against the gubberment” when they are rolled up in about 10 mins; this rendering the 2nd Amendment null and void

The military is overwhelmingly pro second amendment, they would tell your beloved deep state to fuck off...

 

[Pop23]

Nothing (first choice). Second choice, let’s have an exercise between the first Army and gun owners. Hopefully the owners will see the silliness of the “we have to defend ourselves against the gubberment” when they are rolled up in about 10 mins; this rendering the 2nd Amendment null and void

The military is overwhelmingly pro second amendment, they would tell your beloved deep state to fuck off...

But the left, and at least one loony ex-military that we both know on this board, seems to THINK (i use the word loosely), that our Soldiers swear an Oath to the Government when they actually swear an Oath to the Constitution. Have you noticed how they are trying to change that fact. At first it was subtle, now it's gone full bore.

Just waiting for Duhryl to accuse me (for the 10th time) of Treason for stating the obvious!

 

[Rustic]

Nothing (first choice). Second choice, let’s have an exercise between the first Army and gun owners. Hopefully the owners will see the silliness of the “we have to defend ourselves against the gubberment” when they are rolled up in about 10 mins; this rendering the 2nd Amendment null and void

The military is overwhelmingly pro second amendment, they would tell your beloved deep state to fuck off...

But the left, and at least one loony ex-military that we both know on this board, seems to THINK (i use the word loosely), that our Soldiers swear an Oath to the Government when they actually swear an Oath to the Constitution. Have you noticed how they are trying to change that fact. At first it was subtle, now it's gone full bore.

Just waiting for Duhryl to accuse me (for the 10th time) of Treason for stating the obvious!

Daryl has dementia

 

[danielpalos]

Draft gun lovers first, whenever they present Any security problems in our free States, to the Judicature.

Don't be repugnant to the first clause of our Second Amendment, gun lovers.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Draft gun lovers first, whenever they present Any security problems in our free States, to the Judicature.

Don't be repugnant to the first clause of our Second Amendment, gun lovers.

 

[danielpalos]

Draft gun lovers first, whenever they present Any security problems in our free States, to the Judicature.

Don't be repugnant to the first clause of our Second Amendment, gun lovers.

Thank goodness for the common law, if no gun specific security problems from the unorganized militia are involved.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Thank goodness for the common law, if no gun specific security problems from the unorganized militia are involved.

What in the actual FUCK does that mean, Sancho? What?

You are repeating gibberish bullshit and calling it argument.

 

[danielpalos]

Thank goodness for the common law, if no gun specific security problems from the unorganized militia are involved.

What in the actual FUCK does that mean, Sancho? What?

You are repeating gibberish bullshit and calling it argument.

it means, since the unorganized militia is Not expressly declared Necessary, is perforce subject to the police power.

 

[Issa]

I know tons of Australians that live in the IS and are disgusted by the gun violence in the US.

Australians have no say in how we Americans run our country.

Australians along with the rest of the world are laughing at your stupidity.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

it means, since the unorganized militia is Not expressly declared Necessary, is perforce subject to the police power.

And, where does it say that?

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Australians along with the rest of the world are laughing at your stupidity.

Laughing at us?

They can't even get a damn pea shooter. Who is laughing at whom?

You should go live there and get the fuck out. It's too dangerous here.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

Ban guns and join the civilised world. If not, keep counting the bodies and make sure you have enough plastic bags.

Like Australia did? The result was rape at historic levels. You mean women getting raped is civilized?

Where ya from Bloke? Putting another shrimp on the barbie, you rascal?

Australia is a lot safer than the US, so are most of the civilized world hillbilly.

Not for women it appears. Not nearly as safe as it was.

Present your facts. You seem to not be doing that. Otherwise, you are just running off at the mouth once again.

Here ya go Duhryl

Rate of sexual violence against women has risen dramatically since 2012, ABS says

One big problem with your cite. It's an op ed piece with no supporting documentation. It says that it does have but has no links back to the source. And then it asks for money. Usually I ding the rightwingers sources. This time I am dinging a leftwingers source. The Guardian is a sister to the Observer which is a British Sensational Rag. Both are owned by the same people. And both often use the same tactics. The only difference is, the Guardian is sometimes more right than the Observer. But when you see an op ed piece on the net that doesn't link back then there is a very good chance it's mostly made up. And this is one of them.

Now, where is the Australian Proof. You presented the English Rag version which means absolutely nothing. Now where is the Australian.