What would you do with the second amendment?

[kaz]

One would think the term 'militia' ,at least in the FF's 2nd context, would be anything but gub'mit conscripts. In fact,one could easily read 10th'ers stance into it.

How bad would it be if each state was in fact responsible for the creation , and maintenance of it's own militia ?

Something that would not bow to the Feds (funding strings)

Wouldn't that be in step with FF's constitutional foersight?

~S~

No, not at all. National defense was the primary purpose for the Federal government as defined by the founders. They would be shocked at all the things the Feds do supposedly under their document

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

If age requirements are not infringement, what is infringement? If AR15s can be bought but nearly identical M16s cannot, what is infringement? If covicted criminals cannot buy firearms, what is infringement?
This is obviously one major area that can be visited in the firearms debate. That some arms be available and that those arms may be born can be interpreted as conforming to the Constitutions provisions of a 'right'.
Remember, definitions of words are not the domain of minority extremists, but the subjective interpretation of the majority that uses the words.

Infringement occurs when government enacts firearm regulatory measures inconsistent with Second Amendment jurisprudence; firearm regulatory measures consistent with the Second Amendment is not ‘infringement.’

And however subjective, the Supreme Court has the sole authority to interpret what the Second Amendment means; absent a Supreme Court ruling, measures regulating firearms are presumed to be Constitutional, in deference to the will of the people.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Gun registration, licensing, and background checks are examples of firearm regulatory measures consistent with the Second Amendment, none having been invalidated as un-Constitutional by the Supreme Court.

To argue otherwise is ignorant idiocy.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Government's thirst for power and control has no bounds. They already twist, ignore, and undermine the Constitution. To combat this we have to drag them into court, slap them around and force them to obey the Constitution.

Ultimately, that is the purpose of the Second Amendment, to allow the people the power to force government to obey the Constitution. Even the courts cannot be trusted. What do you think it means when the courts are arguing and ruling over which infringements of the people's right to keep and bear arms are permissible, when the Second Amendment already answers that question, making it clear that NO infringements are permissible?

 

[Bob Blaylock]

gun ownership and carrying a gun are not attached to militia service.....you need to read your Supreme Court cases....

No need to read the court cases. Just read the Constitution itself. The Second Amendment is only one sentence, and it is very clearly-written. No need to look to the courts to tell us what it means, especially when the courts try to tell us that it means something other than what it very clearly says.

 

[postman]

Let's get to the end game. What should the Constitution say, if anything, about guns and what power should the Federal government have to regulate them?

I'd repeal and replace. This time combine the first and second clauses into a single statement, and eliminate the ambiguity.

Ex: Every law abiding citizen has the right to bear arms for self defense, sporting and recreational purposes and that right may be regulated but not infringed upon.

 

[postman]

Ultimately, that is the purpose of the Second Amendment, to allow the people the power to force government to obey the Constitution. Even the courts cannot be trusted. What do you think it means when the courts are arguing and ruling over which infringements of the people's right to keep and bear arms are permissible, when the Second Amendment already answers that question, making it clear that NO infringements are permissible?

Define an infringement? That felons aren't allowed to have guns? Is that an infringement?
What about non-citizens right to bear arms? Is that infringed?

 

[postman]

Our Second Amendment is clear as to what is Necessary to the security of our free States.

Actually states can have unlimited firepower. Cops and the National Guard can have machine guns, destructive devices, and other weapons generally prohibited to the citizens. So the state had all the arms they want to defend themselves from within and without.

What isn't clear is the rights of the citizens of that state, who aren't members of that states militia.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Mandatory training is no different from the mandatory Literacy Tests used by democrats to keep blacks from voting. Background checks, universal background checks, are only desired by anti gunners so they can next demand universal gun registration....and background checks do not stop criminals or mass shooters from gettting [sic] guns.

When I was in high school, I took JROTC. As part of that program, I received training in marksmanship and gun safety.

I think that such training ought to be part of every standard high school curriculum. This way, every adult should be presumed to have been trained in the safe handling of arms, and this would obvious any perceived need or excuse to tie the right to keep and bear arms to taking additional training in a form that could be abused like a “literacy test”.

“To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them...” — Richard Henry Lee, 1788​

 

[2aguy]

Ultimately, that is the purpose of the Second Amendment, to allow the people the power to force government to obey the Constitution. Even the courts cannot be trusted. What do you think it means when the courts are arguing and ruling over which infringements of the people's right to keep and bear arms are permissible, when the Second Amendment already answers that question, making it clear that NO infringements are permissible?

Define an infringement? That felons aren't allowed to have guns? Is that an infringement?
What about non-citizens right to bear arms? Is that infringed?

Felons lose the Right with due process for violating the Rights of other Americans.....

Your Right to bear arms but the ability to regulate cancel each other out.

 

[there4eyeM]

Our Second Amendment is clear as to what is Necessary to the security of our free States.

Actually states can have unlimited firepower. Cops and the National Guard can have machine guns, destructive devices, and other weapons generally prohibited to the citizens. So the state had all the arms they want to defend themselves from within and without.

What isn't clear is the rights of the citizens of that state, who aren't members of that states militia.

So much for the ridiculous case of some armed bands resisting government forces for more than a moment.

 

[2aguy]

Mandatory training is no different from the mandatory Literacy Tests used by democrats to keep blacks from voting. Background checks, universal background checks, are only desired by anti gunners so they can next demand universal gun registration....and background checks do not stop criminals or mass shooters from gettting guns.

When I was in high school, I took JROTC. As part of that program, I received training in marksmanship and gun safety.

I think that such training ought to be part of every standard high school curriculum. This way, every adult should be presumed to have been trained in the safe handling of arms, and this would obvious any perceived need or excuse to tie the right to keep and bear arms to taking additional training in a form that could be abused like a “literacy test”.

“To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them...” — Richard Henry Lee, 1788​

I would have no problem with that kind of training, but if you make it necessary to own and carry a gun, then the anti gunners will increase the requirements to the point that no one will be able to own and carry guns except for the rich and politically connected...this is what they do in Europe.....and it would be in violation of the 2nd and 14th Amendments.

 

[Rustic]

Gun registration, licensing, and background checks are examples of firearm regulatory measures consistent with the Second Amendment, none having been invalidated as un-Constitutional by the Supreme Court.

To argue otherwise is ignorant idiocy.

Gun registration - absolutely unacceptable in most states..
Any type of licensing - absolutely unacceptable in most states..
We already have background checks in place…

 

[Rustic]

Ultimately, that is the purpose of the Second Amendment, to allow the people the power to force government to obey the Constitution. Even the courts cannot be trusted. What do you think it means when the courts are arguing and ruling over which infringements of the people's right to keep and bear arms are permissible, when the Second Amendment already answers that question, making it clear that NO infringements are permissible?

Define an infringement? That felons aren't allowed to have guns? Is that an infringement?
What about non-citizens right to bear arms? Is that infringed?

Non-citizens have no constitutional rights, hence being non-citizens

 

[2aguy]

Gun registration, licensing, and background checks are examples of firearm regulatory measures consistent with the Second Amendment, none having been invalidated as un-Constitutional by the Supreme Court.

To argue otherwise is ignorant idiocy.

wrong....those cases haven't been taken up by the court yet. And reading the actual Supreme Court rulings, you know, Stare Decisis........you don't know what you are talking about....

Any fee is unConstitutional...Murdock v Pennsylvania
Any test is UnConstitutional, 14th Amendment.
Registration, unConstitutional, Haynes v United States, and the 5th Amendment.

Background checks are unConstitutional too since they require violating 5th Amendment Rights against self incrimination.

 

[Rustic]

Our Second Amendment is clear as to what is Necessary to the security of our free States.

Actually states can have unlimited firepower. Cops and the National Guard can have machine guns, destructive devices, and other weapons generally prohibited to the citizens. So the state had all the arms they want to defend themselves from within and without.

What isn't clear is the rights of the citizens of that state, who aren't members of that states militia.

So much for the ridiculous case of some armed bands resisting government forces for more than a moment.

Shit for brains, Military folk are overwhelmingly pro second amendment. Only a fucking moron thinks they would turn on their own citizens.

 

[there4eyeM]

Still, no positive suggestions from the "Orthodox 2nd" to what is a problem that will be given a 'solution', even if it is a bad one.

 

[2aguy]

Our Second Amendment is clear as to what is Necessary to the security of our free States.

Actually states can have unlimited firepower. Cops and the National Guard can have machine guns, destructive devices, and other weapons generally prohibited to the citizens. So the state had all the arms they want to defend themselves from within and without.

What isn't clear is the rights of the citizens of that state, who aren't members of that states militia.

So much for the ridiculous case of some armed bands resisting government forces for more than a moment.

And you don't understand irregular warfare.....this guy does....

Kurt Schlichter - Why Democrats Would Lose the Second Civil War, Too

Let’s talk terrain and numbers. Remember the famous red v. blue voting map? There is a lot of red, and in the interior the few blue splotches are all cities like Las Vegas or Denver. That is a lot of territory for a counter-insurgent force to control, and this is critical. The red is where the food is grown, the oil pumped, and through which everything is transported. And that red space is filled with millions of American citizens with small arms, a fairly large percentage of whom have military training.

Remember what two untrained idiots did in Boston with a couple of pistols? They shut a city down. Now multiply that by several million, with better weapons and training.

Let’s look at the counter-insurgent forces in the Democrat oppression scenario should they attempt to misuse our law enforcement and military in an unconstitutional manner to take the rights of American citizens. There are a lot of civilian law enforcement officers, but the vast majority of the agencies are local – sheriffs, small town police departments. They will not be reliable allies in supporting unlawful oppression of their friends and neighbors. The major cities’ police departments are run by Democrat appointees, so the commands would be loyal. But the rank-and-file? A small percentage would be ideologically loyal. More would be loyal because that’s their paycheck – they could be swayed or intimidated to support the rebels. Others would be actively sympathetic to the insurgents. This is true of federal law enforcement agencies as well.


And the military? Well, wouldn’t the military just crush any resistance? Not so fast. The military would have the combat power to win any major engagement, but insurgents don’t get into major engagements with forces that have more combat power. They instead leverage their decentralized ability to strike at the counter-insurgents’ weak points to eliminate the government’s firepower advantage. In other words, hit and run, and no stand-up fights.

For example, how do a bunch of hunters in Wisconsin defeat a company of M1A2 Abrams tanks? They ambush the fuel and ammo trucks. Oh, and they wait until the gunner pops the hatch to take a leak and put a .30-06 round in his back from 300 meters. Then they disappear. What do the tanks do then? Go level the nearest town? Great. Now they just moved the needle in favor of the insurgents among the population. Pretty soon, they can’t be outside of their armored vehicles in public. Their forces are spending 90% of their efforts not on actual counter-insurgency operations but on force protection. Sure, they own their forward operating bases, and they own a few hundred meters around them wherever they happen to be standing at the moment, but the rest of the territory is bright red. As my recent novel illustrates, American guerillas with small arms are a deadly threat to the forces of a dictatorship.


But the military is so big it would overwhelm any rebels, right? Well, how big do you think the military is? And, more importantly, how many actual boots on the ground can it deploy? Let’s put it in terms of brigade combat teams, which total about 4,500 troops each. There are about 60 brigades in the Army, active and reserve, here and abroad, and let’s give the Marines another 10 brigades, for about 70 brigades. Sounds impressive. But that’s deceptive.

 

[there4eyeM]

Turn on fellow citizens?

Kent State.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Let's get to the end game. What should the Constitution say, if anything, about guns and what power should the Federal government have to regulate them?

I'd repeal and replace. This time combine the first and second clauses into a single statement, and eliminate the ambiguity.

Ex: Every law abiding citizen has the right to bear arms for self defense, sporting and recreational purposes and that right may be regulated but not infringed upon.

If we're going to do all that, we should include big color pictures so liberals in the future won't get too confused.