Where is it written that 2nd Amend is to keep Govt. in Check?

[NYcarbineer]

Wow did you miss the point. OF COURSE the courts would not support nullification as the entire idea is to ignore a law upheld by the those courts! Duh.

Tell us, do you support as Constitutional ALL the SC rulings???

And further, nullification can be practiced by a state or by individuals serving on a jury. Nullification is a matter of the people expressing their free will by determining their own destiny. Courts get it wrong in the eyes of some citizens (Dred Scott anyone?). Nullification of bad laws is the second to last step to stop tyranny. Tough if you don't like it.

Nullification is a big step towards anarchy. If you believe the principle of nullification,

then the states can nullify a federal law, the counties can nullify a state law, the townships can nullify a county law,

and you, the individual property owner, can nullify a township law.

And there you are, at anarchy.

Someone needs a dictionary.

Nullifying a law is not a rejection of all law.

Why don't you name us the federal laws that have been successfully, constitutionally, nullified by the states.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Wow did you miss the point. OF COURSE the courts would not support nullification as the entire idea is to ignore a law upheld by the those courts! Duh.

Tell us, do you support as Constitutional ALL the SC rulings???

And further, nullification can be practiced by a state or by individuals serving on a jury. Nullification is a matter of the people expressing their free will by determining their own destiny. Courts get it wrong in the eyes of some citizens (Dred Scott anyone?). Nullification of bad laws is the second to last step to stop tyranny. Tough if you don't like it.

Nullification is a big step towards anarchy. If you believe the principle of nullification,

then the states can nullify a federal law, the counties can nullify a state law, the townships can nullify a county law,

and you, the individual property owner, can nullify a township law.

And there you are, at anarchy.

Someone needs a dictionary.

Nullifying a law is not a rejection of all law.

Can I nullify the zoning laws of my town and do on my property as I please, and be protected by the Constitution in the event the town attempts to stop me?

 

[Dubya]

Wingnuts keep saying the Second Amendment is to keep the government in check.

Where is this written in the Constitution?

It wasn't. If you study history in detail, the intent of the 2nd Amendment was to preserve liberty. The Founders had concerns about foreign invasion, but they feared having a standing army. They set up a system where men of a certain age were required to join a militia and train. The milita was organized with a chain of command and the people donated their time for the common defense. Giving the populace the right to keep and bear arms was a check to prevent even a militia seizing power. That's why disarming the populace was forbidden.

The rest of the government, federal and state, was elected at the ballot box and subject to change there.

Today we have a standing army and then some. The military isn't going to allow a tyrant to take over the government.

Those who forget the past are condemned to repeat it.

You and your ancestors have grown in a country and a time period with minimal internal unrest, and foreign wars that have not struck the continental US in force since the war of 1812. If you can honestly say that there could never be a situation where the US government and/or military cound end up as a tyranical force, I admire your optimism, while shaking my head at you naiveness.

If our military backed a tyrant, you wouldn't stand a chance to do anything about it. The military is the check against tyranny, not you. They didn't have a standing army and didn't want one when the 2nd Amendment was written.

They can't ban all pistols or rifles or knives, but they can legally put restrictions on a type of weapon.

 

[NYcarbineer]

No right protected by the Constitution is absolute; it is not synonymous to say that a right cannot be infringed and that a right is absolute.

 

[NYcarbineer]

The 2nd amendment is there to placate the anti-Federalists who fretted about the federal government gaining too much power over the states.

 

[Dubya]

The 2nd amendment is there to placate the anti-Federalists who fretted about the federal government gaining too much power over the states.

There was a gentlemen's agreement that a Bill of Rights would follow the ratification of the Constitution, if they worked together to get it ratified. They worked together and the gentlemen kept their word.

As I recall, there were 13 amendments proposed and only 10 passed for the Bill of Rights.

 

[Sallow]

Oh but they do.

That's what this attempted marginalization of gun owners and dancing on the graves of children is all about.

The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Reasonable people can and have disagreed about the exact meaning of that part of our freedom. Most people and SCOTUS have agreed to general terms with regards to practical limits and liberties. Future reasonable debates will happen, but those choosing to demonize (as opposed to those just poking fun or being hyperbolic) gun owners have an agenda that is clear - total disarmament in favor of a government that can and will dictate the terms of liberty.

It has failed each and every time it's been tried.

That directly conflicts with "well regulated".

well regulated is a 18th century term meaning as to be expected in working order.
Anyone who trains with a firearm is well regulated.

Yeah..except that's not what it means in the US constitution.

Several clauses back up that fact that it means regulated by the congress.

Have a gander at the Constitution every once in a while.

 

[Mustang]

No right protected by the Constitution is absolute; it is not synonymous to say that a right cannot be infringed and that a right is absolute.

You are absolutely correct. ALL rights are subject to limitations.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

That directly conflicts with "well regulated".

well regulated is a 18th century term meaning as to be expected in working order.
Anyone who trains with a firearm is well regulated.

Yeah..except that's not what it means in the US constitution.

Several clauses back up that fact that it means regulated by the congress.

Have a gander at the Constitution every once in a while.

Yeah..except that's not what it means in the US constitution.

Yes that is exactly what it means.

Well Regulated

The Random House College Dictionary (1980) gives four definitions for the word "regulate," which were all in use during the Colonial period and one more definition dating from 1690 (Oxford English Dictionary, 2nd Edition, 1989). They are:

1) To control or direct by a rule, principle, method, etc.
2) To adjust to some standard or requirement as for amount, degree, etc.

3) To adjust so as to ensure accuracy of operation.

4) To put in good order.

[obsolete sense]
b. Of troops: Properly disciplined. Obs. rare-1.

1690 Lond. Gaz. No. 2568/3 We hear likewise that the French are in a great Allarm in Dauphine and Bresse, not having at present 1500 Men of regulated Troops on that side.

 

[Synthaholic]

No right protected by the Constitution is absolute; it is not synonymous to say that a right cannot be infringed and that a right is absolute.

You are absolutely correct. ALL rights are subject to limitations.

You can't yell "fire!" in a crowded theater.

 

[Mustang]

No right protected by the Constitution is absolute; it is not synonymous to say that a right cannot be infringed and that a right is absolute.

You are absolutely correct. ALL rights are subject to limitations.

You can't yell "fire!" in a crowded theater.

Slander is against the law. So is disturbing the peace. But leave it to some conservative yahoo to cry that his 1st Amendment rights are being infringed if the cops show up to arrest him when he's spouting off about his 2nd Amendment rights on his front lawn around midnight while the neighbors are trying to sleep.

 

[Dubya]

That directly conflicts with "well regulated".

well regulated is a 18th century term meaning as to be expected in working order.
Anyone who trains with a firearm is well regulated.

Yeah..except that's not what it means in the US constitution.

Several clauses back up that fact that it means regulated by the congress.

Have a gander at the Constitution every once in a while.

No, it doesn't and an understanding requires more than a dictionary and the Consitution.

Congress didn't want a standing army. It couldn't presently afford one and it feared a standing army could take away the liberty they fought for. They wanted the states to form their own militias, but from past experience, the militia weren't very good on the battlefield, unless they were organized and trained. They threw in the words well regulated with militia to remind the states that the duty required more than just gathering up a bunch militiamen for a shootout. There is a whole list of things needed to be done to make a militia a fighting unit. Then they forbade disarming the populace to insure that even the militia had a check against abusing it's power.

Men of a certain age were required to gather together and serve in the militia, which in peace was just organizing and training. There wasn't pay involved, it was community service.

 

[Synthaholic]

well regulated is a 18th century term meaning as to be expected in working order.
Anyone who trains with a firearm is well regulated.

Yeah..except that's not what it means in the US constitution.

Several clauses back up that fact that it means regulated by the congress.

Have a gander at the Constitution every once in a while.

No, it doesn't and an understanding requires more than a dictionary and the Consitution.

Congress didn't want a standing army. It couldn't presently afford one and it feared a standing army could take away the liberty they fought for. They wanted the states to form their own militias, but from past experience, the militia weren't very good on the battlefield, unless they were organized and trained. They threw in the words well regulated with militia to remind the states that the duty required more than just gathering up a bunch militiamen for a shootout. There is a whole list of things needed to be done to make a militia a fighting unit. Then they forbade disarming the populace to insure that even the militia had a check against abusing it's power.

Men of a certain age were required to gather together and serve in the militia, which in peace was just organizing and training. There wasn't pay involved, it was community service.

Admirable.

And each one would have been put together by a community organizer. A leader, as it were.

 

[zonly1]

Something no gun grabber wants to address.

Oh but they do.

That's what this attempted marginalization of gun owners and dancing on the graves of children is all about.

The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Reasonable people can and have disagreed about the exact meaning of that part of our freedom. Most people and SCOTUS have agreed to general terms with regards to practical limits and liberties. Future reasonable debates will happen, but those choosing to demonize (as opposed to those just poking fun or being hyperbolic) gun owners have an agenda that is clear - total disarmament in favor of a government that can and will dictate the terms of liberty.

It has failed each and every time it's been tried.

That directly conflicts with "well regulated".

I don't think you have the slightest clue other than to be a troll.

 

[zonly1]

Whether or not an individual could own a personal firearm was not in any way an issue at the time of the framing of the Constitution. It is therefore hard to imagine that the founders were debating individual gun ownership when they were putting the Bill of Rights together.

The 2nd Amendment soul propose was designed as a mechanism to stand up against tyranny and protect individuals.

In the second amendment, thou shall not be infringed upon citizens.

 

[Dubya]

Yeah..except that's not what it means in the US constitution.

Several clauses back up that fact that it means regulated by the congress.

Have a gander at the Constitution every once in a while.

No, it doesn't and an understanding requires more than a dictionary and the Consitution.

Congress didn't want a standing army. It couldn't presently afford one and it feared a standing army could take away the liberty they fought for. They wanted the states to form their own militias, but from past experience, the militia weren't very good on the battlefield, unless they were organized and trained. They threw in the words well regulated with militia to remind the states that the duty required more than just gathering up a bunch militiamen for a shootout. There is a whole list of things needed to be done to make a militia a fighting unit. Then they forbade disarming the populace to insure that even the militia had a check against abusing it's power.

Men of a certain age were required to gather together and serve in the militia, which in peace was just organizing and training. There wasn't pay involved, it was community service.

Admirable.

And each one would have been put together by a community organizer. A leader, as it were.

You would have to have a bunch of community organizers. A militia would need some organization in all kinds of ways to become an effective fighting force.

 

[Dubya]

Hard to believe the framers would put into the constitution the means, guns, and legality to destroy the new nation they were designing. True, they had put into the Declaration of Independence the rationale to become free, but it took a war to do it, and our history seems to enforce that same premise: want to be free from the nation, you have to win a war. The evidence of that win-a-war theme, are the challenges, over the years, that our government has met with force. The Civil War being the best example of that evidence. At state may secede or a group may take over the government, but it will have to win a war to do it. So all the verbal arguments are meaningless.

Some of the things the founders did were changed by democrats,
The seventeenth Amendment voting for Senators, was originally done by the states legislators

Wrong!

To make an amendment requires two-thirds of both Houses of Congress. The 62nd Congress had:

Senate Majority: Republican

House Majority: Democratic

Source: 62nd United States Congress - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In fact 60 of the 92 Senators were Republican. You can get the House numbers from the link. The move to get the 17th Amendment started in the states.

 

[jtpr312]

Wingnuts keep saying the Second Amendment is to keep the government in check.

Where is this written in the Constitution?

I see you're one more example of a moron that the US public school system failed to educate. The very fact that obama is being sworn in for a 2nd term shows me the idiots now outnumber the intelligent in this nation. The time is comig to cull the herd.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Hard to believe the framers would put into the constitution the means, guns, and legality to destroy the new nation they were designing. True, they had put into the Declaration of Independence the rationale to become free, but it took a war to do it, and our history seems to enforce that same premise: want to be free from the nation, you have to win a war. The evidence of that win-a-war theme, are the challenges, over the years, that our government has met with force. The Civil War being the best example of that evidence. At state may secede or a group may take over the government, but it will have to win a war to do it. So all the verbal arguments are meaningless.

Some of the things the founders did were changed by democrats,
The seventeenth Amendment voting for Senators, was originally done by the states legislators

Wrong!

To make an amendment requires two-thirds of both Houses of Congress. The 62nd Congress had:

Senate Majority: Republican

House Majority: Democratic

Source: 62nd United States Congress - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In fact 60 of the 92 Senators were Republican. You can get the House numbers from the link. The move to get the 17th Amendment started in the states.

Dumb ass get your facts right

May 31, 1913

The Seventeenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution is enacted, providing for the direct popular election of U.S. senators. Previously, senators were chosen by their respective state legislatures. This amendment succeeds in diminishing the prestige of state governments and enhances popular control of the federal legislature.
American President: American President
The Sixty-third United States Congress was a meeting of the legislative branch of the United States federal government, composed of the United States Senate and the United States House of Representatives. It met in Washington, D.C. from March 4, 1913 to March 4, 1915
63rd United States Congress - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Composition of the 63rd Senate
96 senator
51 Democrats
44 Republicans
1 other

The house
435 Representative's
290 democrat
127 Republicans
18 others.
Composition of Congress by Party 1855?2013 ? Infoplease.com
Now you were saying?

 

[Dubya]

Some of the things the founders did were changed by democrats,
The seventeenth Amendment voting for Senators, was originally done by the states legislators

Wrong!

To make an amendment requires two-thirds of both Houses of Congress. The 62nd Congress had:

Senate Majority: Republican

House Majority: Democratic

Source: 62nd United States Congress - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In fact 60 of the 92 Senators were Republican. You can get the House numbers from the link. The move to get the 17th Amendment started in the states.

Dumb ass get your facts right

May 31, 1913

The Seventeenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution is enacted, providing for the direct popular election of U.S. senators. Previously, senators were chosen by their respective state legislatures. This amendment succeeds in diminishing the prestige of state governments and enhances popular control of the federal legislature.
American President: American President
The Sixty-third United States Congress was a meeting of the legislative branch of the United States federal government, composed of the United States Senate and the United States House of Representatives. It met in Washington, D.C. from March 4, 1913 to March 4, 1915
63rd United States Congress - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Composition of the 63rd Senate
96 senator
51 Democrats
44 Republicans
1 other

The house
435 Representative's
290 democrat
127 Republicans
18 others.
Composition of Congress by Party 1855?2013 ? Infoplease.com
Now you were saying?

Nearly two-thirds of the Senate were Republican. You don't even have the right Congress that passed the amendment.

Congress and on May 13, 1912, was submitted to the states for ratification

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/17th_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution