The changing of the 2nd Amendment

[Serenity Now]

If you're an ideologue don't click. http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/05/nra-guns-second-amendment-106856

If you're open minded and can read more than 140 characters and don't need a cartoon to summarize it for you, then you might appreciate the history of the movement of the 2nd Amendment that some of you embrace as if it were written in red in the King James version of the Bible.

[dwarthog]

Ah it's the NRA's fault on how the second admendment is intrepreted by the Supreme court.

I never knew that.

The problem is that some folks, I'm guessing your one of those since you insist on posting this crap, think the constitution is a document which in someway limits peoples freedoms and therefore expect to somehow divine the necessary meaning to support their prejudices on how they want others to conform to their thinking.

The constitution was to specifically limit the federal government and to keep it away from infringing on peoples freedoms.

As your linked article states, the Bill of Rights is there to specifically guarantee personal freedoms due to Anti-Federalists concerns.

It would seem the Anti-Federalists were somewhat prescient in their concerns.

[olevetonahill]

WE have Well regulated Militias today. The Government Calls em extremist.
The 2nd amendment was never intended for the Governments Protection but for the Protection of the Individual and Their Freedoms.

[Serenity Now]

Ah it's the NRA's fault on how the second admendment is intrepreted by the Supreme court.

I never knew that.

The problem is that some folks, I'm guessing your one of those since you insist on posting this crap, think the constitution is a document which in someway limits peoples freedoms and therefore expect to somehow divine the necessary meaning to support their prejudices on how they want others to conform to their thinking.

The constitution was to specifically limit the federal government and to keep it away from infringing on peoples freedoms.

As your linked article states, the Bill of Rights is there to specifically guarantee personal freedoms due to Anti-Federalists concerns.

It would seem the Anti-Federalists were somewhat prescient in their concerns.

So, I'll put you in the "didn't read it" camp.

Well regulated militias was referencing the state militias...not the Timothy McVeigh's of the world.

[Serenity Now]

WE have Well regulated Militias today. The Government Calls em extremist.
The 2nd amendment was never intended for the Governments Protection but for the Protection of the Individual and Their Freedoms.

I think the intention was to allow the states' to form their militias so as to protect their STATE from the over reach of the central government. That's why it says "a well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state..."

Not this: http://memecrunch.com/meme/SPDN/a-well-regulated-militia

[dwarthog]

So, I'll put you in the "didn't read it" camp.

Well regulated militias was referencing the state militias...not the Timothy McVeigh's of the world.

You would be incorrect as I did in fact read the article.

I'll place you into the "confused" bucket with regards to the intent of the US Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

[olevetonahill]

You would be incorrect as I did in fact read the article.

I'll place you into the "confused"
bucket with regards to the intent of the US Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

The only Bucket he belongs in is the One we slop the Hogs with.

[olevetonahill]

I think the intention was to allow the states' to form their militias so as to protect their STATE from the over reach of the central government. That's why it says "a well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state..."

Not this: http://memecrunch.com/meme/SPDN/a-well-regulated-militia

Well Thats a relief. Im glad you know more about what the founding Fathers meant than the Current Supreme court!

[Serenity Now]

Well Thats a relief. Im glad you know more about what the founding Fathers meant than the Current Supreme court!

That's why I said "I think". It's an opinion. Some of us have opinions and can agree to disagree. Some of us can't disagree cordially.

[Soonerjeepman]

I think the intention was to allow the states' to form their militias so as to protect their STATE from the over reach of the central government. That's why it says "a well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state..."

Not this: http://memecrunch.com/meme/SPDN/a-well-regulated-militia

hate to tell ya this but I'm sure a large majority of folks see the "state militia" same as the feds...a group I'd rather not give total control to.

I would add, the militia in that time was made up of ordinary citizens...not the "state national guard"....

I THINK it was their thought that the militia (made up of ordinary citizens) would be there against ANY government oversight. Doubt they imagined the "state" government would ever try to control it's citizens.

[olevetonahill]

That's why I said "I think". It's an opinion. Some of us have opinions and can agree to disagree. Some of us can't disagree cordially.

Oh I can agree to disagree without being Disagreeable! Just not with your ignorant asss

[Serenity Now]

hate to tell ya this but I'm sure a large majority of folks see the "state militia" same as the feds...a group I'd rather not give total control to.

I would add, the militia in that time was made up of ordinary citizens...not the "state national guard"....

I THINK it was their thought that the militia (made up of ordinary citizens) would be there against ANY government oversight. Doubt they imagined the "state" government would ever try to control it's citizens.

I don't necessarily disagree with that. It was interesting that "bear arms" was a phrase used to mean to serve in the militia, with exceptions given for religious feelings [ but no one religiously scrupulous of bearing arms, shall be compelled to render military service in person. ] It was not a phrase referencing the owning/carrying of a weapon.

[Serenity Now]

Oh I can agree to disagree without being Disagreeable! Just not with your ignorant asss

Because you know so much more than me?

[olevetonahill]

Because you know so much more than me?

Nope, I just think your silly as hell!

[olevetonahill]

I don't necessarily disagree with that. It was interesting that "bear arms" was a phrase used to mean to serve in the militia, with exceptions given for religious feelings [ but no one religiously scrupulous of bearing arms, shall be compelled to render military service in person. ] It was not a phrase referencing the owning/carrying of a weapon.

So yer parsing the meaning of the words. What does "Shall NOT be infringed" mean?

[Serenity Now]

So yer parsing the meaning of the words. What does "Shall NOT be infringed" mean?

"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."

My interpretation means that, as long as I'm not a danger to the rest of us, I can arm myself. And, the State of Oklahoma will have a WELL REGULATED state militia that I can be a part of, if I so choose and the central government can't stop me from doing that.

[Curly Bill]

The militia as the founders understood and meant it was all male citizens. Anyone willing to do a modicum of research can learn this.

The Supreme Court has also ruled the 2nd Amendment is in fact an individual right. Anyone "thinking" it means something else is being stupid just for the sake of being stupid.

[Serenity Now]

The militia as the founders understood and meant it was all male citizens. Anyone willing to do a modicum of research can learn this.

The Supreme Court has also ruled the 2nd Amendment is in fact an individual right. Anyone "thinking" it means something else is being stupid just for the sake of being stupid.
That's not what the article says.

However, that's the most non 5th grade thing I've ever seen you write. Kudos! You're not a complete idiot. Just an immature arsehole.

[olevetonahill]

That's not what the article says.

However, that's the most non 5th grade thing I've ever seen you write. Kudos! You're not a complete idiot. Just an immature arsehole.

If a Pole says it or a Lib article it must be true.

[Curly Bill]

That's not what the article says.

However, that's the most non 5th grade thing I've ever seen you write. Kudos! You're not a complete idiot. Just an immature arsehole.

You mad because someone took your lunch money again today? Maybe you can out them?!

[TVKaleen]

“I ask, Sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them.” – Speech in the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 14, 1778, George Mason, co-author of the 2nd amendment.

[FaninAma]

If you're an ideologue don't click. http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/05/nra-guns-second-amendment-106856

If you're open minded and can read more than 140 characters and don't need a cartoon to summarize it for you, then you might appreciate the history of the movement of the 2nd Amendment that some of you embrace as if it were written in red in the King James version of the Bible.

Politico? Really? I can handle articles from the NYT, WaPo, and even USA today but reading Politico is about the equivalent of reading the Onion except they have a small but very angry group of fans that will attack anyone that doesn't toe the far left line. Total waste of time. If you are going to post something from that site just cut and paste or it won't get read...at least by me.

[FaninAma]

And oh, BTW, those who insist that the FF's meant for arms to be kept only by a standing militia or army are idiots. The FFs didn't believe in a standing army during times of peace.

[Serenity Now]

I've seen World Net Daily on here. And Brietbart. So, this is more balanced than that crap. If you don't like it, don't read it or comment on it. Like the meme goes, if you don't like guns, don't buy one. :)

[Serenity Now]

And oh, BTW, those who insist that the FF's meant for arms to be kept only by a standing militia or army are idiots. The FFs didn't believe in a standing army during times of peace.

I read it to mean that people are welcome to arm themselves but the phrase "to bear arms" was meant to be in the service of the well regulated militia with said arms. I never had any thought that the Founding Fathers thought that the weaponry would only be in some militia based storage facility. However, they didn't foresee state national guards either.

All of this over whether or not we can have some level of "control" over who has access to firearms. 90% of America thinks that we could tighten things up a bit. When's the last time 90% of us agreed about ANYTHING?

[Turd_Ferguson]

I read it to mean that people are welcome to arm themselves but the phrase "to bear arms" was meant to be in the service of the well regulated militia with said arms. I never had any thought that the Founding Fathers thought that the weaponry would only be in some militia based storage facility. However, they didn't foresee state national guards either.

All of this over whether or not we can have some level of "control" over who has access to firearms. 90% of America thinks that we could tighten things up a bit. When's the last time 90% of us agreed about ANYTHING?

Yeah, right...more like 90% say to enforce the laws that are already in place, but the prez who's dong you hang from, picks and chooses the laws only he want's enforced.

[olevetonahill]

Yeah, right...more like 90% say to enforce the laws that are already in place, but the prez who's dong you hang from, picks and chooses the laws only he want's enforced.

You forgoted to tell the Moran that he also pulled that 90% deal out of his Asz!

[SoonerorLater]

"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."

This is probably the most concise amendment to the Constitution. Oddly enough, this and the 10th amendment, another unambiguous amendment, are the ones that are under the greatest attack. Why do you think that is?

[SicEmBaylor]

I'm simply going to repost here what I've already said on this subject:

There are few things more heart wrenching than turning on the news in the morning or firing up 'Drudge' and learning of another mass-shooting by a mentally unstable lunatic. Whether it be the young children lost at Sandy Hook or the two reporters in northern Virginia, we all grieve the senseless loss of life. It doesn't take a trained psychologist to understand the human need to make sense of the senseless and turn grief into action. We can't save the lives lost, but we think we can save lives from future tragedies – it's human nature. We're not always entirely rational during and in the immediate aftermath of tragic events; often, that irrationality misdirects our anger leading us to blame those who are blameless. Or, worse yet, we direct our rage at lifeless inanimate objects as if those objects consciously chose to be a tool of evil in a barbaric act. Cries for better mental healthcare and demands for more gun control are common after mass-murders and tragedies. The unfortunate byproduct of this misdirected anger is that it takes the focus off of *why* the act of evil was committed and downgrades the conversation by focusing on the *how* it happened.

The truth of the matter is this: the best mental healthcare in the world combined with the most restrictive gun laws in the world will not prevent tragedies like this from happening in a free society with a population of 320 million individuals. The occurrence of these events is rare which makes their occurrence all the more heart wrenching. Less than 4% of the total United States population died last year from gun deaths. To what degree are we willing to sacrifice essential Constitutional liberties in order to feel safer? Nobody wants to lose a loved one, but the chances of dying from a firearm are relatively slim. Consider the fact that in 2013, murder by knife (or other sharp object) numbered 1490 as compared to *only* 285 deaths via rifle. Blunt objects and 'personal weapons' (i.e. feet, fists, etc.) both account for more homicides than rifles. Yet, Sen. Feinstein (and others just like her) insist that so-called assault weapons are a public menace that should be banned and ripped from the hands of law-abiding citizens exercising their 2nd Amendment rights. Let's be clear about what an assault weapon is: an assault rifle is functionally no different than a hunting rifle. They fire the same the same range of calibers as hunting rifles at the exact same velocities using the exact same ammunition. The differences between the two are entirely cosmetic with 'assault rifles' having a more 'tactical' or 'military' look to them. The assault weapons ban did absolutely nothing to decrease gun violence, and the recently rejected Senate bill to re-instate the old assault weapons ban would still do nothing to deter gun violence. There are approximately 4 million assault weapons in the United States – there were 285 murders from rifles. The proposed ban is disproportionate to the problem.

But what of better mental healthcare? There is no doubt that this country is in dire need of better mental healthcare; however, we shouldn't make the mistake of believing that better access to mental healthcare would have made any difference in most of these mass-shootings. Only Adam Lanza is a possible exception. The problem with the mental healthcare argument is that an individual must recognize they are mentally ill and seek treatment. Forcibly committing/treating an individual requires demonstrating they are truly a threat to themselves and society which is a high bar to hurdle. The vast majority of mass shooters had either no history of mental illness or nothing that rose to the level of having them forcibly committed and treated. Many say that mental health issues ought to disqualify one from owning a firearm which sounds reasonable until you stop to consider what that means. What mental health issues disqualify one from owning a firearm? Who is going to decide which of those mental health issues disqualifies a person? Will depression disqualify a person? Or, worse yet, it isn't unreasonable to consider the possibility that a mental healthcare professional could deem the desire to own a firearm, in and of itself, as indicative of a mental health issue. Thereby anyone who wishes to own a firearm is disqualified in lieu of their desire to own a firearm. The possibility exists that a significant portion of the American population could be disqualified from owning a firearm; in effect, implementing near or total gun control.

The problem is neither gun control nor mental health access; the problem is a social plague. The problem is that our culture is increasingly narcissistic. We value fame and notoriety to such a degree that many will go to great lengths to achieve one or both. A few of those type of individuals are even willing to commit the most heinous and evil acts imaginable. This social narcissism is combined with an increasing disregard for the value and sanctity of human life. The individual lives of others become secondary to the needs/desires/wants of those willing to do whatever it takes to gain what they covet. These violent acts can only be mitigated within a safe and stable home that properly teaches the value of human life and the need to protect human life.

The Bill of Rights were written and designed to ensure Americans could exercise certain fundamental rights free of the government's ability to limit those rights. The Bill of Rights was the result of a compromise with Anti-Federalists who believed the Constitution was inadequate to the task of protecting and safeguarding some of the most important liberties in the new Republic. The Bill of Rights, with the exception of the 10th Amendment, were all designed to limit the government's ability to encroach on those rights. The Revolution had just been fought and won because individuals owned firearms, and those individuals voluntarily stood together in local militias to ward off British tyranny. Our Founding Fathers and Constitutional Framers were quite clear on the issue of personal firearm ownership. Thomas Jefferson declared in 1776 that, "No free man shall ever be disbarred the use of arms." James Madison said in 1789, "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. A well-regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country." Much debate has centered around the term "militia" and gun opponents claim the term authorizes gun ownership only for officially sanctioned government militias (i.e. the National Guard). This is utter nonsense. Militias, at the time, were not government regulated or managed. They were free citizens voluntarily joining together for common defense. The term "regulate" in the 2nd Amendment means to train proper/train well. It does not mean 'regulate' in the contemporary definition of government oversight and management. Why would Madison or any of the other Framers design a Constitutional amendment meant to *restrict* individual gun ownership when the entire Bill of Rights was about restricting *government* regulation? In any case, what was the 'militia' the 2nd Amendment refers to? The 'militia' was the body-politic; the 'militia' were the people as a whole. We should be clear that the 2nd Amendment was not about hunting. The 2nd Amendment wasn't even about personal and/or home defense. The 2nd Amendment was designed as a safeguard against government tyranny. The Founders made it clear, time and time again, that an armed populace is the best safe guard against tyrannical government. It is an insurance policy written by the Founders and passed down to us 225+ years later. When read and properly interpreted, the 2nd Amendment protects the individual's right to gun ownership so that individuals can form voluntarily militias for the protection of the home, families, and community from external or even internal threats. The 'well-regulated militia' clause is impossible so long as there are restrictions on personal firearm ownership.

Assaults on fundamental Constitutional liberties are as frequent and determined as they have ever been. The 1st and 4th Amendments are under siege from the left and the right, but no amendment carries the importance of the 2nd Amendment. Our ability to remain free and independent citizens is dependent upon our Constitutional right to own firearms. With the 2nd, we protect the 4th; with the 2nd, we protect the 1st. Do not let the evil acts of a small minority spur you to act against the Constitution and the freedoms and liberties of your fellow citizens.

[SoonerorLater]

I'm simply going to repost here what I've already said on this subject:

There are few things more heart wrenching than turning on the news in the morning or firing up 'Drudge' and learning of another mass-shooting by a mentally unstable lunatic. Whether it be the young children lost at Sandy Hook or the two reporters in northern Virginia, we all grieve the senseless loss of life. It doesn't take a trained psychologist to understand the human need to make sense of the senseless and turn grief into action. We can't save the lives lost, but we think we can save lives from future tragedies – it's human nature. We're not always entirely rational during and in the immediate aftermath of tragic events; often, that irrationality misdirects our anger leading us to blame those who are blameless. Or, worse yet, we direct our rage at lifeless inanimate objects as if those objects consciously chose to be a tool of evil in a barbaric act. Cries for better mental healthcare and demands for more gun control are common after mass-murders and tragedies. The unfortunate byproduct of this misdirected anger is that it takes the focus off of *why* the act of evil was committed and downgrades the conversation by focusing on the *how* it happened.

The truth of the matter is this: the best mental healthcare in the world combined with the most restrictive gun laws in the world will not prevent tragedies like this from happening in a free society with a population of 320 million individuals. The occurrence of these events is rare which makes their occurrence all the more heart wrenching. Less than 4% of the total United States population died last year from gun deaths. To what degree are we willing to sacrifice essential Constitutional liberties in order to feel safer? Nobody wants to lose a loved one, but the chances of dying from a firearm are relatively slim. Consider the fact that in 2013, murder by knife (or other sharp object) numbered 1490 as compared to *only* 285 deaths via rifle. Blunt objects and 'personal weapons' (i.e. feet, fists, etc.) both account for more homicides than rifles. Yet, Sen. Feinstein (and others just like her) insist that so-called assault weapons are a public menace that should be banned and ripped from the hands of law-abiding citizens exercising their 2nd Amendment rights. Let's be clear about what an assault weapon is: an assault rifle is functionally no different than a hunting rifle. They fire the same the same range of calibers as hunting rifles at the exact same velocities using the exact same ammunition. The differences between the two are entirely cosmetic with 'assault rifles' having a more 'tactical' or 'military' look to them. The assault weapons ban did absolutely nothing to decrease gun violence, and the recently rejected Senate bill to re-instate the old assault weapons ban would still do nothing to deter gun violence. There are approximately 4 million assault weapons in the United States – there were 285 murders from rifles. The proposed ban is disproportionate to the problem.

But what of better mental healthcare? There is no doubt that this country is in dire need of better mental healthcare; however, we shouldn't make the mistake of believing that better access to mental healthcare would have made any difference in most of these mass-shootings. Only Adam Lanza is a possible exception. The problem with the mental healthcare argument is that an individual must recognize they are mentally ill and seek treatment. Forcibly committing/treating an individual requires demonstrating they are truly a threat to themselves and society which is a high bar to hurdle. The vast majority of mass shooters had either no history of mental illness or nothing that rose to the level of having them forcibly committed and treated. Many say that mental health issues ought to disqualify one from owning a firearm which sounds reasonable until you stop to consider what that means. What mental health issues disqualify one from owning a firearm? Who is going to decide which of those mental health issues disqualifies a person? Will depression disqualify a person? Or, worse yet, it isn't unreasonable to consider the possibility that a mental healthcare professional could deem the desire to own a firearm, in and of itself, as indicative of a mental health issue. Thereby anyone who wishes to own a firearm is disqualified in lieu of their desire to own a firearm. The possibility exists that a significant portion of the American population could be disqualified from owning a firearm; in effect, implementing near or total gun control.

The problem is neither gun control nor mental health access; the problem is a social plague. The problem is that our culture is increasingly narcissistic. We value fame and notoriety to such a degree that many will go to great lengths to achieve one or both. A few of those type of individuals are even willing to commit the most heinous and evil acts imaginable. This social narcissism is combined with an increasing disregard for the value and sanctity of human life. The individual lives of others become secondary to the needs/desires/wants of those willing to do whatever it takes to gain what they covet. These violent acts can only be mitigated within a safe and stable home that properly teaches the value of human life and the need to protect human life.

The Bill of Rights were written and designed to ensure Americans could exercise certain fundamental rights free of the government's ability to limit those rights. The Bill of Rights was the result of a compromise with Anti-Federalists who believed the Constitution was inadequate to the task of protecting and safeguarding some of the most important liberties in the new Republic. The Bill of Rights, with the exception of the 10th Amendment, were all designed to limit the government's ability to encroach on those rights. The Revolution had just been fought and won because individuals owned firearms, and those individuals voluntarily stood together in local militias to ward off British tyranny. Our Founding Fathers and Constitutional Framers were quite clear on the issue of personal firearm ownership. Thomas Jefferson declared in 1776 that, "No free man shall ever be disbarred the use of arms." James Madison said in 1789, "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. A well-regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country." Much debate has centered around the term "militia" and gun opponents claim the term authorizes gun ownership only for officially sanctioned government militias (i.e. the National Guard). This is utter nonsense. Militias, at the time, were not government regulated or managed. They were free citizens voluntarily joining together for common defense. The term "regulate" in the 2nd Amendment means to train proper/train well. It does not mean 'regulate' in the contemporary definition of government oversight and management. Why would Madison or any of the other Framers design a Constitutional amendment meant to *restrict* individual gun ownership when the entire Bill of Rights was about restricting *government* regulation? In any case, what was the 'militia' the 2nd Amendment refers to? The 'militia' was the body-politic; the 'militia' were the people as a whole. We should be clear that the 2nd Amendment was not about hunting. The 2nd Amendment wasn't even about personal and/or home defense. The 2nd Amendment was designed as a safeguard against government tyranny. The Founders made it clear, time and time again, that an armed populace is the best safe guard against tyrannical government. It is an insurance policy written by the Founders and passed down to us 225+ years later. When read and properly interpreted, the 2nd Amendment protects the individual's right to gun ownership so that individuals can form voluntarily militias for the protection of the home, families, and community from external or even internal threats. The 'well-regulated militia' clause is impossible so long as there are restrictions on personal firearm ownership.

Assaults on fundamental Constitutional liberties are as frequent and determined as they have ever been. The 1st and 4th Amendments are under siege from the left and the right, but no amendment carries the importance of the 2nd Amendment. Our ability to remain free and independent citizens is dependent upon our Constitutional right to own firearms. With the 2nd, we protect the 4th; with the 2nd, we protect the 1st. Do not let the evil acts of a small minority spur you to act against the Constitution and the freedoms and liberties of your fellow citizens.

You don't have to be a Constitutional Scholar to understand the Second Amendment. You just need to be able to deconstruct a sentence.

[SicEmBaylor]

You don't have to be a Constitutional Scholar to understand the Second Amendment. You just need to be able to deconstruct a sentence.

Well, right, and it really speaks to the absurdity of the modern anti-gun argument that the 2nd Amendment means something other than what it clearly means.

James Madison, Jefferson's top lieutenant -- mind you, Did not write 9 of the 10 Bill of Rights with the purpose of protecting individual liberty only to do the opposite with the 2nd by protecting government's right to regulate a militia as a requisite for gun ownership. It's absolutely absurd. It's counter to absolutely everything we know about Madison, everything Madison said, everything every other Founder and Framer said on the subject, counter to the history of the time, and counter to the very definition of 'regulate' at that period of time. There is absolutely no evidence suggesting that the intent of the 2nd Amendment was as those on the left claim. None.

The 'militia' was considered to be the body politic. This was the universal view of the word, and it's a view consistent with the time. The Framers believed it was the duty of every citizen to belong to a local militia; therefore, militia was the body politic as a whole. Why? Militias were considered instrumental in securing liberty and serving as a vigilant guard against the tyranny of the state. This was how we fought and won a Revolution. Individual private ownership of firearms was essential to this purpose. The notion that modern national guards are the 'militia' referred to in the 2nd Amendment is so laughably absurd that the argument itself is proof of the need for the kind of militias that the 2nd Amendment actually intended. The term 'regulate' was synonymous with 'properly executed' or 'well trained.' It did not mean 'regulate' in the sense of government regulation. I seriously question the intelligence, sense, and sanity of anyone who can make the claim (with a straight face) that Madison wrote an Amendment authorizing the government to regulate the personal ownership of firearms.

Here's Madison from Federalist #46, "Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of"

George Mason at the ratifying convention of Virginia said this, "I ask, Sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them."

Sam Adams at the Massachusetts ratification convention said, "And that the said Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press, or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms; or to raise standing armies, unless necessary for the defense of the United States, or of some one or more of them; or to prevent the people from petitioning, in a peaceable and orderly manner, the federal legislature, for a redress of grievances; or to subject the people to unreasonable searches and seizures of their persons, papers or possessions.

"If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no resource left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government, and which against the usurpations of the national rulers may be exerted with infinitely better prospect of success than against those of the rulers of an individual State. In a single State, if the persons intrusted with supreme power become usurpers, the different parcels, subdivisions, or districts of which it consists, having no distinct government in each, can take no regular measures for defense. The citizens must rush tumultuously to arms, without concert, without system, without resource; except in their courage and despair." -Hamilton, Federalist #28. One wonders how the citizenry is supposed to 'rush tumultuously toward arms' if government, the very object of tyranny, is in sole possession of arms.

----------------------------

The point being this: If you are a liberal/progressive who claims the 2nd Amendment does not allow for individual ownership of firearms then you are a stark raving mad idiot. Pure and simple.

However, if you are a liberal/progressive who simply wants to make some sort of argument in favor of repealing the 2nd Amendment then I can accept that. I don't agree, at all, but I'll at least accept that.

[hawaii 5-0]

Putting it simply, I'm all for responsible gun ownership.

If you want a 357, a 50 cal. or a bazooka, go for it.

However you're responsible for it. The 2nd Amendment says nothing of registration. I'm for it.

My 2 cents.


5-0

[SicEmBaylor]

Putting it simply, I'm all for responsible gun ownership.

If you want a 357, a 50 cal. or a bazooka, go for it.

However you're responsible for it. The 2nd Amendment says nothing of registration. I'm for it.

My 2 cents.


5-0

That's true enough, but that's abusing the intent of the amendment. It sets a pretty dangerous precedent even *if* gun registration wasn't a prelude to confiscation (which it is.) The 2nd Amendment doesn't say anything about banning ammo, but doing so is clearly an abuse of the intent. It's not fundamentally different than requiring journalists to register with the government before being allowed to print an article. There isn't a huge difference between registrations and permits. Gun permits are especially egregious and unconstitutional as are permits allowing one to exercise their 1st amendment rights. And gun permits aren't going to reduce gun violence in any way whatsoever. The best it will do is make *some* gun related crimes easier to solve; although, hardcore criminals aren't going to register their guns in the first place.

As I've said, the issue is cultural. You aren't going to solve the problem by restricting the liberty of those persons who are not the problem.

[olevetonahill]

What Sicem said. Bout the biggest Prob him an I have is his views on Oakman :drunk:

[TheHumanAlphabet]

so, SN, would a well regulated militia be the kind of militia that Switzerland has? Everyone within an age range drills and trains and takes full auto weapons home for defense of country?

[SicEmBaylor]

so, SN, would a well regulated militia be the kind of militia that Switzerland has? Everyone within an age range drills and trains and takes full auto weapons home for defense of country?

Yes, as long as the militia isn't government sanctioned. But, of course, ownership of a firearm wouldn't be contingent on being in a militia. There was a full expectation that firearms were also for personal use as well as hunting.

[Soonerjeepman]

That's true enough, but that's abusing the intent of the amendment. It sets a pretty dangerous precedent even *if* gun registration wasn't a prelude to confiscation (which it is.) The 2nd Amendment doesn't say anything about banning ammo, but doing so is clearly an abuse of the intent. It's not fundamentally different than requiring journalists to register with the government before being allowed to print an article. There isn't a huge difference between registrations and permits. Gun permits are especially egregious and unconstitutional as are permits allowing one to exercise their 1st amendment rights. And gun permits aren't going to reduce gun violence in any way whatsoever. The best it will do is make *some* gun related crimes easier to solve; although, hardcore criminals aren't going to register their guns in the first place.

As I've said, the issue is cultural. You aren't going to solve the problem by restricting the liberty of those persons who are not the problem.

YES...but I'm with Vet...oakman is an a$$~