2d Amendment thread

[CallMeJoe]

Post your opinions on a well regulated militia here.

 

[3chordcharlie]

Originally posted by: zendari

Originally posted by: PELarson

Originally posted by: zendariNot in San Francisco.

Text


The same ACLU which rushed to aid the abortion industry over the Nebraska PBA ban (which, as liberals say, accounts for some 5% or less of abortions and thus shouldnt be a huge deal), is mysteriously silent over a 100% handgun ban.

You dont consider this an attack on gun ownership?

1 - Did the NRA request the ACLU's assistance?

2 - You seem so hot about the ACLU not supporting gun owners what about the case I cited above out of Texas?

It's good that they did, however they should take up that endeavor on a national scale if they are truly the defenders of liberty. Would the NRA exist today if not for the ACLUs shortcomings in this area?

The NRA was founded when?

 

[3chordcharlie]

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie
There is another possible interpretation that I hadn't really thought of before. This is that because of " A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state[/i]", but in recognition of that fact that such a militia could be used to control citizens, by a corrupt government, it is therefore necessary that citizens be allowed to arm themselves for protection against such a contingency.

I think we've been down this 'what does the 2nd amendment actually mean' road before, and given the unfortunate use of punctuation, I find it very hard to decipher an unquestionable meaning. But I thought I would throw this interpretation out there, as it certainly encompasses the position of gun-rights supporters, while not being totally at odds with the english-language meaning of the amendment.

 

[1EZduzit]

Something like 125 years ago?

http://www.nra.org/

 

[Strk]

I'm wondering when I can mount a GE GAU-8 Avenger on my car.

 

[Harvey]

The Commander In Chief shall not presume that he, or anyone under his command, is above, or otherwise not subject to, the provisions of the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America.

The Commander In Chief shall not command any member of military or intelligence forces of the nation, or civilian under his command to commit any unconstitutional or otherwise illegal act against any citizen of the United States of America.

The Commander In Chief shall not allow any dictate of his personal religious beliefs to supersede any provision of the Constitution or any law of the United States of America.

The Commander In Chief shall not issue any order or command any action by the military or any civilian support thereof for the purpose of enriching his supporters, friends or acquaintances to the detriment of the best interests of the nation.

I'm sure I'll think of some more.

 

[CallMeJoe]

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlieThe NRA was founded when?

Founded in 1871 in reaction to the uniformly poor weapons skills of Union army recruits in the War between the States. The aim was to improve marksmanship of U.S. troops for future conflicts. Protection of 2d Amendment rights came later.

 

[RichardE]

Where did all those quotes come from?

 

[CallMeJoe]

Originally posted by: Harvey
The Commander In Chief shall not presume that he, or anyone under his command, is above, or otherwise not subject to, the provisions of the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America.

The Commander In Chief shall not command any member of military or intelligence forces of the nation, or civilian under his command to commit any unconstitutional or otherwise illegal act against any citizen of the United States of America.

The Commander In Chief shall not allow any dictate of his personal religious beliefs to supersede any provision of the Constitution or any law of the United States of America.

The Commander In Chief shall not issue any order or command any action by the military or any civilian support thereof for the purpose of enriching his supporters, friends or acquaintances to the detriment of the best interests of the nation.

I'm sure I'll think of some more.

And this belongs back in the Congressional Research Service thread. Can we possibly keep them straight?

 

[3chordcharlie]

Originally posted by: CallMeJoe

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlieThe NRA was founded when?

Founded in 1871 in reaction to the uniformly poor weapons skills of Union army recruits in the War between the States. The aim was to improve marksmanship of U.S. troops for future conflicts. Protection of 2d Amendment rights came later.

Rhetorical question

Just in case zendari ever comes back though, the ACLU was founded in 1920, long after the NRA had established itself.

 

[K1052]

At the time militias formed up in individual states and most members brought their own weapons to fight with.

When the constitution was being debated there was much concern over the Federal government's control of Federal troops. Militias were considerd a counterweight to the possibility of a military dictatorship taking over the government, thus the right of the people to retain weapons was preserved.

The idea that the general population could legally be stripped of the right to posess weapons would no doubt have horrified the founders.

 

[1EZduzit]

Maybe Harv was trying to hijack this thread??

In any case, what the hell is wrong with gun ownership??

"Jerry [Garcia] got high and Jerry's dead. I went hunting and I'm still Ted."
- Ted Nugent addressing an NRA convention

 

[CallMeJoe]

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie
Rhetorical question
Just in case zendari ever comes back though, the ACLU was founded in 1920, long after the NRA had established itself.

Rhetorical for you, but many of our P&N brethren may not have known.

 

[Vic]

The definition of a "well regulated Militia" is irrelevent. The amendment reads: "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed." I sometimes think it would have best if the 2nd Amendment said only that. Then people would understand.
However, the purpose of the militia clause was that the framers of the Constitution did not intend for the US federal government to have a standing army (the navy OTOH was intended). The militia was the common people from each state, the so-called "citizen soldiers," who could be called to duty to defend the country should the need arise. It was naturally expected that they would provide their own guns (enlisted personnel still provide their own sidearms, while their rifles are issued) and that they would already be at least partially trained in their use. Our current military, huge war budget, and imperialistic policies were not the intentions of the Founding Fathers.

 

[1EZduzit]

Originally posted by: K1052
At the time militias formed up in individual states and most members brought their own weapons to fight with.

When the constitution was being debated there was much concern over the Federal government's control of Federal troops. Militias were considerd a counterweight to the possibility of a military dictatorship taking over the government, thus the right of the people to retain weapons was preserved.

The idea that the general population could legally be stripped of the right to posess weapons would no doubt have horrified the founders.

The founding fathers lived in an age where a gun was needed not only for protection, but to put meat on the table. To try and argue that the Bill of Rights only allows people to posses guns in order to form a miltia is just ludicrous and if true begs the question "Then why didn't they take their guns way back when?"

 

[tnitsuj]

Originally posted by: Vic
The definition of a "well regulated Militia" is irrelevent. The amendment reads: "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed." I sometimes think it would have best if the 2nd Amendment said only that. Then people would understand.
However, the purpose of the militia clause was that the framers of the Constitution did not intend for the US federal government to have a standing army (the navy OTOH was intended). The militia was the common people from each state, the so-called "citizen soldiers," who could be called to duty to defend the country should the need arise. It was naturally expected that they would provide their own guns (enlisted personnel still provide their own sidearms, while their rifles are issued) and that they would already be at least partially trained in their use. Our current military, huge war budget, and imperialistic policies were not the intentions of the Founding Fathers.

WTF?? Enlisted personnel still supply thier own sidearms??

 

[K1052]

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

Originally posted by: K1052
At the time militias formed up in individual states and most members brought their own weapons to fight with.

When the constitution was being debated there was much concern over the Federal government's control of Federal troops. Militias were considerd a counterweight to the possibility of a military dictatorship taking over the government, thus the right of the people to retain weapons was preserved.

The idea that the general population could legally be stripped of the right to posess weapons would no doubt have horrified the founders.

The founding fathers lived in an age where a gun was needed not only for protection, but to put meat on the table. To try and argue that the Bill of Rights only allows people to posses guns in order to form a miltia is just ludicrous and if true begs the question "Then why didn't they take their guns way back when?"

The founders could not conceive of the threat to gun owneship that existis today. The right to hunt and prodvide for your defense and the defense of your family were taken for granted.

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: CallMeJoe
And this belongs back in the Congressional Research Service thread. Can we possibly keep them straight?

Arms hardware are a foregone conclusion for any fighting force. You asked about a well regulated militia. My suggestions directly address the need for some immediately needed regulations.

 

[1EZduzit]

Originally posted by: K1052

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

Originally posted by: K1052
At the time militias formed up in individual states and most members brought their own weapons to fight with.

When the constitution was being debated there was much concern over the Federal government's control of Federal troops. Militias were considerd a counterweight to the possibility of a military dictatorship taking over the government, thus the right of the people to retain weapons was preserved.

The idea that the general population could legally be stripped of the right to posess weapons would no doubt have horrified the founders.

The founding fathers lived in an age where a gun was needed not only for protection, but to put meat on the table. To try and argue that the Bill of Rights only allows people to posses guns in order to form a miltia is just ludicrous and if true begs the question "Then why didn't they take their guns way back when?"

The founders could not conceive of the threat to gun owneship that existis today. The right to hunt and prodvide for your defense and the defense of your family were taken for granted.

My meat diet still consists of well over 50% wild game. Also, for those of us still living in the rural areas, my farm is over 20 miles from the nearest town/police. I've had several instances where the sherrif has taken "undesirables", drove them out in his car and dumped them off right by my farm (I live right on a county line so that's as far as he could take them).

 

[Meuge]

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

Originally posted by: K1052

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

Originally posted by: K1052
At the time militias formed up in individual states and most members brought their own weapons to fight with.

When the constitution was being debated there was much concern over the Federal government's control of Federal troops. Militias were considerd a counterweight to the possibility of a military dictatorship taking over the government, thus the right of the people to retain weapons was preserved.

The idea that the general population could legally be stripped of the right to posess weapons would no doubt have horrified the founders.

The founding fathers lived in an age where a gun was needed not only for protection, but to put meat on the table. To try and argue that the Bill of Rights only allows people to posses guns in order to form a miltia is just ludicrous and if true begs the question "Then why didn't they take their guns way back when?"

The founders could not conceive of the threat to gun owneship that existis today. The right to hunt and prodvide for your defense and the defense of your family were taken for granted.

My meat diet still consists of well over 50% wild game. Also, for those of us still living in the rural areas, my farm is over 20 miles from the nearest town/police. I've had several instances where the sherrif has taken "undesirables", drove them out in his car and dumped them off right by my farm (I live right on a county line so that's as far as he could take them).

You mean black people?

:roll:

 

[1EZduzit]

Originally posted by: Meuge

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

Originally posted by: K1052

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

Originally posted by: K1052
At the time militias formed up in individual states and most members brought their own weapons to fight with.

When the constitution was being debated there was much concern over the Federal government's control of Federal troops. Militias were considerd a counterweight to the possibility of a military dictatorship taking over the government, thus the right of the people to retain weapons was preserved.

The idea that the general population could legally be stripped of the right to posess weapons would no doubt have horrified the founders.

The founding fathers lived in an age where a gun was needed not only for protection, but to put meat on the table. To try and argue that the Bill of Rights only allows people to posses guns in order to form a miltia is just ludicrous and if true begs the question "Then why didn't they take their guns way back when?"

The founders could not conceive of the threat to gun owneship that existis today. The right to hunt and prodvide for your defense and the defense of your family were taken for granted.

My meat diet still consists of well over 50% wild game. Also, for those of us still living in the rural areas, my farm is over 20 miles from the nearest town/police. I've had several instances where the sherrif has taken "undesirables", drove them out in his car and dumped them off right by my farm (I live right on a county line so that's as far as he could take them).

You mean black people?

:roll:

Actually it's mostly Indians. The Indian reservation is only about another 20 miles away, but it's also hitch hikers and other tranisents, etc. I'm not bigoted, but have you ever dealt with a drunk Indian?

We hardly have any blacks or other miniorites around here. We did have some blacks, but when the community college closed, they have mostly left. We're starting to get a few Mexicans around, but they are pretty decent, hard working people IMO.

 

[Worlocked]

Originally posted by: Vic
The definition of a "well regulated Militia" is irrelevent. The amendment reads: "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed." I sometimes think it would have best if the 2nd Amendment said only that. Then people would understand.
However, the purpose of the militia clause was that the framers of the Constitution did not intend for the US federal government to have a standing army (the navy OTOH was intended). The militia was the common people from each state, the so-called "citizen soldiers," who could be called to duty to defend the country should the need arise. It was naturally expected that they would provide their own guns (enlisted personnel still provide their own sidearms, while their rifles are issued) and that they would already be at least partially trained in their use. Our current military, huge war budget, and imperialistic policies were not the intentions of the Founding Fathers.

Bingo. If they did, it would read:

"A standing federal army being nescessary to the security of a free
State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be
infringed."

I don't know why there is so much debate about the well regulated miltia part. There is a comma there for a reason... the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be
infringed.

In a nutshell:

The miltia(or now armed forces) is a nescassary evil, therefor you have the right to your arms to keep liberty secure should the militia(or now armed forces) present itself as a threat to it.

 

[zendari]

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

Originally posted by: CallMeJoe

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlieThe NRA was founded when?

Founded in 1871 in reaction to the uniformly poor weapons skills of Union army recruits in the War between the States. The aim was to improve marksmanship of U.S. troops for future conflicts. Protection of 2d Amendment rights came later.

Rhetorical question

Just in case zendari ever comes back though, the ACLU was founded in 1920, long after the NRA had established itself.

Very true, but would it exist in its form today if the ACLU defended gun rights? Or is it filling a void that "civil rights" groups tend to neglect?

 

[3chordcharlie]

Originally posted by: zendari

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

Originally posted by: CallMeJoe

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlieThe NRA was founded when?

Founded in 1871 in reaction to the uniformly poor weapons skills of Union army recruits in the War between the States. The aim was to improve marksmanship of U.S. troops for future conflicts. Protection of 2d Amendment rights came later.

Rhetorical question

Just in case zendari ever comes back though, the ACLU was founded in 1920, long after the NRA had established itself.

Very true, but would it exist in its form today if the ACLU defended gun rights? Or is it filling a void that "civil rights" groups tend to neglect?

It has a long history as an advocacy group - do you feel that it does a poor job, and the ACLU should step in and do a better job?

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: Vic
The definition of a "well regulated Militia" is irrelevent. The amendment reads: "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed." I sometimes think it would have best if the 2nd Amendment said only that. Then people would understand.
However, the purpose of the militia clause was that the framers of the Constitution did not intend for the US federal government to have a standing army (the navy OTOH was intended). The militia was the common people from each state, the so-called "citizen soldiers," who could be called to duty to defend the country should the need arise. It was naturally expected that they would provide their own guns (enlisted personnel still provide their own sidearms, while their rifles are issued) and that they would already be at least partially trained in their use. Our current military, huge war budget, and imperialistic policies were not the intentions of the Founding Fathers.

As far as I can tell, taking "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.", without the "well regulated Militia" part is taking the whole thing out of context. It seems very clear that the reason for the bearing Arms was to provide a Militia and not just simply Gun Ownership. Of course for those who support the concept of Gun Ownership as a Right in itself, the Militia part of the statement throws a monkey wrench into the position and must be made into its' own context.