• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

2nd Amendment, it can't be any clearer

BoberFett

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
37,563
9
81
The 2nd Amendment of the US Constitution reads as follows:

<< 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. >>

Gun grabbers tend to focus on the &quot;well regulated Militia&quot; phrase, but I'm going to focus on something they conveniently ignore.

the right of the people

The phrase &quot;the people&quot; is used actually very few times in the Constitution. I'll point them out.

The document starts out:

<< We the People of the United States >>

When used here, does &quot;the people&quot; only apply to those in the military? If it does, then several hundred million Americans shouldn't even be voting in the next election, since they aren't covered by this document, as witnessed the next time &quot;the people&quot; is used...

Here, in Article I, Section 2 it is said that

<< The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the People of the several States >>

So if &quot;the people&quot; doesn't refer to every citizen, then who exactly is allowed to vote?

Then we get to the Bill of Rights.

The phrase &quot;the people&quot; is used in the 1st Amendment (the one that liberals love) when it says:

<< the right of the people peaceably to assemble >>

So again, if the people doesn't refer to every citizen, then none of you have the right to free speech, religion, press, or any of the other freedoms granted by that amendment.

Again we see that phrase in the 5th Amendment:

<< The right of the people to be secure in their persons >>



And it is used several other times throughout the Bill of Rights.

Gun grabbers, think hard before desecrating the 2nd Amendment that many Americans cherish, someday it might be your amendment that is found to &quot;harmful&quot; and needs to be revoked. When that happens, you won't have the help of 2nd Amendment supporters to protect your rights.
 

Ferocious

Diamond Member
Feb 16, 2000
4,584
1
71
I own three handguns, because I love to target shoot them.

I also own a shotgun for home defense.

I have no problems whatsoever with sensible handgun legislation.

NRA is suck! (Wayne is simply a power hungry SOB, like many politicians.)
 

Viper GTS

Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
38,039
361
136
I own only one gun. It's always loaded, &amp; occasionally it's even cocked. When I get excited, I point it in the air so I don't risk shooting anyone. It's always with me. I polish it lovingly, &amp; test fire it to make sure it still works. Someday, hopefully, I'll find someone to go shooting with me. I'll use them as the target. But until then, I must keep my gun clean, &amp; in working order. It is my duty.

:Q

Viper GTS
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
67,522
4,198
126
It is the right of the people to alter or abolish it and to institute new government as to them shall seem most likely affect their safty and happiness. We're talking ten ammemendments here not the commandments. Get that strait. If kids keep dying in soccor mom neighborhoods, guns are going out the window. Why we make laws that allow cheep hand gun profiteers to exist, with all the colateral death, under the umbrella of gun fanaticism and Founding Father religiousity is beyond me. Intrangegence will kill the goose that leid the golden egg. Keep it real.
 

BoberFett

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
37,563
9
81
Feel how you will Moonbeam, but after guns are banned and they need to demonize something else, don't come crying to me about how they're going to take away your free speech.
 

Mday

Lifer
Oct 14, 1999
18,646
1
76
some will argue the being necessary to the security of a free State part. That is, they will argue that certain gun owners threaten the security of a free state. Not to mention that certain militia also threaten the security of a free state.

i say, some should, some should not own guns.

responsibility is responsibility, MOST people can't handle it.
 

Mday

Lifer
Oct 14, 1999
18,646
1
76
of course few can justify the ownership of certain guns by the public at large.
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
67,522
4,198
126
Please define 'they', Bober. Alread I'm hearing rumors about limitations on my right to cry. :D

Besides, when they ban guns, you and I know we'll be criminal commrads in ARMS.
 

CrumCake

Senior member
Nov 10, 1999
571
0
0
Just imagine if they wanted to ban the internet someday. You think you'd be b!tching up a storm then.
What are ya gone to do if someone breaks into your house or apt while your there and they have a gun, but sh!t, America banned guns for honest gun loving folks so your screwed. Whats the possibility of that happening, depends on how bad the crime rate is where you live. The rate for gun crimes is low here in my town, but i still love to goto the range and try to hone my shooting skills. It can be a fun and challenging hobby, just like building computers or any other hobby. the fact that our hobby can cause serious injury or death in an emergency of personal human life is an added bonus.:)

Viper GTS, i don't think i'd go to the range with you by my side, but if you could'nt hit my big arse, your an awful shot!:)
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
67,522
4,198
126
I remember the story of the Zen monk who got robbed like that. There wasn't anything to steal and he said, &quot;Too bad I couldn't give him that moon&quot;
 

sandorski

No Lifer
Oct 10, 1999
68,525
3,634
126
Bober: Well, you certainly have learned the old religious method of taking things out of context in order to justify your opinion. If you read the statement in context, the reason to bear arms was contingent on the defense of the free state within the confines of a well regulated militia. It was not meant to give people the right to shoot trespassers, assasinate politicians, or get even with people who cut you off on the freeway. If people continue to use guns irresponsibly, it would be Constitutional for the government to limit gun ownership to those who are affiliated with regulated militias.
 

PCAddict

Diamond Member
Nov 19, 1999
3,804
0
0
I agree.

I too am a gun-owner who enjoys target shooting and hunting. I am also an advocate of proper education and safety. I think that anyone who wants to buy their first handgun should receive proper instruction from an NRA-certified instructor and that people buying shotguns/rifles should take hunter safety courses. Also, people should be responsible gun owners. There are no children in my house, but the bedroom where I keep my gun is always locked, whether I am in there or not.

I also enjoy the peace of mind knowing that if some scumbag breaks into my house with intent to commit harm, he will be the one being carried out in a zippered black bag.
 

chess9

Elite member
Apr 15, 2000
7,748
0
0
Must be a slow evening, yet another gun thread and I'm responding to it. :p

Anyway, I think gun ownership should be tied to one's driving record. After age 18, anyone who is not insane, or a convicted felon may own a gun. However, two speeding violations in one year, you lose your right to bear arms for life. Three traffic violations of any kind in one year and you would lose your right to bear arms. One DUI and you lose your right to bear arms. Etc.

In this way, all Americans over the age of 20 would be disarmed or ultimately jailed for illegal gun ownership.

I think we need to test this law first-please start Monday a.m.-in Florida.
 

piku

Diamond Member
May 30, 2000
4,049
1
0
chess - just general driving stuff is absolute crap. I could see DUI's as a reason to get rid of your right to own firearms, but just speeding twice? that is BS.
 

chess9

Elite member
Apr 15, 2000
7,748
0
0
Piku:

I forgot to mention: Cause an accident and they take your guns AND execute you with one of them.

&quot;Just A Modest Proposal&quot;, he said swiftly.
 

jobert

Senior member
Nov 20, 1999
714
0
0
That's right, it can't be any clearer:

The right to bear arms is there
to enable the people to maintain a Militia.
That is, to defend the United States of America.
 

Aceman

Banned
Oct 9, 1999
3,159
0
0
Times are now different and the problem with the interpetation of the Constitution is that it cannot and does not address the future and the change in society. When it was written, it was assumed and expected that should a war break out, that the people of this country would grab their personal arms and join in the battle. (Thus the inclusion of a well regulated militia.) Times are different now and the American Society is not expected to pick up their own weapons and go to war. Where I think people should look at is that should this nation ever get invaded and we as private citizens are no longer allowed to maintain personal arms, how will we defend our property and families? Without personal weapons, what happens if there is a military coup/revolt in this country? How shall the common citizen bare arms to stop this type of action? To those that say it can't happen.........how do we know what the future may hold? Our Forefathers did not. They didn't know that society would degrade instead of evolve in certain areas.

The government may take away my guns...........from my cold dead hands!
 

Impact55

Platinum Member
Feb 16, 2000
2,189
3
0


<< The klan is a well organized militia, that doesn't make them right. >>



Although I in NO way support the klan or any similar group, I disagree totally with your remark. The United States was created by individuals who wished to seek freedom from a formal structure government that limited freedom,religion, and opinions. As a famous physiocrat once put it (as I recall :p ), &quot;I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend to death your right to say it.&quot;
 

Bryan

Diamond Member
Oct 9, 1999
3,067
0
71
If you don't agree to the laws that this country was founded upon, then you can leave. Making guns illegal would only empower the crackheads who use them illegally in the first place, while rendering those who would defend themselves against said crackheads helpless.

Did you know that you can be arrested for being on the streets at any time of day with no government issued identification card?

Said the Nazi to the Jew &quot;Papers please!&quot;
 

BoberFett

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
37,563
9
81
sandorski

Despite your flippant attitude, I made every effort to examine the document in it's correct context. You made no argument, simply told me I'm wrong. Try again pal, that was a pretty weak attempt to prove that I'm wrong.

And nowhere did I say it gave anybody the right to assasinate politicians. Quit putting words in my mouth you two-bit liberal. What I did say is that it is every citizens right to own firearms regardless of their involvement with the military.

Aceman

Times are different, therefore the document this country was founded on is invalidated? So if the second amendment is invalid, how about the first?
 

lowfatbaconboy

Golden Member
Oct 21, 2000
1,796
0
0
bryan many laws in the U.S. are there because no one has bothered repealing them
but no one enforces them
such as florida if you have a visible erection(through pants or what ever) in public you can be arrested.....do you honestly think its enforced
in nazi germany jews WERE stoped to check id papers in the U.S. when was the last time you were randomly stopped to check your papers, and then you were arrested?


as for the 2nd ammendment take it in context...there was no actual standing army just militias and to prevent the king of england from taking over the U.S. they Allowed MILITIAS that are PROTECTING THE STATE THEY ARE IN to have guns. Now that we have military police etc. and the king of england or any other country is not trying to claim our territory then we don't need militias and since we don't need militias then people don't need guns if they aren't in militias trying to protect the state

HERE FETT IS THIS ENOUGH CAPS AND PUNCTUATION FOR YOU???!!!@!@!#%.....??~~!!!!


 

Gandalf511

Member
Oct 13, 2000
195
0
0
Bober, if you weren't such an idiot, you would see that Aceman is not trying to limit your gun ownership and is simply stating that all laws and all ideas are subject to review. I personally believe that there should be stricter gun regulations, and find it interesting that in nations like Britain, Japan, Canada, etc. with stricter gun laws, the violent crime rates commited on people are so much lower than they are here in the US. Also, when 12 year old kids can get ahold of their grandfather's rifle and kill other children with it, something is wrong with both the nature of the kids, and the system which allowed this to happen.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY