The Constitution means exactly what it says

  • Thread starter Thread starter Guns Guns Guns
  • Start date Start date
\(\(\(\/)/)/)/ said:
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.
Click to expand...

And how would the strict constitutionalists differ from the founding father's intent?
 
ZappasGuitar said:
Please explain to one not quite as knowledgeable on matters of the constitution.

Why is there wording regarding militias included in the 2nd amendment if the 2nd deals with the people's right to bear arms?
Click to expand...

"Well regulated" in the colonial era and in this context, means "ready and disciplined". One cannot be disciplined in the use of arms without owning one.

Also, in colonial era language, a comma was commonly used not simply as a pause but to separate concepts. This is unlike the style today where a separate sentence is normally constructed. This explains why the two separate concepts of militia and people were used in the same sentence.
 
ZappasGuitar said:
But it specifically refers to a "well regulated" militia, which would seem to indicate the founding fathers thought some sort of Governmental oversight of said militia was important.

Unless "regulated" had a different meaning back in the day...like I said I'm not terribly knowledgeable on the details.
Click to expand...
It did have a different meaning (and since I'm late I'm sure someone will have already covered this). However the meaning of regulated, with regards to the militia is pretty irrelevant. It's specifically written that congress has some control of matters concerning the militia. The 2A was written to illustrate that the militia is a right of the people, not a power of the government, and also to further illustrate that the right to own arms (not just guns) is a birthright of every human being.
 
The right of the people to rise up in armed rebellion must be preserved, right, gunlovers?
 
cawacko said:
I can't speak for Zap but I think he was just asking a question, which was a good one, which I thought WB answered well. Maybe he's stated anti-second amendment rights elsewhere but the question was a legit one.
Click to expand...

never said it wasn't. the court answers his question quite well.
 
\(\(\(\/)/)/)/ said:
The right of the people to rise up in armed rebellion must be preserved, right, gunlovers?
Click to expand...

The founding fathers fully intended for the people to keep the gov't in check by whatever means necessary. Joke if you like, but as the quotes I posted show, they wanted to preserve the people's ability to replace a gov't that significantly overstepped its bounds.
 
Since the development of advanced arms and the subsequent usurpation by the government of the people's ability to own advanced arms, a violent overthrow of the government is a near-zero possibility. The only feasible ways that I see to correct the current situation is to:

1. Vote the liberals out of office and replace with conservatives and libertarians. The 2010 election cycle showed that the people are willing to do this but several more with the same magnitude of results is needed.
2. Let the liberals run the country into bankruptcy, followed by a forced overthrow.
 
Damn Yankee said:
Since the development of advanced arms and the subsequent usurpation by the government of the people's ability to own advanced arms, a violent overthrow of the government is a near-zero possibility. The only feasible ways that I see to correct the current situation is to:

1. Vote the liberals out of office and replace with conservatives and libertarians. The 2010 election cycle showed that the people are willing to do this but several more with the same magnitude of results is needed.
2. Let the liberals run the country into bankruptcy, followed by a forced overthrow.
Click to expand...




You just broke SmarterThanFews' heart.
 
cawacko said:
I can't speak for Zap but I think he was just asking a question, which was a good one, which I thought WB answered well. Maybe he's stated anti-second amendment rights elsewhere but the question was a legit one.
Click to expand...

While I am for requiring gun owners to register the guns they own, I am 100% behind the right of the people to own said guns.
 
Damn Yankee said:
Since the development of advanced arms and the subsequent usurpation by the government of the people's ability to own advanced arms, a violent overthrow of the government is a near-zero possibility. The only feasible ways that I see to correct the current situation is to:

1. Vote the liberals out of office and replace with conservatives and libertarians. The 2010 election cycle showed that the people are willing to do this but several more with the same magnitude of results is needed.
2. Let the liberals run the country into bankruptcy, followed by a forced overthrow.
Click to expand...

I disagree. I believe an armed population could bring the gov't down. It would not require a military style defeat to do so.

If you look at what was accomplished by the North Vietnamese when we were throwing everything but nukes at them, it is easy to see how armed citizens able to hide within our own borders and in our own population could disrupt the gov't enough to make it impossible to function. Or look at what the insurgents in Iraq did against our military in a wide open landscape.

The only way the US Military could defeat the population (or a significant portion of our pop.) would be to search every building and limit the movements of every person, to the extent that it would offend and piss off the entire population. It would be forced to open fire on many innocent citizens in order to kill a handful of militia members. Which would sway public opinion in favor of those fighting against the gov't.
 
SmarterThanYou said:
it's been said, and proven, that registration leads to confiscation.....so why are you for requiring the registration of guns? what purpose would it serve?
Click to expand...

Sorry.

The USA is totally unique and unlike any other country on the globe.

As such, any claims that "registration leads to confiscation" has been proven, are false.

As so many like to point out so often...the USA is different from any other country with it's own unique set of laws and moral guidelines. Anyone who draws the conclusion that simply because registration led to confiscation elsewhere on the planet, that the same is inevitable here is just making an assumption and nothing more.
 
ZappasGuitar said:
Sorry. The USA is totally unique and unlike any other country on the globe. As such, any claims that "registration leads to confiscation" has been proven, are false.

As so many like to point out so often...the USA is different from any other country with it's own unique set of laws and moral guidelines. Anyone who draws the conclusion that simply because registration led to confiscation elsewhere on the planet, that the same is inevitable here is just making an assumption and nothing more.
Click to expand...



Maybe SmarterThanFew has been channeling the Amazing Yurskin. That would explain how he KNOWS that something that's never happened is gonna happen.




psychic.jpg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top