open carry
- Thread starter seeley booth
- Start date
Firefighterchen
OC for Tactical Advantage
His opinion isn't the full text of the 2A
I'll give you this though:
In one corner, gun controllers embrace a narrow, statist reading, insisting that the amendment merely confers a right on state governments to establish professional state militias like the National Guard or local swat teams. No ordinary citizen is covered by the amendment in this view.
In the other corner, gun owners and their supporters read the amendment in a broad, libertarian way, arguing that it protects a right of every individual to have guns for self-protection, for hunting, and even for sport. Virtually nothing having to do with personal weaponry is outside the amendment in this view.
I see you placed yourself in the narrow minded statist gun controller group.
Sent from my D6616 using USA Carry mobile app
BluesStringer
Les Brers
"I'm about as right wing as you can get but... here, read this editorial from the July 12, 1999 issue of one of the most left-wing publications on the planet so I can make another brain-dead "point!" Bwaaahahahahahaha!
As dumb as any other tool sitting alone in a tool-box drawer.
Blues
I was wondering if you guys want the 2nd amendment right to bear and keep arms, what about the part whe it says armed citizenry should be "well regulated." I guess it's my 2nd amendment to have regulations enforced on those that choose to bear and keep arms. Taking away such regulations infringes on my 2nd amendment rights.
For more than 200 years following the adoption of that amendment, federal judges uniformly understood that the right protected by that text was limited in two ways: First, it applied only to keeping and bearing arms for military purposes, and second, while it limited the power of the federal government, it did not impose any limit whatsoever on the power of states or local governments to regulate the ownership or use of firearms. Thus, in United States v. Miller, decided in 1939, the court unanimously held that Congress could prohibit the possession of a sawed-off shotgun because that sort of weapon had no reasonable relation to the preservation or efficiency of a “well regulated Militia.”
The Second Amendment is incredibly simple to understand.
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.
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State," is a statement of fact and is the reason why the phrase that follows was written.
Well regulated does not mean the government gets to tell who gets to carry which firearms and where - which would go against the very purpose of the 2nd Amendment to begin with. Well regulated means trained and guided for a specific purpose. It's like the air in a firefighter's or diver's SCUBA tanks. The air in the tank is at too high of a pressure to be useful for the purpose for which it exists - to be breathed by a human being. The air must be regulated to become useful for the purpose intended. The purpose of the Militia is to maintain the security of a free state. 1 million men going in 1 million different directions doing their own thing can't do that. It is only when they are guided toward the common goal can they be effective to accomplish that goal.
The goal of the well regulated militia is to maintain the security of the free state. That means defending it against any attack, be it by a government, invader, or standing army that would attempt to establish tyranny, including the US Federal Government. The Bill of Rights was written by a group of men who had just accomplished the violent overthrow of their own government which had become tyrannical and they wrote the 2nd Amendment to ensure that it could be done again, if needed.
The last phrase "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" is the guarantee that enough citizens will remain armed so that they can form a militia, if need be, and be trained and guided to the common goal of maintaining the free state.
If someone wants to get all wrapped in the idea of the right to keep and bear arms as applying only to "the Militia" show them the definition of militia contained in Federal law and watch them cough and sputter...
10 U.S. Code § 311 - Militia: composition and classes | LII / Legal Information Institute
It includes all able body males between the ages of 17 and 45 (up to age 64 if previously members of the Regular Armed Forces) - who are not even required to be citizens of the United States and female members of the National Guard.
The 2nd Amendment actually has nothing in it about personal protection or hunting. It is 100% about being able to defend the freedom of the state from anyone that attempts to enact tyranny including the US Federal Government.
Now, with all that being explained - the truth is that the Federal Government has already infringed upon the people's right to keep and bear (starting with the National Firearms Act of 1934) to such an extent that it has already nullified the 2nd Amendment.
One could effectively argue that the National Firearms Act of 1934 was actually the first step taken by the Federal government to establish tyranny.
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.
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State," is a statement of fact and is the reason why the phrase that follows was written.
Well regulated does not mean the government gets to tell who gets to carry which firearms and where - which would go against the very purpose of the 2nd Amendment to begin with. Well regulated means trained and guided for a specific purpose. It's like the air in a firefighter's or diver's SCUBA tanks. The air in the tank is at too high of a pressure to be useful for the purpose for which it exists - to be breathed by a human being. The air must be regulated to become useful for the purpose intended. The purpose of the Militia is to maintain the security of a free state. 1 million men going in 1 million different directions doing their own thing can't do that. It is only when they are guided toward the common goal can they be effective to accomplish that goal.
The goal of the well regulated militia is to maintain the security of the free state. That means defending it against any attack, be it by a government, invader, or standing army that would attempt to establish tyranny, including the US Federal Government. The Bill of Rights was written by a group of men who had just accomplished the violent overthrow of their own government which had become tyrannical and they wrote the 2nd Amendment to ensure that it could be done again, if needed.
The last phrase "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" is the guarantee that enough citizens will remain armed so that they can form a militia, if need be, and be trained and guided to the common goal of maintaining the free state.
If someone wants to get all wrapped in the idea of the right to keep and bear arms as applying only to "the Militia" show them the definition of militia contained in Federal law and watch them cough and sputter...
10 U.S. Code § 311 - Militia: composition and classes | LII / Legal Information Institute
It includes all able body males between the ages of 17 and 45 (up to age 64 if previously members of the Regular Armed Forces) - who are not even required to be citizens of the United States and female members of the National Guard.
The 2nd Amendment actually has nothing in it about personal protection or hunting. It is 100% about being able to defend the freedom of the state from anyone that attempts to enact tyranny including the US Federal Government.
Now, with all that being explained - the truth is that the Federal Government has already infringed upon the people's right to keep and bear (starting with the National Firearms Act of 1934) to such an extent that it has already nullified the 2nd Amendment.
One could effectively argue that the National Firearms Act of 1934 was actually the first step taken by the Federal government to establish tyranny.
I'm not against guns at all. Any citizen over the age 18 with a clean criminal record and has never been involuntarily committed to a psychiatric hospital should be "allowed" to carry a loaded firearm in public openly or concealed. Those 3 regulations do not infringe on your 2nd amendment rights if any of you actually read it and could understand it.
The Federal government already did [infringe upon the right of the people to keep and bear arms]. The right and duty of the citizen to overthrow any tyrannical government applies just as much to state and municipal governments as it does to Federal government
You are absolutely correct. Schools teach that it is the government that controls people, not that it is the people that are supposed to control the government.
That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.
The founding fathers also knew that there would be people exactly like you, MHas:
Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.
You really have nothing to fear, MHas.... the citizens will never overthrow the Federal government by force because the Federal government has infringed upon the 2nd Amendment right to keep and bear arms to such an extent as to make that pretty much impossible. Give it a no more than a century and the Federal government will implode under the weight of it's own spending and debt, just like the USSR did (and add to that the burden of government regulations which are out of control as well). The United States of America will become the Fifty States of America.
BluesStringer
Les Brers
And you are truly brain dead. Anarchists would never argue the finer points of constitutional law, because by definition, an anarchist believes all law is illegitimate.
Our country's Founders believed in government as close as possible to anarchy without crossing that line. They believed in the smallest, least intrusive government possible that was still capable of maintaining civil order. They sought, and received, permission from The People to severely limit governmental authority and power over them to the extent articulated within the Constitution and subsequent Bill of Rights. "Shall not be infringed" is the extent The People were willing to give them "authority and power," which is to say, We, The People gave them zero authority or power over gun issues.
You are woefully unqualified to speak on education levels, constitutional law in general, or Second Amendment issues specifically. If your parents sent you to public school, they should demand a partial refund on their property taxes. If you went to private school, it should be shut down for its gross incompetency in teaching the most basic and rudimentary constitutional concepts.
Blues
Firefighterchen
OC for Tactical Advantage
MHas and Gregg...just the next batch of gun grabbers to stumble into the forums.
Sent from my D6616 using USA Carry mobile app
Sent from my D6616 using USA Carry mobile app
BluesStringer
Les Brers
There's only one "g" in Gregmm6. You can't read. Stick to the facts! LOL
Firefighterchen
OC for Tactical Advantage
In reality the g stands for goon...as in..."I'm a goon for gun control."
Sent from my D6616 using USA Carry mobile app
You guys aren't arguing your constitutional rights. You guys are saying you think anyone despite criminal background and mental health should be able to walk around with loaded firearms in public. I've already given multiple phrases from the 2nd amendment and other readings that don't support any of your arguments. At this point it's not even about guns, it's about your pea brains comprehending and understanding the 2nd amendment and how it fits in with today's modern society. If guys feel felons and people with severe mental retardation should walk around with loaded firearms then it is you who should be getting a better education. How about 100% fully blind people? We should just let them walk around with shotguns since a pistol won't be much help.
For more than 200 years following the adoption of that amendment, federal judges uniformly understood that the right protected by that text was limited in two ways: First, it applied only to keeping and bearing arms for military purposes, and second, while it limited the power of the federal government, it did not impose any limit whatsoever on the power of states or local governments to regulate the ownership or use of firearms. Thus, in United States v. Miller, decided in 1939, the court unanimously held that Congress could prohibit the possession of a sawed-off shotgun because that sort of weapon had no reasonable relation to the preservation or efficiency of a “well regulated Militia.”
As a result of the rulings in Heller and McDonald, the Second Amendment, which was adopted to protect the states from federal interference with their power to ensure that their militias were “well regulated,” has given federal judges the ultimate power to determine the validity of state regulations of both civilian and militia-related uses of arms.
