jerkface11
Member
Keep=own Bear=use
Right to Keep and Bear, what does it really mean?
- Thread starter Johnny_Come_Lately
- Start date
- Status
Cosmoline
Member
Bear means bear. There's no Constitutional right to shoot holes in things whenever you want, where-ever you want.
The militia reference is a parenthetical, that's all. It explains some of the reasoning behind the right. The RKBA was enshrined as an individual right because the people might need to form militias to defend the state. But the right was not given to militias. It was given to individuals.
The militia reference is a parenthetical, that's all. It explains some of the reasoning behind the right. The RKBA was enshrined as an individual right because the people might need to form militias to defend the state. But the right was not given to militias. It was given to individuals.
Owen Sparks
member
- Joined
- May 27, 2007
- Messages
- 4,523
Now the majority says it is in the hands of Congress and their agents of enforcement the BATFE.
It is now a serious crime to sell a firearm to someone who is sixteen. or a handgun to someone who is twenty!
getting caught with any "terrible implement of the soldier" or many not so terrible implements such as our nations current service rifle, the M16 wil get you ten years in prison as well as a big fine.
The people have lost almost all of their 2A rights. BTW, do you have a license for that thing?
[/quote]
That's because We The People have allowed them to get away with it for so long under the implied promise of more safety.
As Benjamin Franklin wrote:
"Those who would give up Essential Liberty
to purchase a little Temporary Safety,
deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."
It's clear that the very origins of gun control (racist) were anti-freedom.
http://www.suwanneegop.com/index.ph...gun-control&catid=26:minority-news&Itemid=165
These words means nothing to those who do not believe that the Constitution is anything more than faded paper in a glass box.
gbw
Member
The words are clear, the meaning anything but clear. This is really the crux of it all. What constitutes infringement?
Is ANY interferrence, no matter the time, place, or manner, and however minor, an unacceptable infringement? (Hint: These are allowed in all of the other so-called inalienable rights-amendments).
jerkface11
Member
None of the other amendments say "shall not be infringed"
dirtykid
Member
Lawyers,, thats the whole problem,, we have allowed our legal system to "interpret" the law as they see fit to either convict or acquit according to their job description,, so now words that our fore-fathers wrote with definite purpose in mind is hacked and cut into little "pieces" so the initial meaning is obscured completely,, remember W. Clinton staring into the camera at his impeachment trial and stating "it depends on what your definition of IS is " really ?/ 2-letters and we can still twist it's meaning somehow ?? c'mon !!!
I think we need to realize that the second amendment does not grant us the right to own guns. The right to own guns, or anything else for any reason, is natural. However, the government can pass laws, under our representative due process, to regulate that which endangers others. (For example, we cannot just hop into a 747 and take a joyride.)
Because guns are so important to the preservation and security of the country, the second amendment forbids the government from passing laws that would infringe on our natural right to own guns, even if the majority of Americans want such a law.
Because guns are so important to the preservation and security of the country, the second amendment forbids the government from passing laws that would infringe on our natural right to own guns, even if the majority of Americans want such a law.
tyeo098
Member
If China ever decides to collect its money, the first place they'll land is California.
The same California which is home to most of the disarmed masses. They would not be able to defend themselves, and with only bolt-actions and SOME cannibalized AR-15's and handguns, it would fall pretty quickly. That kind of arms would not stand to F/A or select fire AK74's (or whatever China has). China has 491,513,378 (wiki) people aged 15-64. Each of them can carry and fire a rifle.
If (and I say if, not when, because of the intricacies of international trade and economies, any act of war from a major nation on another would cause the inevitable collapse of the first nations economy due to trade embargo's etc.) China ever decided to invade, we would be helpless. The military we have can only protect so many people, and what do you do when the military isnt where you are? You cant fend for yourself (hell, look how the people in Egypt did without INTERNET much less power, water, ac etc).
In summary, we are defenseless people when it comes to the military of another nation. We think that our land is sacred, since we have not been invaded by a foreign nation effectively since the Revolutionary War. If it were to happen, we would all be screwed.
The same California which is home to most of the disarmed masses. They would not be able to defend themselves, and with only bolt-actions and SOME cannibalized AR-15's and handguns, it would fall pretty quickly. That kind of arms would not stand to F/A or select fire AK74's (or whatever China has). China has 491,513,378 (wiki) people aged 15-64. Each of them can carry and fire a rifle.
If (and I say if, not when, because of the intricacies of international trade and economies, any act of war from a major nation on another would cause the inevitable collapse of the first nations economy due to trade embargo's etc.) China ever decided to invade, we would be helpless. The military we have can only protect so many people, and what do you do when the military isnt where you are? You cant fend for yourself (hell, look how the people in Egypt did without INTERNET much less power, water, ac etc).
In summary, we are defenseless people when it comes to the military of another nation. We think that our land is sacred, since we have not been invaded by a foreign nation effectively since the Revolutionary War. If it were to happen, we would all be screwed.
ThePunisher'sArmory
Member
"States rights is another matter entirely. They no longer exist, thank honest Abe for that."
Just leave it to Illinois Polititians to screw up things.........
Just leave it to Illinois Polititians to screw up things.........
So, what is an 'arm'? What does infringe mean? How about machine guns, tanks and a-bombs?
The Supreme Court is the arbitrator under law. But ultimately it falls upon the people. We might use common sense, such as weapons beyond guns and swords are not arms, like an automobile is not the same as a horse and buggy. But the bottom line on this, the final arbitrator, and the last line of defense of the Constitution is the people. So I guess the answer to this would be what the people are willing to bear. When it gets to this point, the winner prevails. Such is life.
The Supreme Court is the arbitrator under law. But ultimately it falls upon the people. We might use common sense, such as weapons beyond guns and swords are not arms, like an automobile is not the same as a horse and buggy. But the bottom line on this, the final arbitrator, and the last line of defense of the Constitution is the people. So I guess the answer to this would be what the people are willing to bear. When it gets to this point, the winner prevails. Such is life.
Justin
Moderator Emeritus
Yes, because we all know that collecting debt by executing a land invasion of one of the most militarily powerful nations in all of history makes perfect financial sense.
LibShooter
Member
What did the 18th Century men who wrote the 2nd Amendment have in mind?
They were thinking of men armed with muzzle loaders standing shoulder to shoulder with their neighbors, part of a drilled militia guarding their hometowns from foreign invaders or native Americans.
However, it doesn't much matter what the authors had in mind... the second clause stands alone, "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
Arms means arms: muskets, assault rifles, artillery and aircraft.
They were thinking of men armed with muzzle loaders standing shoulder to shoulder with their neighbors, part of a drilled militia guarding their hometowns from foreign invaders or native Americans.
However, it doesn't much matter what the authors had in mind... the second clause stands alone, "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
Arms means arms: muskets, assault rifles, artillery and aircraft.
230therapy
Member
SCOTUS has ruled three times that the Constitution means what was intended at the time of its writing. We know what that intent was because of the writings of the founders. The Federalist Papers were used to argue for the Constitution and they made it clear what the parts meant. Therefore, the Second Amendment does mean the people can band together to form militias and individuals can own and carry weapons.
While SCOTUS is the arbiter of the law, they cannot change the meaning of the Constitution. They're supposed to use the Constitution, with an understanding of original intent, as the standard upon which law is evaluated.
The states are sovereign (society doesn't think of them like that now). The state constitution determines the limits of state action. This is not a top down system; it's bottom up (as in states to Federal). Society has been convinced otherwise.
While SCOTUS is the arbiter of the law, they cannot change the meaning of the Constitution. They're supposed to use the Constitution, with an understanding of original intent, as the standard upon which law is evaluated.
The states are sovereign (society doesn't think of them like that now). The state constitution determines the limits of state action. This is not a top down system; it's bottom up (as in states to Federal). Society has been convinced otherwise.
Last edited:
tyeo098
Member
Try not paying some of your billsYes, because we all know that collecting debt by executing a land invasion of one of the most militarily powerful nations in all of history makes perfect financial sense.
Also I stated in the last paragraph:
To cover all my bases
That's right.Yes, because we all know that collecting debt by executing a land invasion of one of the most militarily powerful nations in all of history makes perfect financial sense.
China's too busy building stock market equity capital, listed enterprises and investor accounts to be concerned with piddling military conquest. They basically told North Korea that the writing's on the wall.
MaddSkillz
Member
- Joined
- Aug 9, 2007
- Messages
- 68
And we've allowed government to regulate that which is there to protect us from them.
Kinda loses its leverage if we let those regulate/legislate that which is there to protect us from them, doesn't it?
Kinda loses its leverage if we let those regulate/legislate that which is there to protect us from them, doesn't it?
230therapy
Member
Let's not forget the millions of hunters with those "deer sniper rifles"! All they would have to do is get one hit with a 10% hit rate to cause at least a million casualties. I'm not sure even China would want to take that many dead and wounded.
China does have too many young males. Historically, we know that leads to war.
GambJoe
Member
It seems everyone that reads it has their own interpretation, both extremes are willing to call you stupid if you don't agree. Literary types can argue all they want but it seems to me it was written to throw people off. I know of only one jurisdiction that controlled weapons at the time (NYC). I would be interesting to now what the other locale laws were in 1776.
I believe the second amendment was written as threat to dissolve the Union if slavery was threatened. Thank you Mister Lincoln for holding this nation together and ending slavery.
I think that everyone has a right to defend his life and limb within reason and the law. Although not every right, given by God or nature, like the right of slaves to be free, was written in the Constitution, we are entitled to those freedoms.
But right now I'm happy with the Supreme Court's latest decision that some laws go to far. NYC and Chicago have different values on gun control than most of the rest of the country. Let each state and locality decide.
I believe the second amendment was written as threat to dissolve the Union if slavery was threatened. Thank you Mister Lincoln for holding this nation together and ending slavery.
I think that everyone has a right to defend his life and limb within reason and the law. Although not every right, given by God or nature, like the right of slaves to be free, was written in the Constitution, we are entitled to those freedoms.
But right now I'm happy with the Supreme Court's latest decision that some laws go to far. NYC and Chicago have different values on gun control than most of the rest of the country. Let each state and locality decide.
1911Tuner
Moderator Emeritus
And in the same sentence...
Interesting, but a little confusing.
You're okay if the state or locality in which you reside passes a law that goes too far. (?)
Or...You're okay with whatever some state or locality does as long as it doesn't affect you. (?)
Or...You're generally okay with a political entity...whose membership has no stake in what happens to you and yours...passing a restrictive/infringing law on an inalienable right that was...and is...guaranteed by the US Constitution. (?)
Or...You're generally okay with a political entity...whose membership has no stake in what happens to other people as a result of its actions...passing a restrictive/infringing law on an inalienable right as long as it doesn't affect you. (?)
Hard to have it both ways. It's either a right or it's a privelege, and what affects one of us ultimately affects us all.
The New Age, Progressive 2nd Amendment:
The privelege of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed unless we vote on it and decide that you really don't need any of that stuff. (!!??)
That dog won't hunt.
230therapy
Member
You're kidding, right?
hammerklavier
Member
The term bear is often overlooked. It means that you can carry weapons on your person while out in public.
GambJoe
Member
No, I'm not ok, legal action should be taken as far as the Supreme Court.
If NJ residents want to keep it's laws as is (you can still own fire arms there). And as long as it the courts think it is OK then it's OK with me.
I don't feel restricted in Texas. What political entity are you speaking of congress. the courts? We don't make up my own laws. If we don't agree with the laws as they are on the books, we have options. But if I do disobey those laws I do expect to be judged by the courts.
Maine amended their state constitution. That's what all states should do. Let the anti's challenge it if they want, I doubt laws like that would be struck down. The state where you reside has a right to regulate what you do own and carry and where you carry. Does the town of Portland Maine go to far if they don't allow open carry of M-60 machine guns. My answer is no. I hate to put restrictions on people but some things should not even be brought up.
As I tried to express before how the 2nd Amendment can be interpertated any way you want, pro or con, as people do. I feel that as a gun owner people left and right keep this issue going because they are making careers out of it.
I prefer to cut thru the BS and move on to other things this NATION needs to do.
GambJoe
Member
About Lincoln? No.
I'll admit it, the first statement is way over the top but when I read:
I couldn't help myself.
Seriously, on how our nation became, the right to own slave, colored (not joking) allot of it.
- Status
