why is this still an issue? it's been debated and settled by the supreme court. The constitution was written not to be something that is stagnant to the times. It was written with the intent to be changing with the times for the better good. Gun control is a sticky situation. Most of the violent crimes today are used with stolen weapons anyway. The bad guys would have the guns and the common people would have to cower in fear. Local law enforcement would be near powerless against them and we would have to rely on local military to take care of the problem. That means that the government would at some point have absolute control over local matters. Have fun living in that society.
Second Amendment
- Thread starter Jagger
- Start date
A well regulated militia being necessary for the security of a free state, the right of each state respectively to organize arm and discipline its own militia, shall not be infringed.
Tucker said the Second Amendment meant "that each state respectively should have the power to provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining it's own militia, whenever congress should neglect to provide for the same."Radd said:
In other words, Tucker interpreted the word "people" to mean "each state respectively" and "keep and bear arms" to mean "organize, arm and disciple its own militia."
Doing the math, and we see that Tucker read the second amendment to mean,
A well regulated militia being necessary for the security of a free state, the right of each state respectively to organize arm and discipline its own militia [whenever congress should neglect to provide for the same], shall not be infringed.
It doth appear that the great Saint George Tucker put the "collective right" construction on the Second Amendment's right to keep and bear.
trplnkl
555
Did your "Great St. George Tucker" sign the Constitution of the United States?
Just askin'
Where this sounds familar, I don't think it is in the "Bill of Rights" as stated here.
Just askin'
Where this sounds familar, I don't think it is in the "Bill of Rights" as stated here.
I think this is much closer.
Maybe my mind is too simple, but if I'm not mistaken the SCOTUS holds to the same thought. At least at this time.
tourists24
Well-Known Member
Each individual should own their own firearm to make sure their militia is well regulated
Catatonic
Nine Lives
An obvious attempt to represent a lie as the truth.
The above is not the second amendment, this is:
The above is not the second amendment, this is:
Amendment II
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, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Further to the point, the Supreme Court has upheld this amendment several times and every time to be pertaining to the individual's right to bear arms.
There is a process to change the Constitution and your opinion is not part of it.
Catatonic
Nine Lives
Google George Mason if you want to see it.
I personally don't feel like doing your job.
Google George Mason if you want to see it.
I personally don't feel like doing your job.
I understand you have no evidence that anyone objected to the Constitution because it failed to protect an individual right to keep and bear arms.
Catatonic
Nine Lives
That's your problem, not mine.
Dude, If you think Sedona is the Wild West, you are living in a time warp.
It hasn't been part of the Wild West since the 1940's. I would consider it industrial tourism, I'm glad I sold my place there 5 years ago, though I like spending a few days hiking there every year, but that's enough.
For your sake, I hope it gets better after the road construction is done.
The courts will decide what the lConstitution means, and they have been consistent in their interpretation, though I wouldn't be surprised to see that modified a bit as 'consumer' weapons become more powerful.
No one will take away your hunting/sports weapons, though you might not be able to have a weapon of mass destruction, or even a full auto weapon without some limits.
Judging from the cross section of America I see here, therodog comes to mind, I always get warm and fuzzy when I see Stormfront images being tolerated.
The difference between a hunting gun and a killing weapon is a hacksaw. We'd be better off without private ownership of firearms, IMO, if:
1) We could trust the people we elect
2) Zero tolerance for posssesion of a firearm.
That's just my opinion, and I don't expect that to be the law, or even a point of discussion, just expressing an opinion.
Spoken like true management, LOL! 'If the world was a happy place...' is one the favorite mgt lines where I live.
If you want to have firepower to deal with the bad guys who slit throats and cook the hearts of the rich people they murder in Sedona, hire a bodyguard.
Sedona *used* to be nice, but I could only spend so many hours on the trails, and traffic became so not worth it. I sold in the Pine Valley sub, Oak Creek Village, two years before the fire went through.
I like the area N and E of Dry Creek Rd the best, great for a quick 'day in day out' trip.
Enjoy the new America, I think you'll like it.
Good luck, you'll need it.
At least you have a leader incharge of the country now
tieguy
Banned
UPS Lifer
Well-Known Member
Hey Passerby - Arizona is still a red state! HA! The one true leader was "passed by" yesterday.
Hey! Thanks for moving out of Sedona! Adios!
We have met some wonderful people who live here in Northern AZ and some are UPSers! I can't think of any place I would rather live at this point in my life. I have been here since 2003 and visiting since '95...
You are welcome to come up for the day and spend your money to support our local business. We thank you for your patronage!
Hey! Thanks for moving out of Sedona! Adios!
We have met some wonderful people who live here in Northern AZ and some are UPSers! I can't think of any place I would rather live at this point in my life. I have been here since 2003 and visiting since '95...
You are welcome to come up for the day and spend your money to support our local business. We thank you for your patronage!
av8torntn
Well-Known Member
Well this did not take long.
https://web.archive.org/web/2008110....com/public/content/article.aspx?RsrcID=38807
https://web.archive.org/web/2008110....com/public/content/article.aspx?RsrcID=38807
The Bill of Right came about because the Conventions of a number of the States having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers. The Second Amendment's object was to prevent Congress from abusing its power to "provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the Militia", by neglecting "to provide for arming the militia", by declaring "that each state respectively should have the power to provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining it's own militia, whenever congress should neglect to provide for the same."
George Mason during the Virginia Ratification Convention expressed a widespread distrust of Congress and the possibility that it would not fund the arming for the militia as an excuse for the creation of a standing army, which could later to be used as an instrument of tyranny by Congress.
The militia may be here destroyed by that method which has been practised in other parts of the world before; that is, by rendering them useless—by disarming them. Under various pretences, Congress may neglect to provide for arming and disciplining the militia; and the state governments cannot do it, for Congress has an exclusive right to arm them, &c. … Should the national government wish to render the militia useless, they may neglect them, and let them perish, in order to have a pretence of establishing a standing army. … But when once a standing army is established in any country, the people lose their liberty. When, against a regular and disciplined army, yeomanry are the only defence,—yeomanry, unskilful and unarmed,—what chance is there for preserving freedom?
The Second Amendment was meant to be protection against a possible abuse by Congress. The right protected is really the right of a state to maintain an armed militia, or national guard, as we call it now. The American people feared that Congress might, by passing a law, prohibit the states from arming their citizens. Then having all the armed strength at its command, the national government could overwhelm the states. Such a circumstance has never happened, but this amendment would prevent it. The Second Amendment does not give anybody or everybody the right to possess and use firearms. The states may very properly prescribe regulations and permits governing the use of guns within their borders."
The right to keep and bear arms wasn't meant to protect the fundamental right of individual self defense. According to the Second Amendment the right to keep and bear arms is merely the means to a well regulated militia; and, a well regulated militia is merely the means to the security of a free state.
Applying James Madison's principle that the means should be commensurate with the end, we should understand the Second Amendment's right to keep and bear to be limited to that which is necessary to achieve a well regulated militia. Therefore, the only people with a right to keep and bear are those are acting in their official capacity as members of an organized, armed and disciplined militia that is at all times submissive to civil authority.
tieguy
Banned
Its funny how you leave out the commas in the sentence and the entire sentence structure.
Its funny how many people quote this part of an entirely difference sentence as a stand alone sentence, when in fact, it is not.
Similar threads
- Locked
