where does it say anything like that at all?, you say certainly as if it is written in there, yes people think it means less but that is NOT what the words say
it says militia, I would take that so the citizens can defend themselves against ANYTHING, we can't take down a repressive government's gunships with hunting rifles now can we?, we need rpg's. we don't need a militia to defend ourselves from a thief or wild animals, we need militias to protect ourselves from governments.
either we need to follow it and allow all arms or rewrite it to be more specific (I would prefer this).
No. This is my biggest peeve about firearms. It's this kind of gun-nuttery that needs to stop. This is utter bull***** and it makes responsible gun owners look like paranoid lunatics.
Stop and think about what the founding fathers created. They did not create another repressive dictatorship, they created a government of the people, for the people, and by the people. Last time I checked, you had every right to participate in that government if you chose to do so. You can vote, you can lobby, you can petition your elected officials, you can run for office. So can everyone else.
How do you defend yourself from a government of the people, for the people, and by the people? You vote. You lobby. You petition your elected officials. You run for office. You take to the streets, and to the courts, and to the polls. THESE are the options the founding fathers gave us for dealing with our government. They gave us these options specifically to avoid the problems they faced. Their rebellion against a tyrannical government was necessary and inevitable specifically because they did not possess these options themselves. They created these options specifically to avoid the need for people to take up arms to protect their rights.
When you take up arms against the people, or a government comprised of those people, seeking redress of grievance, you are not a freedom fighter. You are depriving those people of their right to self-governance. You're not a patriot in the manner of our founding fathers, you're a common criminal, and your actions reflect poorly on all responsible gun owners. These actions aren't the solution to repressive gun control laws, they are the cause. You say "we need militias to protect ourselves from governments". In our society, where government is of the people, for the people, and by the people, that means "we need militias to kill people who don't agree with us".
AND YOU WONDER WHY THE PEOPLE WANT TO TAKE OUR GUNS?!?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Funetical
It doesn't. It should be my right to own a tank.
"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."
They have tanks. They are the people I would need to regain my security from.
Therefore,
Me + Tank = Freedom
Me - Tank + continued limitations of my rights = Not freedom, that's for sure.
I'm also a big fan of me owning missiles.
So do it. My local VFW has a tank sitting out front, why don't you?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Motorcharge
If it's accessible to troops it should be accessible to civilians. If it's accessible to a group of troops it should be accessible to state militia and National Guard.
The whole idea originally was that states were more or less their own country and we are supposed to simply be just what the country is called, United States, with a basic overall federal government to deal with specific issues laid out in the Constitution. There isn't supposed to be a national standing army except in times of war.
There is a difference between a standing army and a garrisoned army. Basically, when a soldier is ordered to do something that requires he carry a gun, he's part of a standing army. When he has, by virtue of his status as "soldier", the authority to deprive someone of their rights in any way, shape, or form, he is a member of a standing army. Stateside, we very rarely have a standing army. It's generally illegal for garrisoned soldiers to exercise their right to carry a gun while on base!
When the national guard (state militia) is called in to quell riots, we have a standing army within our borders. Active Duty (national-level) troops are generally prohibited from such actions.
Quote:
Originally Posted by neophyte
The Second Amendment (Amendment II) to the United States Constitution is the part of the United States Bill of Rights that protects the right of the people to keep and bear arms. It was adopted on December 15, 1791, along with the rest of the Bill of Rights.
There are several versions of the text of the Second Amendment, each with slight capitalization and punctuation differences, found in the official documents surrounding the adoption of the Bill of Rights.[5] One version was passed by the Congress,[6] while another is found in the copies distributed to the States[7] and then ratified by them.
As passed by the Congress:
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.
As ratified by the States:
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.
The original hand-written copy of the Bill of Rights, approved by the House and Senate, was prepared by scribe William Lambert and resides in the National Archives.
Reading this; reading the history, reading back the right to bear arms. What is/was the master plan. Protect the citizens from an oppressive government.
These 'writer' had seperated recently from a war of oppression, knowing full and well what an oppressive government could and would do.
Tell me where in the constitution it says we have the right to take up arms against Congress. The right is to keep and bear arms for security, not to use them for political purposes. You need to remember that we (you, and me, and every other American citizen reading) ARE the government. By taking up arms against "the government", you take up arms against me, and every other citizen that comprises that government.
__________________
We work together every damn day. --Jon Stewart
quote:Tell me where in the constitution it says we have the right to take up arms against Congress. The right is to keep and bear arms for security, not to use them for political purposes. You need to remember that we (you, and me, and every other American citizen reading) ARE the government. By taking up arms against "the government", you take up arms against me, and every other citizen that comprises that government.
my posting? assist me and I'll respond;
__________________
Craig
"We have never seen anything like this.? Mark 2:12
No. This is my biggest peeve about firearms. It's this kind of gun-nuttery that needs to stop. This is utter bull***** and it makes responsible gun owners look like paranoid lunatics.
Stop and think about what the founding fathers created. They did not create another repressive dictatorship, they created a government of the people, for the people, and by the people. Last time I checked, you had every right to participate in that government if you chose to do so. You can vote, you can lobby, you can petition your elected officials, you can run for office. So can everyone else.
How do you defend yourself from a government of the people, for the people, and by the people? You vote. You lobby. You petition your elected officials. You run for office. You take to the streets, and to the courts, and to the polls. THESE are the options the founding fathers gave us for dealing with our government. They gave us these options specifically to avoid the problems they faced. Their rebellion against a tyrannical government was necessary and inevitable specifically because they did not possess these options themselves. They created these options specifically to avoid the need for people to take up arms to protect their rights.
When you take up arms against the people, or a government comprised of those people, seeking redress of grievance, you are not a freedom fighter. You are depriving those people of their right to self-governance. You're not a patriot in the manner of our founding fathers, you're a common criminal, and your actions reflect poorly on all responsible gun owners. These actions aren't the solution to repressive gun control laws, they are the cause. You say "we need militias to protect ourselves from governments". In our society, where government is of the people, for the people, and by the people, that means "we need militias to kill people who don't agree with us".
I would suggest you remove you "current day glasses" you are revising history from, In that period of time the citizens were our military to protect us not only from foreign governments (primary purpose) but there is evidence to argue we have guns to keep us balanced protection wise from our own government
now if you had argued that times had changed and with the military needs of today there is no need for each individual to have a gun for the protection of the nation you would have a point.
But it DOES NOT change the fact that our constitution clearly says I have the right to bear arms to keep a militia of citizens, that IS WHAT IT SAYS. you cannot just pretend it says something else. yes, it needs updated and clarified to meet the needs of what we as a country need today and not over 200 years ago, that was my point in this thread.
quote:Tell me where in the constitution it says we have the right to take up arms against Congress. The right is to keep and bear arms for security, not to use them for political purposes. You need to remember that we (you, and me, and every other American citizen reading) ARE the government. By taking up arms against "the government", you take up arms against me, and every other citizen that comprises that government.
my posting? assist me and I'll respond;
You suggested that the purpose of the 2nd amendment was to protect the people from the government that was being created by the constitution. Where in the constitution does it permit the people to take up arms against congress, or any other component of the government that the constitution creates?
The answer is that it doesn't. The system of checks and balances - where there are separate entities creating and executing law, and a third to address questions of law - are the means provided by the constitution to protect people's (and state's) rights from governmental abuse. There is no provision in the constitution for an armed group to march into congress and force them to change their ways.
Taking up arms against a government of the people, for the people, and by the people, is an attack against the people. We resolve our political differences with our voices and with our ballots, not with our guns.
__________________
We work together every damn day. --Jon Stewart
rivalarrival: Sir, in part I couldn't agree with you more. You are correct, with this is our country, our people, our land.
Shooting another American Citizen is probably the most horrible act, that I could immagine.
Reading the history to the writing, knowing why such words were chosen, knowing ''as'' I have read.
Sir, read the words provided, take a moment, and consider the words, consider the time in which it was written.
in part; it comes from the English version, The text of the English Bill of Rights of 1689 includes language protecting the right of Protestants against disarmament by the Crown. This document states: "That the Subjects which are Protestants may have Arms for their Defence suitable to their Conditions and as allowed by Law."[12] It also contained text that aspired to bind future Parliaments, though under English Constitutional Law no Parliament can bind any later Parliament.[13] Nevertheless, the English Bill of Rights remains an important constitutional document, more for enumerating the rights of Parliament over the monarchy than for its clause concerning a right to have arms.
back to the Second;
Experience in America prior to the U.S. ConstitutionIn no particular order, early American settlers viewed the right to arms and/or the right to bear arms and/or state militias as important for one or more of these purposes:[24][25][26][27][28][29][30][31]
deterring undemocratic government;
repelling invasion;
suppressing insurrection;
facilitating a natural right of self-defense;
participating in law enforcement;
enabling the people to organize a militia system
each part; plays an additional part. What is provided is bits and pieces ; I copied and posted; adding not one correction, nor my own words.
you have taken a good strong stance, in many ways, a good stance. While you continue reading, your stance/position will become stronger.
reading the one line; or subparagraph, ''deterring undemocratic government''
Sir; your thoughts; are as important or more-so than mine, The Constitution was written for you and me.
__________________
Craig
"We have never seen anything like this.? Mark 2:12
I would suggest you remove you "current day glasses" you are revising history from, In that period of time the citizens were our military to protect us not only from foreign governments (primary purpose) but there is evidence to argue we have guns to keep us balanced protection wise from our own government
Except that the constitution clearly states how grievances may be redressed, and it's not at the barrel of a gun.
Quote:
now if you had argued that times had changed and with the military needs of today there is no need for each individual to have a gun for the protection of the nation you would have a point.
But it DOES NOT change the fact that our constitution clearly says I have the right to bear arms to keep a militia of citizens, that IS WHAT IT SAYS. you cannot just pretend it says something else. yes, it needs updated and clarified to meet the needs of what we as a country need today and not over 200 years ago, that was my point in this thread.
"a militia of citizens". That is a redundant term. To quote something a wise man once told me, "I would suggest you remove you 'current day glasses' you are revising history from..."
The distinctions between "the people" and "the militia" are not left to individual choice. You can't choose to become a member of the militia, you can't choose to stop being a member of the militia.
Quote:
The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(I guess women's lib hasn't completely caught up with this section of law.)
Does everyone NEED a gun to ensure a free state? Of course not. Can we ensure a free state where only members of the militia are entitled to gun ownership? Probably. It would piss off every gun owner in the country to have to give up their guns or join the national guard at age 46, but we could ensure our security without women and 46+ year old male civilians.
Fortunately, the 2nd amendment doesn't limit arms to only members of the militia. It says "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed". It doesn't say "the right of the militia" or "the right of militia members"; it says "the right of the people". To quote that same wise man again: "that IS WHAT IT SAYS. you cannot just pretend it says something else. "
Does it need updated or clarified? I don't think so. The constitution is not intended to encompass all law - it created Congress to build and adjust our body of law. The constitution is intended to provide the fundamental philosophy behind all lower law, and the second amendment does that. Until congress creates a gun law that is inconsistent with the will of the people, and the supreme court upholds such a law, there is no need to amend the constitution on a gun issue.
__________________
We work together every damn day. --Jon Stewart
No. This is my biggest peeve about firearms. It's this kind of gun-nuttery that needs to stop. This is utter bull***** and it makes responsible gun owners look like paranoid lunatics.
Stop and think about what the founding fathers created. They did not create another repressive dictatorship, they created a government of the people, for the people, and by the people. Last time I checked, you had every right to participate in that government if you chose to do so. You can vote, you can lobby, you can petition your elected officials, you can run for office. So can everyone else.
WRONG.
The Second Amendment was created explicitly for that purpose.
Quote:
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.
Jefferson wrote extensively about the need to keep the government in check and absolution of government when they overstep their bounds. The second amendment was added because the first thing to go with an oppressive government is weapon ownership.
Quote:
"God forbid we should ever be twenty years without such a rebellion. The people cannot be all, and always, well informed. The part which is wrong will be discontented, in proportion to the importance of the facts they misconceive. If they remain quiet under such misconceptions, it is lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty. ... And what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not warned from time to time, that this people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as
to the facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure."
Linear Mode
