Home Politics

trying to redefine the second amendment

SpineymanSpineyman Destin, FlPosts: 8,351 Admiral
Kayak Rookie...and loving it.
Fishing beautiful Destin / Ft Walton Beach area!

II Chronicles 7:14
if My people who are called by My name will humble themselves, and pray and seek My face, and turn from their wicked ways, then I will hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin and heal their land.



Replies

  • phlatsphilphlatsphil Posts: 14,632 AG
    Don't lose sleep over it, it'll never pass, probably never get out of committee.

    Anyway, explain to me how private citizens owning these so called assault rifles "guarantee and insure America’s true freedom: as a country, and the individual’s right to protect himself and his country from government tyranny".

    When the 2nd Amendment was written, there was parity with the weapons owned by the military and private citizens.... i.e. they all basically had the same weaponry.

    So, explain to me again how private citizens owning AR-15s insures their freedom from tyranny.... "owning" being the only operative word in the absence of intense tactical training and a hundred tactically trained comrades backing them up, plus sophisticated communications, advanced long range artillery that can put 105mm rounds up your burro from 7 miles away, M1/A2 tanks, and precision laser guided bunker busting bombs fired from drones that can hover over your house for days without you knowing it.

    Sure, sure, who doesn't like to shoot holes in paper with an AR-15? Or, as my son did last year, shoot a wild hog in Texas with his? But please don't think that by owning that pea-shooter you're "insuring" your freedom from tyranny.

    Times are different now. We are at the mercy and whim of our government. And there's no going back.
  • dave44dave44 Posts: 11,755 AG
    Nothing left but submission, like any good slave naturally does. Good speech phlat.
  • CyclistCyclist Posts: 23,346 AG
    http://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/amendment-don-article-1.1223900

    In the coming months, as the nation begins a serious discussion about gun regulation, the meaning of the Second Amendment — the statement that “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” — will be much discussed.

    It is vital that Americans separate myths from realities, because what many of us seem to have forgotten is that, in the vision of the founders of the United States of America, the right to bear arms carries with it enormous burdens and responsibilities.

    In fact, if we restored the Second Amendment to its original meaning, it would be the NRA’s worst nightmare. Invoking the Second Amendment ought to be a more effective argument for increased regulation than it is against it.

    In 2008, a closely divided Supreme Court abandoned more than 70 years of precedent and for the first time in American history affirmed that the Second Amendment is about a right to have a handgun in the home for self-defense. Lost in most of the commentary then and now is that this is almost the exactly opposite of what James Madison, the primary architect of the amendment, intended, and is hard to reconcile with the way most ordinary Americans would have read it in 1791.

    In 1776, most of the original state constitutions did not even include an arms-bearing provision. The few states that did usually also included a clause protecting the right not to bear arms. Why? Because, in contrast to other cherished rights such as freedom of speech or religion, the state could not compel you to speak or pray. It could force you to bear arms.

    The founders had a simple reason for curbing this right: Quakers and other religious pacifists were opposed to bearing arms, and wished to be exempt from an obligation that could be made incumbent on all male citizens at the time.


    When the Second Amendment is discussed today, we tend to think of those “militias” as just a bunch of ordinary guys with guns, empowering themselves to resist authority when and if necessary. Nothing could be further from the founders’ vision.

    Militias were tightly controlled organizations legally defined and regulated by the individual colonies before the Revolution and, after independence, by the individual states. Militia laws ran on for pages and were some of the lengthiest pieces of legislation in the statute books. States kept track of who had guns, had the right to inspect them in private homes and could fine citizens for failing to report to a muster.

    These laws also defined what type of guns you had to buy — a form of taxation levied on individual households. Yes, long before Obamacare, the state made you buy something, even if you did not want to purchase it. (The guns required by law were muskets, not pistols. The only exceptions to this general rule were the horsemen’s pistols that dragoons and other mounted units needed.)

    The founders had a word for a bunch of farmers marching with guns without government sanction: a mob.
    One of the reasons we have a Constitution is the founders were worried about the danger posed by individuals acting like a militia without legal authority. This was precisely what happened during Shays’ Rebellion, an insurrection in western Massachusetts that persuaded many Americans that we needed a stronger central government to avert anarchy.

    Many people think that we have the Second Amendment so that we can take up arms against the government if it overreaches its authority. If that interpretation were correct, it would mean that the Second Amendment had repealed the Constitution’s treason clause, which defines this crime as taking up arms against the government. In reality, in the first decade after the Constitution, the government put down several rebellions similar to Shays - and nobody claimed that they were merely asserting their Second Amendment rights.

    So if the Second Amendment does not have much to do about owning a pistol for self-defense, does that mean the founders did not esteem this right? Obviously the answer to that question is no. Not every right valued by Americans was expressly protected by a constitutional provision. The right of self-defense was part of the common law, a long tradition of rights defined by the English courts over a period of centuries.

    But rather than invoke the Second Amendment in the coming months, Americans need to learn something about the historical origins of this part of our constitutional tradition. The bottom line is simple: the Second Amendment requires more gun regulation, not less.
  • dave44dave44 Posts: 11,755 AG
    I wanted to laugh cycle, I really did. But the article is too stupid to muster more than a chuckle.
  • phlatsphilphlatsphil Posts: 14,632 AG
    dave44 wrote: »
    I wanted to laugh cycle, I really did. But the article is too stupid to muster more than a chuckle.

    Then you didn't understand it, or you don't believe it. Either way, don't worry about it. You're irrelevant in the grand scheme.
  • SpineymanSpineyman Destin, FlPosts: 8,351 Admiral
    phlatsphil wrote: »
    Don't lose sleep over it, it'll never pass, probably never get out of committee.

    Anyway, explain to me how private citizens owning these so called assault rifles "guarantee and insure America’s true freedom: as a country, and the individual’s right to protect himself and his country from government tyranny".

    When the 2nd Amendment was written, there was parity with the weapons owned by the military and private citizens.... i.e. they all basically had the same weaponry.

    So, explain to me again how private citizens owning AR-15s insures their freedom from tyranny.... "owning" being the only operative word in the absence of intense tactical training and a hundred tactically trained comrades backing them up, plus sophisticated communications, advanced long range artillery that can put 105mm rounds up your burro from 7 miles away, M1/A2 tanks, and precision laser guided bunker busting bombs fired from drones that can hover over your house for days without you knowing it.

    Sure, sure, who doesn't like to shoot holes in paper with an AR-15? Or, as my son did last year, shoot a wild hog in Texas with his? But please don't think that by owning that pea-shooter you're "insuring" your freedom from tyranny.

    Times are different now. We are at the mercy and whim of our government. And there's no going back.
    In the first place you are assuming that all the military will side with the sitting President, but most Vets have sworn allegiance to uphold the Constitution from foreign and domestic assaults not sitting Presidents. Never underestimate the power of actual law abiding Vets who have known the difference between what is going on now and actual freedom.
    Kayak Rookie...and loving it.
    Fishing beautiful Destin / Ft Walton Beach area!

    II Chronicles 7:14
    if My people who are called by My name will humble themselves, and pray and seek My face, and turn from their wicked ways, then I will hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin and heal their land.



  • SpineymanSpineyman Destin, FlPosts: 8,351 Admiral
    phlatsphil wrote: »
    Don't lose sleep over it, it'll never pass, probably never get out of committee.

    Anyway, explain to me how private citizens owning these so called assault rifles "guarantee and insure America’s true freedom: as a country, and the individual’s right to protect himself and his country from government tyranny".

    When the 2nd Amendment was written, there was parity with the weapons owned by the military and private citizens.... i.e. they all basically had the same weaponry.

    So, explain to me again how private citizens owning AR-15s insures their freedom from tyranny.... "owning" being the only operative word in the absence of intense tactical training and a hundred tactically trained comrades backing them up, plus sophisticated communications, advanced long range artillery that can put 105mm rounds up your burro from 7 miles away, M1/A2 tanks, and precision laser guided bunker busting bombs fired from drones that can hover over your house for days without you knowing it.

    Sure, sure, who doesn't like to shoot holes in paper with an AR-15? Or, as my son did last year, shoot a wild hog in Texas with his? But please don't think that by owning that pea-shooter you're "insuring" your freedom from tyranny.

    Times are different now. We are at the mercy and whim of our government. And there's no going back.
    In the first place you are assuming that all the military will side with the sitting President, but most Vets have sworn allegiance to uphold the Constitution from foreign and domestic assaults not sitting Presidents. Never underestimate the power of actual law abiding Vets who have known the difference between what is going on now and actual freedom.
    Kayak Rookie...and loving it.
    Fishing beautiful Destin / Ft Walton Beach area!

    II Chronicles 7:14
    if My people who are called by My name will humble themselves, and pray and seek My face, and turn from their wicked ways, then I will hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin and heal their land.



  • phlatsphilphlatsphil Posts: 14,632 AG
    Spineyman wrote: »
    In the first place you are assuming that all the military will side with the sitting President, but most Vets have sworn allegiance to uphold the Constitution from foreign and domestic assaults not sitting Presidents. Never underestimate the power of actual law abiding Vets who have known the difference between what is going on now and actual freedom.

    Perhaps YOU and I may "side" with the sitting president and in the form of a coup d'état it's the military NOT SIDING with the people and the president we should worry about.

    Then what?
  • phlatsphilphlatsphil Posts: 14,632 AG
    By the way, rewriting or redefining the 2nd amendment has a snowball's chance in hell of being accomplished in our lifetime.

    What chaps my burro is state's rights and all these states not honoring other state's concealed weapons permits. And every time I bring it up someone says I'm trying to grab their guns..... leaving me to believe they can't actually read and comprehend English. It's exhausting.

    I want to be able to travel around the UNITED States of America without "papers", if you know what I mean. My driver's license is honored in all states, and my FL CWP should be honored in all states as well.

    Other states NOT honoring my FL CWP is the single biggest infringement on my 2A right as there ever was.
  • dave44dave44 Posts: 11,755 AG
    It's been redefined dozens of time in our past, to restrict any group the government felt was a problem at the time.
  • ParkerboyParkerboy Posts: 7,048 Admiral
    You must really be angry with Terry McAuliff, gov of VA and his attorney general then. Both democrats by the way although I know you are not as hard core dem as some others here.
    Deo Vindice
  • dave44dave44 Posts: 11,755 AG
    Parkerboy wrote: »
    You must really be angry with Terry McAuliff, gov of VA and his attorney general then. Both democrats by the way although I know you are not as hard core dem as some others here.

    I am quite a ways from lib. I know the last post didn't post this, I was referring to it though. When our government tries to restrict my rights I get ornery. I was merely showing the libs here have a real problem if they think we can be made to believe it can't happen here.

    http://www.old-yankee.com/rkba/racial_laws.html

    Our totalitarian wanna be gov was ushered in by a third party" libertarian " candidate that was paid for by Dems to split republicans and conservatives up. That same candidate got a psycho ex governor into the US senate as well, in an earlier election.

    Beware the third party candidates.
  • Plan SeaPlan Sea Posts: 5,453 Officer
    .
    .
    .
    .
    <
    OMG please tell me you hypocrites didn't vote for the guy that actually redefined the 2nd by signing and actual AW ban into law?

    "I don’t believe that we have to have assault weapons as part of our personal arsenal." Mitt
  • dave44dave44 Posts: 11,755 AG
    Parkerboy wrote: »
    You must really be angry with Terry McAuliff, gov of VA and his attorney general then. Both democrats by the way although I know you are not as hard core dem as some others here.

    I wasn't around when this first came up, but you should look at this thread.
    http://forums.floridasportsman.com/showthread.php?210724-Virginia-halts-concealed-carry-reciprocity-with-25-States
Sign In or Register to comment.