One Political Plaza - Home of politics
Home Active Topics Newest Pictures Search Login Register
Main
What do the words of the 2nd Amendment really say?
Page 1 of 10 next> last>>
Sep 24, 2016 16:30:19   #
oldroy Loc: Western Kansas (No longer in hiding)
 
Yep, those words of 1787 seem to say various things according to what leaners and conservatives see in them. I know it will be a real job for many here to sit through this short video trying to explain what those words really do say. Some people can read it and not see what I do. I was once a Democrat and argued the 2nd Amendment the opposite of the way I do today, but then I saw the word, militia, and got excited about it. As a member of that militia today I interpret it much different than I do today.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FOwy9OWfnAM

Reply
Sep 24, 2016 17:03:31   #
lpnmajor Loc: Arkansas
 
oldroy wrote:
Yep, those words of 1787 seem to say various things according to what leaners and conservatives see in them. I know it will be a real job for many here to sit through this short video trying to explain what those words really do say. Some people can read it and not see what I do. I was once a Democrat and argued the 2nd Amendment the opposite of the way I do today, but then I saw the word, militia, and got excited about it. As a member of that militia today I interpret it much different than I do today.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FOwy9OWfnAM
Yep, those words of 1787 seem to say various thing... (show quote)


It all comes down to what the States define as a "militia" AND what constitutes "well regulated". As far as I can determine, the Federal Government has no standing in interpreting this amendment, since it is specifically designed to affect the Federal Governments power, i.e., States Militias are an armed deterrent against Federal takeover. In any case, the NRA's interpretation is false, as the amendment did not start with "the rights of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed upon". This sentence is predicated on the adequate application of the FIRST part of the amendment, which specifies WHY the amendment was necessary and specifies to whom it applied.

Reply
Sep 24, 2016 18:25:58   #
BigMike Loc: yerington nv
 
lpnmajor wrote:
It all comes down to what the States define as a "militia" AND what constitutes "well regulated". As far as I can determine, the Federal Government has no standing in interpreting this amendment, since it is specifically designed to affect the Federal Governments power, i.e., States Militias are an armed deterrent against Federal takeover. In any case, the NRA's interpretation is false, as the amendment did not start with "the rights of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed upon". This sentence is predicated on the adequate application of the FIRST part of the amendment, which specifies WHY the amendment was necessary and specifies to whom it applied.
It all comes down to what the States define as a &... (show quote)


And from the signing of that amendment until this day, only "militiamen" have been allowed to have guns! How did we ever come to this????

Reply
 
 
Sep 24, 2016 18:56:58   #
Bad Bob Loc: Virginia
 
oldroy wrote:
Yep, those words of 1787 seem to say various things according to what leaners and conservatives see in them. I know it will be a real job for many here to sit through this short video trying to explain what those words really do say. Some people can read it and not see what I do. I was once a Democrat and argued the 2nd Amendment the opposite of the way I do today, but then I saw the word, militia, and got excited about it. As a member of that militia today I interpret it much different than I do today.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FOwy9OWfnAM
Yep, those words of 1787 seem to say various thing... (show quote)



Reply
Sep 24, 2016 19:01:09   #
Blade_Runner Loc: DARK SIDE OF THE MOON
 
lpnmajor wrote:
It all comes down to what the States define as a "militia" AND what constitutes "well regulated". As far as I can determine, the Federal Government has no standing in interpreting this amendment, since it is specifically designed to affect the Federal Governments power, i.e., States Militias are an armed deterrent against Federal takeover. In any case, the NRA's interpretation is false, as the amendment did not start with "the rights of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed upon". This sentence is predicated on the adequate application of the FIRST part of the amendment, which specifies WHY the amendment was necessary and specifies to whom it applied.
It all comes down to what the States define as a &... (show quote)
Just another erroneous opinion on what it means.

Federalist #46 explains the meaning quite clearly.

Reply
Sep 24, 2016 21:26:12   #
PaulPisces Loc: San Francisco
 
oldroy wrote:
Yep, those words of 1787 seem to say various things according to what leaners and conservatives see in them. I know it will be a real job for many here to sit through this short video trying to explain what those words really do say. Some people can read it and not see what I do. I was once a Democrat and argued the 2nd Amendment the opposite of the way I do today, but then I saw the word, militia, and got excited about it. As a member of that militia today I interpret it much different than I do today.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FOwy9OWfnAM
Yep, those words of 1787 seem to say various thing... (show quote)


Oldroy -

- This issue has already been decided by SCOTUS (per District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008)) that the 2nd Amendment protects the right of private citizens to own guns for lawful use. So I do not understand why this issue still gets waved around so hysterically. Although it is in fact done rarely, it seems unlikely that SCOTUS would reverse its position on this issue. SCOTUS generally finds extremely unusual conditions to depart from stare decisis (Latin pretty much meaning "precedent".)

- In any case, why are we supposed to accept the interpretation of a 20th century, Southern California language professor as to the lawful interpretation of a middle 18th century phrase? It is simply his opinion about what the original writers meant. While I myself think that parsing words can sometimes be critical, without supporting documentation in separate writings from the framers of this amendment, any interpretation any of us make is just that. An interpretation.

Reply
Sep 25, 2016 00:17:26   #
oldroy Loc: Western Kansas (No longer in hiding)
 
PaulPisces wrote:
Oldroy -

- This issue has already been decided by SCOTUS (per District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008)) that the 2nd Amendment protects the right of private citizens to own guns for lawful use. So I do not understand why this issue still gets waved around so hysterically. Although it is in fact done rarely, it seems unlikely that SCOTUS would reverse its position on this issue. SCOTUS generally finds extremely unusual conditions to depart from stare decisis (Latin pretty much meaning "precedent".)

- In any case, why are we supposed to accept the interpretation of a 20th century, Southern California language professor as to the lawful interpretation of a middle 18th century phrase? It is simply his opinion about what the original writers meant. While I myself think that parsing words can sometimes be critical, without supporting documentation in separate writings from the framers of this amendment, any interpretation any of us make is just that. An interpretation.
Oldroy - br br - This issue has already been de... (show quote)


How do we hear from left leaners that the magic word in that amendment is militia? The National Guard is supposed to be a State's militia but we found out that the Guard belonged to the national government during the Middle East wars. My foster daughter served three hitches, two in Kuwait and one in Afghanistan, and was a part of the national Army. She made a pile of money as the highest ranking non-com but was paid by Washington. I am not sure what arms she had in Kuwait since she was in charge of a monster mess hall but in Afghanistan she was issued an M-4 and a 9 mm Glock. Of course, there was never a front line in Afghanistan.

I love to hear arguments about what the Second Amendment says and why. I used to argue the same way that lefties of today do but then I was forced out of the Democrat party in 1972 when the Dems nominated an admitted socialist. The worst part of that is that they haven't nominated anything since then.

Reply
 
 
Sep 25, 2016 00:20:18   #
oldroy Loc: Western Kansas (No longer in hiding)
 
BigMike wrote:
And from the signing of that amendment until this day, only "militiamen" have been allowed to have guns! How did we ever come to this????


I wonder how many people understand that all soldiers brought their own weapons till the Civil War. In that war they cast their own ammunition, also. It worked a lot better to have everybody using the same ammo and that was a heavy part of issuing weapons.

Reply
Sep 25, 2016 01:31:58   #
Blade_Runner Loc: DARK SIDE OF THE MOON
 
oldroy wrote:
How do we hear from left leaners that the magic word in that amendment is militia? The National Guard is supposed to be a State's militia but we found out that the Guard belonged to the national government during the Middle East wars. My foster daughter served three hitches, two in Kuwait and one in Afghanistan, and was a part of the national Army. She made a pile of money as the highest ranking non-com but was paid by Washington. I am not sure what arms she had in Kuwait since she was in charge of a monster mess hall but in Afghanistan she was issued an M-4 and a 9 mm Glock. Of course, there was never a front line in Afghanistan.

I love to hear arguments about what the Second Amendment says and why. I used to argue the same way that lefties of today do but then I was forced out of the Democrat party in 1972 when the Dems nominated an admitted socialist. The worst part of that is that they haven't nominated anything since then.
How do we hear from left leaners that the magic wo... (show quote)
Read Federalist #46, James Madison author.

Federalist No. 46: Madison's brilliance
Posted by David Hardy · 3 April 2005 09:24 AM

In Federalist No. 46, Madison calculates (quite accurately, BTW) that the new government could support a standing army of no more than 25,000 men, and

To these would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands, officered by men chosen from among themselves, fighting for their common liberties, and united and conducted by governments possessing their affections and confidence. It may well be doubted, whether a militia thus circumstanced could ever be conquered by such a proportion of regular troops. . . . Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of. Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms.

Reply
Sep 25, 2016 03:56:03   #
PeterS
 
Blade_Runner wrote:
Just another erroneous opinion on what it means.

Federalist #46 explains the meaning quite clearly.


In the 46th Madison assumed the federal government wouldn't have a military capable of over powering the states militias. This is because there wasn't supposed to be a permanent free standing army but instead the states were to provide a well regulated militia ready and able to be assembled in its place. However, not only do we have a freestanding army, there are those in this country who think it should be even larger and more imposing than what we have now.

"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."

From the Virginia declaration of rights which describes the meaning of the second amendment much clearer than the 46th Federalist:

Section 13. That a well-regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defense of a free state; that standing armies, in time of peace, should be avoided as dangerous to liberty; and that in all cases the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.

Conservatives have always treated the second amendment as if only the second clause in the amendment mattered. In doing so they have destroyed the meaning of the amendment all together.

Reply
Sep 25, 2016 05:21:50   #
tri-states
 
Lock and load with hog fat lubed ammo, before it's too late!!!

Reply
 
 
Sep 25, 2016 08:39:26   #
ssgtgood
 
You're absolutely wrong. It was the RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE to bear arms. Why? Because without the PEOPLE there could be no militia. What you say does away with FREEDOM, remember that word? You should. I actually like the word LIBERTY more. The government has gone where they should never have gone and that's exactly what the 2nd Amendment was about, the 2nd Amendment was all about the people having the means to defend their rights (all of them) from a tyrannical government. You ever read what the forefathers said about the "Tree of Liberty being watered with the blood of tyrants"? People have no knowledge of the history of the founding of this country. The government of the United States today looks a lot like the way the British treated the colonies back in the 1700's. Its the people's right to protect their freedoms, granted by God, and not the government, from a tyrannical federal or state or local government that has become overbearing. The definition of the militia IS THE PEOPLE and not a government force.
Semper Fi

Reply
Sep 25, 2016 09:05:37   #
Sons of Liberty Loc: look behind you!
 
ssgtgood wrote:
You're absolutely wrong. It was the RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE to bear arms. Why? Because without the PEOPLE there could be no militia. What you say does away with FREEDOM, remember that word? You should. I actually like the word LIBERTY more. The government has gone where they should never have gone and that's exactly what the 2nd Amendment was about, the 2nd Amendment was all about the people having the means to defend their rights (all of them) from a tyrannical government. You ever read what the forefathers said about the "Tree of Liberty being watered with the blood of tyrants"? People have no knowledge of the history of the founding of this country. The government of the United States today looks a lot like the way the British treated the colonies back in the 1700's. Its the people's right to protect their freedoms, granted by God, and not the government, from a tyrannical federal or state or local government that has become overbearing. The definition of the militia IS THE PEOPLE and not a government force.
Semper Fi
You're absolutely wrong. It was the RIGHT OF THE P... (show quote)



Reply
Sep 25, 2016 09:11:34   #
ssgtgood
 
Sons of Liberty wrote:


Many thanks my patriotic brother!
Semper Fi

Reply
Sep 25, 2016 12:13:21   #
moldyoldy
 
Blade_Runner wrote:
Read Federalist #46, James Madison author.

Federalist No. 46: Madison's brilliance
Posted by David Hardy · 3 April 2005 09:24 AM

In Federalist No. 46, Madison calculates (quite accurately, BTW) that the new government could support a standing army of no more than 25,000 men, and

To these would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands, officered by men chosen from among themselves, fighting for their common liberties, and united and conducted by governments possessing their affections and confidence. It may well be doubted, whether a militia thus circumstanced could ever be conquered by such a proportion of regular troops. . . . Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of. Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms.
Read url=http://www.foundingfathers.info/federali... (show quote)


Can you imagine those state militias with every block captain thinking he should lead the fight? The fight would never move from the armory.

Reply
Page 1 of 10 next> last>>
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.
Main
OnePoliticalPlaza.com - Forum
Copyright 2012-2024 IDF International Technologies, Inc.