No such thing. It is impossible. You may allow someone to do it on you behalf. But it is still yours.
Is the 2nd Amendment just for muskets?
- Thread starter MegaPoke
- Start date
No such thing. It is impossible. You may allow someone to do it on you behalf. But it is still yours.
Who says its impossible? Lots of countries have strict gun control and active, potent militaries. Great Britain for one.
You are winning me over with this argument though I need to do more homework...
You just created an individual right because you want one. You can say it's your individual right of self defense like a parrot for 30 years, but the SA very specifically explains the objective: "being necessary to the security of a free state." That is totally different than your individual self defense theory that isn't mentioned in the SA. It would be very easy to articulate what you're saying in the SA, but the drafters specifically specified state security and didn't mention any other objective. You just stick it in there because you're an activist and you want it. That's cool -- lots of people do the same thing in the bill of rights with abortion. I do it, too. Conservatives do it like mad men when they want something. I just detest the hypocrisy from conservatives - they spaz over creating reproductive rights as its activism, but blow up the second amendment like a Macy's float with philosophy and inalienable individial self defense rights, and delegating them, rights to have equal arms to the government, etc.
It's too bad that pesky history thing keeps making you look dumb.
I suppose George Mason had no clue what he was talking about when he said "I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
Maybe Tench Coxe was just having a seizure at the moment in time when he wrote... "The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments but where, I trust in God, it will always remain, in the hands of the people."
Maybe Noah Webster just had a brain fart... "Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword, because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States."
That idiot James Madison... "Americans [have] the right and advantage of being armed – unlike citizens of other countries whose governments are afraid to trust the people with arms."
And Samuel Adams must have been thoroughly drunk on his namesake beers... "It is always dangerous to the liberties of the people to have an army stationed among them, over which they have no control ... The Militia is composed of free Citizens. There is therefore no Danger of their making use of their power to the destruction of their own Rights, or suffering others to invade them."
There are plenty more where those came from. Too easy.
Once again, history says differently...
The dumbassery of Thomas Jefferson...
"The constitutions of most of our States assert, that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves, in all cases to which they think themselves competent, (as in electing their functionaries executive and legislative, and deciding by a jury of themselves, in all judiciary cases in which any fact is involved,) or they may act by representatives, freely and equally chosen; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed; that they are entitled to freedom of person, freedom of religion, freedom of property, and freedom of the press.
"They" isn't referring to militias, or states, or ice cream cones...
Those founding fathers you quoted must have been apoplectic when they ratified the SA with its "state security" objective printed right there in black and white!
I appreciate that narrative, but it didn't make it into the SA. The objective was plainly recited - state security. They didn't attach those quotes or append Mr. Mason's musings. You don't resort to extraneous evidence to establish the meaning of a provision unless there's an ambiguity, otherwise you run the risk (like you're probably doing) of spinning writings and statements from a historical record that may or may not be accurate, relevant, in context, reflect the majority, reflects private views, etc. If the provision is really intended to protect the individual instead of the state, why didn't the provision say that? Other provisions don't specify the intent to protect the government. Only the SA.
If you want the militia to include infants and children, okay. I can't figure out what your point is. I asked several posts again what the purpose was. Everyone has an answer that wires around the plain language of the SA. Not one of you has mentioned or addressed the interest of "state security."
We haven't even gotten started on "well regulated."
Can't speak for anyone else but having been in that situation the event moves very slowly before your eyes and thought process. You are aware of everything around you. The SOB was lucky I couldn't get to my gun and the police were arriving. The decision to defend myself had already been processed to the point of "blow the MFer away". I'm reassured knowing it's within me that I will not hesitate if I'm in a similar situation.
Wow. So something protecting states rights was inserted into amendments that specified individual rights? Are you really that dumb? The first clause doesn't refer to the security of THE state. It refers to a FREE STATE, as in the state of being free, as in free from oppression, tyranny, etc. The fact that you so willingly toss out historical records to spin your bullshit is the definition of intellectual dishonesty.
Absolutely nothing in the historical record supports any of your bullshit. That's the big problem with your arguments.
Very simple as I've pointed out numerous times. Well regulated simply means well trained. The concept of a shit ton of regulation as is known today was foreign to that time. Google it.
Absolutely nothing in the historical record supports any of your bullshit. That's the big problem with your arguments.
If that is the case, maybe power needs to be pulled from the federal gov't and returned to the states.
Wouldn't you agree?
If Hildebitch gets elected many will be surprised at how easily her SCOTUS appointments will infringe on several amendments. That's why this election is important.
With all due respect to those supporting 3rd party candidates, I understand your feelings, however, after 8 years of Obama our country can't afford 4-8 more years of their agendas. That's bad enough but Hildebitch placing as many as 4 new justices on the SCOTUS will cement their nitwittery for 30+ years regardless of who gets elected in the future.
Some say the liberals won't turn their red states blue. In Texas, there is a reason they are devoting much time here. They believe they can come close to turning us, if not this year, very soon. Get a SCOTUS which says anyone inside the US, legal or not, has a right to vote and the hordes who have arrived during Obama's reign and who will arrive under Hildebitch will flip us and Oklahoma quickly.
With all due respect to those supporting 3rd party candidates, I understand your feelings, however, after 8 years of Obama our country can't afford 4-8 more years of their agendas. That's bad enough but Hildebitch placing as many as 4 new justices on the SCOTUS will cement their nitwittery for 30+ years regardless of who gets elected in the future.
Some say the liberals won't turn their red states blue. In Texas, there is a reason they are devoting much time here. They believe they can come close to turning us, if not this year, very soon. Get a SCOTUS which says anyone inside the US, legal or not, has a right to vote and the hordes who have arrived during Obama's reign and who will arrive under Hildebitch will flip us and Oklahoma quickly.
I don't know. What is so hard about it? Thor has patiently explained it to you about a dozen times now and you still don't understand.
I can't help but notice, you always leave off the "shall not be infringed" bit, Mr Intellectual Honesty.
But I digress...
Here you go - in the "security of a FREE state" the articulated function is to protect the freedom of that state - as in, potentially FROM federal militaries.
It is no more an anachronism than is free speech on the Internet - a paradox you always fail to address.
It's in the "Bill of Rights." Google it. You honestly don't seem to understand how the BOR came about or what it is. What it is not, is a discussion over national defense policy.
Again, the context and stated points of view of the founders means nothing since the word "state" exists in the 2A. That is some impressive purposeful obtusity if nothing else.
@Medic007 be careful. You have so thoroughly owned @syskatine in this thread that he may need to start quoting the 13th Amendment.
Presented without comment, the first drafts of the 2nd amendment:
The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person.
A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, being the best security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; but no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms.
A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, being the best security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; but no one religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person.
A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, being the best security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed, but no one religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person.
A well regulated militia, being the best security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
A well regulated militia being 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.
The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person.
A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, being the best security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; but no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms.
A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, being the best security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; but no one religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person.
A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, being the best security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed, but no one religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person.
A well regulated militia, being the best security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
A well regulated militia being 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.
In my opinion the 2nd amendment pretty clearly establishes a limited individual right (limited in the sense that the armed individual would need to contribute to the security of the state, thus excluding criminals and the insane or disturbed), but the "well regulated militia" clause opens the door to onerous regulations at the state level per Thor. A requirement for gun registration and extensive training would not be out of the question.
This is intellectual honesty. Thank you.
I agree with Thor that "regulated" has a different meaning today and original intent implied trained use of rather than federal limitations on.
My biggest issue is the constant assault on the integrity of the document. If it ended at required training and registration I would be 100% fine with it, but every evil or irresponsible act of gun violence being used as leverage to call a Bill of Rights level Amendment an anachronism should be stomped into the mud. There will be no end to it evidently, so this is where I draw the line.
You would be okay with those regulations imposed by the individual states as long as it isn't federal?
The gun control thing is the clearest example of liberal virtue signaling and snobbiness I can think of. They could make an actual impact if they didn't keep trying to do stupid shit like ban assault rifles that would have an insignificant impact on guns deaths.
I would. I would never want to live in a state with heavy gun regulations but that's where things like gun control, marriage rights and abortion laws should exist - not at the federal level.
You have a big ol' bunghole to pull that one out of. Let me guess -- you found a postcard where someone in a wig and knee britches wrote that in 1794? Now we have to re-define "regulate" as well as "State." And I'm the activist...
I think that's a good analogy. Wrong, but I like the argument. First, overlaying gun ownership over another right and applying it the same way is iffy. You're for gun licensure of some type -- background checks, if I'm not mistaken? You endorsed that, right? So does that mean you're also for background checks for speech? Or voting? Or exercising religion? Of course not. Not all rights are the same and regulated the same -- and regulation is plainly contemplated in the text of the SA. Perfect symmetry across all rights isn't necessary, and consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds.
Amen --- hasten the apocalypse.... BRING BACK WAR AND RECESSION!!!
Bob and weave, baby.... don't like plain language? Just change it to suit your purpose and accuse the other side of spin.
Oh - I almost forget the ad hominem attack: You're a dick. I would put more in to maintain the intensity but I have to work.
Goodness, you have dumbass to spare. I'm really started to feel bad for you.
The following are taken from the Oxford English Dictionary, and bracket in time the writing of the 2nd amendment:
1709: “If a liberal Education has formed in us well-regulated Appetites and worthy Inclinations.”
1714: “The practice of all well-regulated courts of justice in the world.”
1812: “The equation of time … is the adjustment of the difference of time as shown by a well-regulated clock and a true sun dial.”
1848: “A remissness for which I am sure every well-regulated person will blame the Mayor.”
1862: “It appeared to her well-regulated mind, like a clandestine proceeding.”
1894: “The newspaper, a never wanting adjunct to every well-regulated American embryo city.”
The phrase “well-regulated” was in common use long before 1789, and remained so for a century thereafter. It referred to the property of something being in proper working order. Something that was well-regulated was calibrated correctly, functioning as expected. Establishing government oversight of the people’s arms was not only not the intent in using the phrase in the 2nd amendment, it was precisely to render the government powerless to do so that the founders wrote it.
SOOOOO, in proper context, do you think the U.S. government was concerned because the Creek Indians' tribal regulations were superior to those of the Wabash or was it because they represented a better trained and disciplined fighting force?
That the strength of the Wabash Indians who were principally the object of the resolve of the 21st of July 1787, and the strength of the Creek Indians is very different. That the said Creeks are not only greatly superior in numbers but are more united, better regulated, and headed by a man whose talents appear to have fixed him in their confidence. That from the view of the object your Secretary has been able to take he conceives that the only effectual mode of acting against the said Creeks in case they should persist in their hostilities would be by making an invasion of their country with a powerful body ofwell regulated troops always ready to combat and able to defeat any combination of force the said Creeks could oppose and to destroy their towns and provisions.
It's too bad that there isn't a single historical record that supports your arguments. It seems that Thomas Jefferson even spoke of folks like you...
"On every question of construction let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning can be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one which was passed."
That's hilarious. Can you present anything in the historical record (yes that pesky history thing) that supports your view of the Second Amendment, you know, something factual and not just shit you made up?
You'll likely abandon your losses on this thread just as you have all the others. Don't be a chickenshit. Give us something factual that supports your views.
Medic, if this were a boxing match the ref would stop it. Sys can no longer intellegently defend himself.
What if technology did outpace their view?
It is likely that things will outpace our view and yet we have court decisions today which will set a precedent for future judgments.
Also, even if the technology outpaced their imagination, it is also quite possible that today’s government, today’s society, today’s threats also outpaced their thinking. Had they known everything that would come into being, they might have set aside funding for everyone to receive the latest and greatest firearm of the day and mandated schools teach it as a requirement for a free state.
^^^^^Spot on^^^^^
It doesn't take much reading to gather that the founders believed in a very limited federal government with specific authority. If they were alive today they would be leading another revolution.
It doesn't take much reading to gather that the founders believed in a very limited federal government with specific authority. If they were alive today they would be leading another revolution.
Good example of the context you habitually ignore @syskatine, in your never ending quest to make this tail wag the dog.
Exactly. It's the highly of arrogance to assume we are at the pinnacle of technology or that the framers were too dim to anticipate future adaptations.
That is the way this actually is a living document - it's adaptability, not our inclinations to change it based on trendy pearl clutching topics of the day.
Yes, if I was: 1. Unemployed, or had the time that you do to look up irrelevant historical musings, and 2. If I thought it was relevant. The amendment says what it says. You don't have to lay a dump truck of historical quotes on the table to figure out what it means. The reason you do that is to get the answer you want - not to follow the simple language that was used.
"Irrelevant historical musings" = the funniest goddam thing I'll read this week.
Buddy, if having the time you do to recreationally dig up 250 year-old whigs n' britches is the currency of winning, you are the grand heavyweight champion. I could care less. I'll give you something factual that supports my views:
"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."
It takes very simple grammatical construction to see that the security of a free state was the objective behind the second amendment. The historical context was they did not have or really want standing armies, so private guns were important to defend the government. Now we have standing armies. Everything has changed.
Jesus what a fail.
I'm actually disappointed you never offered something stronger than this. I feel like I just called a drone strike on a Creek County meth lab.
I'm sorry sys.
Bravo! It would have been much easier for you to acknowledge that you CAN'T find anything to support your ramblings. It takes zero time to find information with this new Al Gore invention called the internet.
You've still yet to answer why something that you believes gives the federal government any power was put into a document that has the sole purpose of strictly limiting federal government powers. I really would enjoy your entertaining but likely factless reasoning for that. What will that rusty shit caked hamster wheel you use to think come up with?
And nice ad hominem there syssy. I'm very employed, thanks. But strangely enough, I don't expect much from an intellectually dishonest liar like you. You lost, AGAIN.
Thanks, Mega. If it's any consolation, your stream of consciousness political ideology and emotional tantrums through the years have been an excellent preparation for this beat down. I'll find the courage to rise and fight again, but it will obviously take some time.
Similar threads
