Thread Rating:

Dalex64
Dalex64
Joined: Feb 10, 2013
  • Threads: 1
  • Posts: 1065
Thanks for this post from:
Steverinos
May 19th, 2018 at 12:24:55 PM permalink
The purpose for mentioning a militia in the second amendment is because the founding fathers did not want to have a standing army, but wanted to be able to call up an effective militia for the defense of the country. To be able to have an effective, well armed (that's what well regulated refers to) militia made up of ordinary citizens (redundant, as that is what militia basically means), because there was to be no standing army, the rights of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Being able to defend yourself against the government was not the purpose. Not having a standing army, and instead having a militia, was supposed to take care of not having too much power in the government that could be used against the people.

We obviously have a large standing army now, both in terms of how much we spend on it as a percentage of our own budget, and when spending is compared against all other nations in the world.

Having a large standing army is in conflict with one of the ideas behind the second amendment.

The right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. Why? Because "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State..." Why? Because the intention was not to have a standing army.

Work backwards from there. We have a standing army. So a well regulated militia is not necessary for the security of our free state. So the right of the people to keep and bear arms can be infringed. Not without changing the constitution, though. The law is the law. I am just saying we are not living by the original intent of the amendment.
GlenG
GlenG
Joined: Feb 5, 2018
  • Threads: 11
  • Posts: 410
May 19th, 2018 at 4:36:43 PM permalink
Quote: Boz

And they would damn sure not allow Chinese cards to be used in American Casinos!



Have you worked with Gemaco cards before? Would rather have chinese cards
Steverinos
Steverinos
Joined: Jul 6, 2016
  • Threads: 5
  • Posts: 1420
May 19th, 2018 at 6:50:53 PM permalink
Quote: AZDuffman

No, we are saying that the right is not subject to being in a militia, is is absolute. That is what it means but the wording is bad.



The writing AND the context of the events of that time suggests it is not absolute. Think Shayís and Whiskey Rebellion. The 2A was used in the exact opposite way by our fathers in which gun rights advocates claimed it was designed for.
Steverinos
Steverinos
Joined: Jul 6, 2016
  • Threads: 5
  • Posts: 1420
May 19th, 2018 at 6:54:25 PM permalink
Quote: Dalex64

The purpose for mentioning a militia in the second amendment is because the founding fathers did not want to have a standing army, but wanted to be able to call up an effective militia for the defense of the country. To be able to have an effective, well armed (that's what well regulated refers to) militia made up of ordinary citizens (redundant, as that is what militia basically means), because there was to be no standing army, the rights of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Being able to defend yourself against the government was not the purpose. Not having a standing army, and instead having a militia, was supposed to take care of not having too much power in the government that could be used against the people.

We obviously have a large standing army now, both in terms of how much we spend on it as a percentage of our own budget, and when spending is compared against all other nations in the world.

Having a large standing army is in conflict with one of the ideas behind the second amendment.

The right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. Why? Because "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State..." Why? Because the intention was not to have a standing army.

Work backwards from there. We have a standing army. So a well regulated militia is not necessary for the security of our free state. So the right of the people to keep and bear arms can be infringed. Not without changing the constitution, though. The law is the law. I am just saying we are not living by the original intent of the amendment.



Bingo.
AZDuffman
AZDuffman
Joined: Nov 2, 2009
  • Threads: 221
  • Posts: 11904
May 20th, 2018 at 7:32:58 AM permalink
Obamaís education secretary: Letís boycott school until gun laws change.

I hope they do it. They will see how few people care that they do not show up.
All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others
Boz
Boz
Joined: Sep 22, 2011
  • Threads: 154
  • Posts: 5701
Thanks for this post from:
AZDuffman
May 20th, 2018 at 7:36:31 AM permalink
Quote: AZDuffman

Obamaís education secretary: Letís boycott school until gun laws change.

I hope they do it. They will see how few people care that they do not show up.



So is it safe to assume Shotguns and Pistols are now on the agenda to ban by the anti gun fanatics?

Oh wait, they already were, they just use the Assault Rifles as cover to get the ball rolling. They make it so easy to see right through their games.
terapined
terapined
Joined: Dec 1, 2012
  • Threads: 79
  • Posts: 5331
May 20th, 2018 at 8:25:38 AM permalink
Quote: Boz


So is it safe to assume Shotguns and Pistols are now on the agenda to ban by the anti gun fanatics?


Who cares about extremist fanatics?
There are extremists on both sides
Alex Jones on the right believes Sandy Hook was faked but that has nothing to do with how Boz views Sandy Hook
Just as
I believe in strong background checks but the views of anti gun nut extremists has nothing to do with my views
"Everybody's bragging and drinking that wine, I can tell the Queen of Diamonds by the way she shines, Come to Daddy on an inside straight, I got no chance of losing this time" -Grateful Dead- "Loser"
Boz
Boz
Joined: Sep 22, 2011
  • Threads: 154
  • Posts: 5701
May 20th, 2018 at 8:35:56 AM permalink
Quote: terapined

Who cares about extremist fanatics?
There are extremists on both sides
Alex Jones on the right believes Sandy Hook was faked but that has nothing to do with how Boz views Sandy Hook
Just as
I believe in strong background checks but the views of anti gun nut extremists has nothing to do with my views



My issue what could have been done legally to stop this shooting? Short of arresting the father, of which we need more details, or banning shotguns, why is this the breaking point.

The mob mentality says we need to stop school shootings and everyone agrees. But what will it actually take and who is actually willing to make those sacrifices. Much easier to go after ARís than pistols and shotguns.

And yes, Alex Jones is a nut with the Sandy Hook garbage.
AZDuffman
AZDuffman
Joined: Nov 2, 2009
  • Threads: 221
  • Posts: 11904
May 20th, 2018 at 8:50:55 AM permalink
Quote: Boz



The mob mentality says we need to stop school shootings and everyone agrees. But what will it actually take and who is actually willing to make those sacrifices. Much easier to go after ARís than pistols and shotguns.



We could do it, if we made every school somewhat like a maximum security prison. But there would still be violence and drugs in the schools. Just no shootings.

Does anyone really want our schools to be like this? Can we imagine what kind of adults would be turned out by this kind of system? Total security is an illusion.

#FREEEVENBOB
All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others
SOOPOO
SOOPOO
Joined: Aug 8, 2010
  • Threads: 108
  • Posts: 6944
May 20th, 2018 at 9:39:02 AM permalink
Quote: terapined


I believe in strong background checks



I love Ed, but I HATE anyone who keeps spouting the NONSENSE about "background checks" unless they tell me EXACTLY what in the check will disqualify someone from owning a firearm.

1. History of depression?
2. History of felony DWI conviction?
3. History of domestic assault without use of a weapon?
4. History of conviction for selling marijuana?
5. History (not present) of schizophrenia?
6. Recent travel to known terrorist training site?
7. Legally blind?
8. Parkinson's disease?

  • Jump to: