"Well regulated" does not mean what you imply. The correct usage in the time it was written is "properly disciplined" or "prepared". It has jack squat to do with govt oversight.
EDIT: Otis beat me to it by 3 min.
US Senator Coburn (R-OK) Introduces Gun Control of His Own (not kidding!!!)
- Thread starter Cougar
- Start Date
"Well regulated" does not mean what you imply. The correct usage in the time it was written is "properly disciplined" or "prepared". It has jack squat to do with govt oversight.
EDIT: Otis beat me to it by 3 min.
I understand. I just don't know why some insist on the rigid interpetation. All great documents that stand the test of time are "living documents" if you will. I believe that when the day comes that the government actually attempts to take a legally aquired firearms from law abiding citizens the end of our country as we know it is here, it will be time to start from scratch. I believe I have to right to own and carry firearms which I do. I will not NEVER give them up. But whats clear to me if you study the intent of those who wrote the document we are talking about and all of the case law since it was written is that this right is not absolute. If it were an abosolute right we would not have the right as a society to keep handguns from bank robbers or exposives from bombers or even a atomic bomb from some one who happen to have enough money to buy or build one. Is this how any of you actually feel? Firearm ownership is a right, also a resposibility. Why is it to much to ask that we take part in trying to keep firearms away from those who should not have them.
what? you do understand that the revolution was foughtusing privately owned weapons, many pf which were superior to those of the occupying british... cannons, warships, rifles...
bombers, by definition, use bombs, which tend to be made up of explosives.
bombers, by definition, use bombs, which tend to be made up of explosives.
Well ... who do you think is the "militia"? Hint: Check U.S. Code at 10USC 311 ... oh heck, here:
---
Militia: composition and classes
(a) 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.
(b) The classes of the militia are -
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.
---
So, back to answering your question from the previous post ... yeah, I'm part of the militia. You probably are too, as are most of those on this forum and elsewhere posting on and debating this topic, pro or con.
As for "all of the case law since it was written" ... you mean like these?
In United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1875), the Supreme Court ruled that "[t]he right to bear arms is not granted by the Constitution; neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The Second Amendments means no more than that it shall not be infringed by Congress, and has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the National Government."
In United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939), the Supreme Court ruled that the amendment "[protects arms that had a] reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia". This ruling has been widely described as ambiguous, and ignited a debate on whether the amendment protected an individual right, or a collective militia right.
In District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), the Supreme Court ruled that the Second Amendment "codified a pre-existing right" and that it "protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home" but also stated that "the right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose". They also clarified that many longstanding prohibitions and restrictions on firearms possession listed by the Court are consistent with the Second Amendment.
In McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U.S. 3025 (2010), the Supreme Court ruled that the Second Amendment limits state and local governments to the same extent that it limits the federal government.
because we know what happens when we give an inch.
That is a crap argument used by situational moralists to dilute the Constitution.
It is happening right before your eyes. The people who want it to happen are smart enough to know they cant come right out and do it and must proceed piecemeal.
It isnt too much to ask, just as insisting the laws be enforced instead of our own government working against us.
Dang....those colors are crap to try to read, although your answers are spot on.
Especially that part about claiming that the Constitution is a "living" document. The liberals have been trying to make the argument of the living document aspect for years. With their "interpretations," free peoples would no longer be that.
Instead, we need to be looking at the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence from the standpoint of being "originalists" in the interpretation of them. As a wise man said one time, "Words mean things." To stand beside that comment, I have possession of a Dictionary with a copyright of 1957. It does not have what I would call "politically correct" definitions, nor does it have all the vulgar words that society says we need to include in the dictionary, even though those words are unacceptable in most cases of correspondence.
Especially that part about claiming that the Constitution is a "living" document. The liberals have been trying to make the argument of the living document aspect for years. With their "interpretations," free peoples would no longer be that.
Instead, we need to be looking at the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence from the standpoint of being "originalists" in the interpretation of them. As a wise man said one time, "Words mean things." To stand beside that comment, I have possession of a Dictionary with a copyright of 1957. It does not have what I would call "politically correct" definitions, nor does it have all the vulgar words that society says we need to include in the dictionary, even though those words are unacceptable in most cases of correspondence.
DFarcher, the living document argument is BS. Yes, the document is amendable but that process is not being adhered to. The bill of rights is a specific list of restrictions placed upon govt. None of them refer to limits on the people. You're interpretation is misguided in much the same way as the left views our founding documents.
I know, sorry. I didnt want to go back and change them in case I was being quoted and it was misinterpreted. Wont happen again. probably.
Nothing in the second amendment requires you to be a militia member in order to have the right to keep and bear arms. It says the right of the PEOPLE. But if you want to go there, who is the militia?
"The militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves, ... all men capable of bearing arms;..."
"Letters from the Federal Farmer to the Republic", 1788 (either Richard Henry Lee or Melancton Smith).
"Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man against his own bosom? Congress shall have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birth-right of an American ... 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 ever remain, in the hands of the People."
Tench Coxe, 1788.
Go back and tell your daddy you tried, but you just can't get these gun toting fools to see things his way. If you truly had a concern who you were selling a firearm to, you would use a trusted FFL to do a transfer. I'm sure SSP would be happy to assist you with your conscience.
Just because a dealer doesn't want expanded checks, I'm sure they would be happy to help someone who had concerns about a firearm transaction.
Similar threads
