Has our 2nd Amendment become obsolete? - Page 2

Has our 2nd Amendment become obsolete?

This is a discussion on Has our 2nd Amendment become obsolete? within the The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion forums, part of the Related Topics category; I still profess that discussions like this are missing the whole point of the 2A: regardless of the advancement of weapons, the intention is that ...

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 40
Like Tree32Likes

Thread: Has our 2nd Amendment become obsolete?

  1. #16
    Distinguished Member Array bigmacque's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    1,881
    I still profess that discussions like this are missing the whole point of the 2A: regardless of the advancement of weapons, the intention is that the government cannot disarm the people. After all, the government's weapons have advanced as well.

    This is why Piers Morgan, and anyone that agrees with him, should just move back to England. The Founding Fathers wrote this in response to tyrannical -- and even benevolent but still overbearing -- rule. We came here because this is how we wanted it, if we didn't want these changes we'd have just stayed loyal to the Crown of England.

    I read an editorial a few months ago, and responded to that article here, that tried to make the argument that our Constitution is outdated and needs to be changed. Hogwash. Our Constitution is what makes us the country we are, and the blood of the thousands over the years that died to establish it and protect was blood spilled in glory, not in vain.

    Our Constitution is a remarkable document that should be defended at all costs. Politicians that seek to destroy it, especially those sworn to defend the Constitution, should face the wrath of law.

    Don't mess with my Constitution.
    GunGeezer likes this.
    I'm in favor of gun control -- I think every citizen should have control of a gun.
    1 Thess. 5:16-18


  2. #17
    VIP Member
    Array 1MoreGoodGuy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Fort Worth, Texas
    Posts
    6,690
    "Shall not be infringed."

    Interesting how that very specifically worded phrase is only used in the 2nd Amendment.
    Regards,
    1MoreGoodGuy
    NRA Life Member
    GOA Life Member


    Behave Like Someone Who is Determined to be FREE!

  3. #18
    Senior Member Array CanuckQue's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Maritimes Canada
    Posts
    1,163
    I think the phrasing is obsolete, honestly. Here's why. My reading of the 2A indicates that Hawaii should be allowed to have nuclear ICBMs, to defend itself against Washington. My reading is that the average citizen should be capable of standing against the government's army, and thus should be allowed to own (without infringement) grenades, IEDs, rockets, etc. Now, I disagree with some DCers about whether it's appropriate that people be allowed to own grenades and Missouri having its own nukes - but that's not my argument. My argument is that the phrasing clearly allows this, but I think that the 21st century citizens should be re-deciding whether this phrasing is what people want to live with. A citizen who is biased against bomb-vests probably wants to have their opinion heard against those who think we should be allowed to own bomb-vest; the Constitution has an amendment process for a reason, and I think this is a decision that needs to be made outside of nitpicking by politicians and judges.
    Brad426 likes this.
    There WILL be patents with this (simple) discovery. That, and "type III levers". It's untapped wealth, waiting for you who Google. Or your kids. People expanding on the potential are welcome to elucidate; I didn't phrase it well

  4. #19
    Distinguished Member Array GunGeezer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    1,249
    Many of our founding fathers were Masons and as such were well aware of the advances in technology that had taken place prior to 1776. It would have been short-sighted of them to think further technology would not happen. They prepared a document that was unique in all the world because they were extremely far-sighted and intelligent men. The only thing that will become obsolete and need to be updated is the character, morals and honesty of our current elected representatives and their minions. If we fail to realize this truth, we might just as well vow our fealty to the Queen. We need more far-sighted responsible,accountable citizens who think further than their pathetic, self-indulgent life-styles. Put down your cell phones, don't answer your text messages, call or write your representatives and demand they demonize the shooter, not the guns and pass meaningful laws instead of knee-jerk reactions that actually have a chance of preventing future horrendous acts of violence.

  5. #20
    Distinguished Member Array bigmacque's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    1,881
    Quote Originally Posted by CanuckQue View Post
    I think the phrasing is obsolete, honestly. Here's why. My reading of the 2A indicates that Hawaii should be allowed to have nuclear ICBMs, to defend itself against Washington. My reading is that the average citizen should be capable of standing against the government's army, and thus should be allowed to own (without infringement) grenades, IEDs, rockets, etc. Now, I disagree with some DCers about whether it's appropriate that people be allowed to own grenades and Missouri having its own nukes - but that's not my argument. My argument is that the phrasing clearly allows this, but I think that the 21st century citizens should be re-deciding whether this phrasing is what people want to live with. A citizen who is biased against bomb-vests probably wants to have their opinion heard against those who think we should be allowed to own bomb-vest; the Constitution has an amendment process for a reason, and I think this is a decision that needs to be made outside of nitpicking by politicians and judges.
    I disagree with you. The code is rife with laws that govern things like grenades and automatic weapons, and those laws are sufficient to prevent the development of an army that can stand against the governments. The law of our land does not stop with the Constitution, it begins with it. And that's the rub, that's the argument: we don't want to see more laws that start to restrict what we have, and the "obsolete", although brilliant, phrasing of the 2A allows us to stand our ground.

    The government cannot disarm us. They're not allowed to.
    I'm in favor of gun control -- I think every citizen should have control of a gun.
    1 Thess. 5:16-18

  6. #21
    VIP Member
    Array OldVet's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Hiding inside a bottle of Jim Beam Black.
    Posts
    17,571
    Quote Originally Posted by 10thmtn View Post
    What we have lost is the "well regulated" part of the 2A. In today's English, that would read "well trained." In most locales, adult males (usually over 16) were required to muster for militia training on a regular schedule, and to supply their own firearm, powder, bayonet, and other supplies. The training not only instilled military skills - it also instilled discipline, and a sense of community.

    ...

    Personally, I think we should reinstate the draft. Those who don't want to go into the military should be required to serve in other ways. We have too many troubled young males out there with no supervision, direction, or purpose. That needs to change.

    JMHO
    I'm not disagreeing with you (the military was the best thing that could have happened ot me), but I'd like to throw this into the mix:
    Since 2A recognizes the need for "regulation," in the sense of having been trained for military duty, perhaps gun ownership should be restricted to those who are regulated in the intent of 2A, performing basic training at the very least?

    Let the ranting begin...
    rstanek likes this.
    Retired USAF E-8. Lighten up and enjoy life because:
    Paranoia strikes deep, into your heart it will creep. It starts when you're always afraid... Buffalo Springfield - For What It's Worth

  7. #22
    VIP Member Array peckman28's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Maryland
    Posts
    2,108
    Quote Originally Posted by 10thmtn View Post
    What we have lost is the "well regulated" part of the 2A. In today's English, that would read "well trained." In most locales, adult males (usually over 16) were required to muster for militia training on a regular schedule, and to supply their own firearm, powder, bayonet, and other supplies. The training not only instilled military skills - it also instilled discipline, and a sense of community.

    Those who objected to militia service (such as Quakers, etc) were required to pay a tax in order to "buy out" their service obligation.

    Today - we have a breakdown in family. People live next door to others for years, yet hardly know them. People "tweet" all the time, yet hardly have any real friends. There is precious little sense of community in many cases, and folks who need help are left to fester alone until they act out.

    Personally, I think we should reinstate the draft. Those who don't want to go into the military should be required to serve in other ways. We have too many troubled young males out there with no supervision, direction, or purpose. That needs to change.

    JMHO
    The State does not own your body, and the draft is in direct conflict with the 13th Amendment. I can't imagine a more wrong thing to do. You are willing to register your body for the draft, but you won't register your gun? No way would I support an idea like that. What we need to do is drop the notion that you owe anyone anything just by virtue of being a citizen of this country. Unless you actually borrow something directly from someone else you owe them nothing, certainly not your "service". If you want people to have a spirit of service, enforcing it at the point of a gun is the exact opposite way to accomplish it. Look no further than our current welfare programs and their undermining of charity to see where that leads.

  8. #23
    Senior Member Array highvoltage's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    NH
    Posts
    1,121
    Quote Originally Posted by OldVet View Post
    I'm not disagreeing with you (the military was the best thing that could have happened ot me), but I'd like to throw this into the mix:
    Since 2A recognizes the need for "regulation," in the sense of having been trained for military duty, perhaps gun ownership should be restricted to those who are regulated in the intent of 2A, performing basic training at the very least?

    Let the ranting begin...
    True, any tool can become unsafe in untrained hands. As for the type and level of training, that will up for debate.

  9. #24
    Lead Moderator
    Array rstickle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Laurel, MD
    Posts
    22,150
    Quote Originally Posted by GunGeezer View Post
    Many of our founding fathers were Masons and as such were well aware of the advances in technology that had taken place prior to 1776. It would have been short-sighted of them to think further technology would not happen.
    Guess it depends on how much credit you want to give them. The percussion cap (next big step in firearms) would not appear in wide spread use for almost 50 years (1820's)!
    Rick

    EOD - Initial success or total failure

  10. #25
    Senior Member Array CanuckQue's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Maritimes Canada
    Posts
    1,163
    Quote Originally Posted by bigmacque View Post
    The government cannot disarm us. They're not allowed to.
    I think we're miscommunicating. As far as I can tell, the government has already disarmed us. All that remains are tokens that appeal to aficionados, hunters, and those seeking to defend themselves from other civilians.
    bigmacque likes this.
    There WILL be patents with this (simple) discovery. That, and "type III levers". It's untapped wealth, waiting for you who Google. Or your kids. People expanding on the potential are welcome to elucidate; I didn't phrase it well

  11. #26
    Distinguished Member Array bigmacque's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    1,881
    Quote Originally Posted by CanuckQue View Post
    I think we're miscommunicating. As far as I can tell, the government has already disarmed us. All that remains are tokens that appeal to aficionados, hunters, and those seeking to defend themselves from other civilians.
    Point taken.
    I'm in favor of gun control -- I think every citizen should have control of a gun.
    1 Thess. 5:16-18

  12. #27
    VIP Member Array oakchas's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Iowa
    Posts
    7,568
    Quote Originally Posted by Sig35seven View Post
    Not true.

    The constitution never mentions Christianity. In fact the opposite is true as they made it very clear that ALL religions are acceptable and none should be recognized by government.

    The 1796 Treaty with Tripoli states that the United States was "not in any sense founded on the Christian religion".

    Many of our forefathers were Deists not Christians.
    Facts is facts... Thank you for making those facts clear, and using historical documentation to back it up.

    That said.... they did seem to feel that a god was responsible for this country ... and they probably meant "The God."
    Christianity today is much different than the Christianity of that time...
    Rats!
    It could be worse!
    I suppose

  13. #28
    VIP Member Array Doghandler's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    West Branch
    Posts
    2,304

    Re: Has our 2nd Amendment become obsolete?

    Quote Originally Posted by oakchas View Post
    Facts is facts... Thank you for making those facts clear, and using historical documentation to back it up.

    That said.... they did seem to feel that a god was responsible for this country ... and they probably meant "The God."
    Christianity today is much different than the Christianity of that time...
    I don't see that much has changed at all, still stumbling around trying to understand what The God is - caught up in arguing about what color of car to drive on a Trancendental road.

    ...
    The problem with the world is grown-ups behaving like unsupervised children.
    There is a solution but we are not Jedi... not yet.
    Doghandler

  14. #29
    Member Array rstanek's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Holmen, Wisconsin
    Posts
    86
    In my original post I did not refer to Christianity being written into the Constitution, I had said it was based on Christian values. I think there is a difference... I don't think that religion was the topic of the post, but it seems to have become an important issue.

  15. #30
    Senior Member Array Hot Wing's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Melbourne Florida
    Posts
    688
    Quote Originally Posted by MrBuckwheat View Post
    Nothing wrong with our 2A. Our problem is the guy at the wheel.
    Indeed .

    And lets not even start about Beer drinking / Beer nut eating Joe

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast

Sponsored Links

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Search tags for this page

2nd amendment was written when musket one shot
,

2nd ammandment is obsolete

,
at the time our 2nd amendment was written they had muskets
,
scientology banned because it didn't exist when the first ammendment was written
,
the second amendment has become obsolete
,
we are very lucky our forefathers wrote it very cleary shall on be infringed glock talk
Click on a term to search for related topics.