Literal meaning of 2nd amendment
This is a discussion on Literal meaning of 2nd amendment within the The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion forums, part of the Related Topics category; I was referring to the mentioned outlawing of guns in Texas for a 100 years by another poster. If that is in fact the case ...
January 27th, 2013 10:18 PM
I was referring to the mentioned outlawing of guns in Texas for a 100 years by another poster. If that is in fact the case it was as unconstitutional then as it would be now end of freaking story. The Constitution says what it says period its not hard to understand until some over educated officials with less common sense than paper degrees start trying to "improve" it.
Historically the federal government as done one thing semi well and only one and that is field the most powerful military force on earth to protect this country. Beyond that EVERY move they have made as far as regulating anything has been a dismal failure from prohibition to the war on drugs.
Now we are supposed to blindly accept what they interpret out of our founding documents in order to regulate one of our inalienable rights such as 2a? Forget the fact that gun regulation has failed in this country everyplace its been done to do anything other than cause higher violent crime rates. Make criminals out of otherwise law abiding citizens and move us one step closer to being a dictatorship.
Every nation and I mean every last one through history has been disarmed by its government before becoming a dictatorship ruled thru fear of the government. And quite a few after suffering under that rule have risen up in the past 20 years and overthrown that yoke government be hanged.
As much as it seems a ragged few here would accept even welcome this blind bleating herding of sheep the majority in fly over country as its known will not accept it, will resist it as is being done now as we speak. The high minded members of academia who hide behind security forces for their protection once they have gotten into office, exempt themselves from the laws they pass or uphold, and likely the majority of never saw anything of the actual world we live in other than the inside of a college, government building or courthouse can through their arrogance push to much in their effort gut the constitution.
And likely have their dainty sensibilities shocked when the majority of the country tells them pound sand and refuses to allow our founding document bought and defended with the blood of Americans since our founding to be done away by some fancy devious rewording and some strokes of a pen. They can all go review case law together I guess.
" It is sad governments are chief'ed by the double tongues." quote Ten Bears Movie Outlaw Josie Wales
January 27th, 2013 10:18 PM
January 27th, 2013 10:50 PM
Move along folks. No defense of the Constitution seen here.
But of course! The First Amendment at all cost! Nothing may be censored or banned, no matter if it has any socially redeeming value or not. It must be free to be published. The First Amendment must run unfettered, hence we have the likes of Flint and Hefner and the floodgate that was opened after them.
Originally Posted by Hopyard
Not so with the Second Amendment. It may be restricted or reconstrued on a whim. After all, that is the value of a "living interpretation." And 200 years of regulation? Why that is constraining precedent which must be acknowledged and valued over constitutional intent, "like it or not." After all, times and minds change.
The First and Second Amendments have exchanged places if the above quote is to be believed. With the First, what was once restrained is now loosed. With the Second, what was once loosed is now restrained.
Ah, nothing like the old principle of shifting principles to get one out of a jam when redefining our Constitution. As a nation we cannot define morality; would not know morality if it bit us on the toe! The ol' toothless Constitution, so warm and fuzzy, which makes us feel all cozy but is no longer effectual. Much like the present day British monarchy. Just so much window dressing!
The summation of the 21st century relationship of the United States of America to its Constitution may be found here.
"Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people.
It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.
Charter Member of the DC .41 LC Society
“No possible rapidity of fire can atone for habitual carelessness of aim with the first shot.”
Theodore Roosevelt, The Wilderness Hunter, 1893
January 28th, 2013 10:22 AM
Keep:to hold or retain in one's possession; hold as one's own:
January 28th, 2013 12:14 PM
Oh, jeez, there he goes again, GunsAndViolince talkin' 'bout Switzerland...
But, I offer this for the OP's consideration, because I think he or she might find it interesting:
Let's consider Switzerland. A country famous for it's neutrality, the site for all kinds of nice, friendly feel-good international conferences and such. It's in EUROPE so it must be better, right? After all, they make the chocolate! If we are looking for wisdom, who better to examine than the neutral, friendly Swiss right?
Well, Switzerland is an interesting case. Frequently, I find, people mistake Switzerland's Neutrality for Pacifism, and nothing could be further from the truth. The Swiss mercenaries were Europe's go-to "arms for hire" for hundreds of years. So, it wasn't out of respect for their "higher values" that other Europeans didn't squash Switzerland, it was because they were some of the most feared warriors on the continent.
While they have professional officers, etc., their main national defense is a militia in which every man must participate for a number of years. While they do have a barracks where many weapons are kept, as you suggest, they keep their FULL AUTO (the ones we can own are semi-auto and not true military weapons) ZU HAUSE! That's right, AT HOME. Now, recently it was decided that they should keep gov't ammo at the barracks, but they are free to keep their own stash of ammo for their selective fire Sig 550s. (I think it went something like this: "Soldier, where's your ammo? Um, I shot it last week, Sir. Were there invaders? Um, no Sir. Hans and I went to the range. It was really fun. OK, you guys are leaving that stuff here from now on. Go shoot your own ammo for fun.")
The idea behind this is that the men might need to fight their way back to the barracks. Now, I'm not saying the Swiss could repel an invasion by the U.S., but they do have tank traps and all kinds of stuff. I think there's a reason people don't invade Switzerland. I'll say it again, Neutrality does not equal Pacifism.
That being said, you need to understand that behind every sentence in the Constitution, there has grown up a body of law and interpretation. That makes it complicated, and yet it is not a complicated document. It is brilliantly clear. It's people's later "interpretations" of it that make it tricky. If you go back to the thing, and think about these people who just threw off tyranny by force of arms, you begin to understand that it means exactly what it seems to mean.
"HANDS OFF THE PEOPLE'S GUNS!"
January 28th, 2013 12:50 PM
Translation in red:
Yeah... it think that's a pretty reasonable translation of the poster's, like, you know, thought process and all...
Originally Posted by tuft
It could be worse!
January 28th, 2013 01:21 PM
The quote you posted here isn't accurate, George Washington did make a statement similar to this in his first annual address to congress, which is as follows:
Originally Posted by loach
"A free people ought not only to be armed but disciplined; to which end a uniform and well digested plan is requisite: And their safety and interest require that they should promote such manufactories, as tend to render them independent on others, for essential, particularly for military supplies."
"Don't start none, won't be none!"
January 28th, 2013 01:33 PM
Oak it is my greatest wish to buy you a beer before the day I die.
Originally Posted by oakchas
If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude than the animated contest of freedom, go from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains sit lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen.
January 28th, 2013 01:37 PM
I'll buy you one in return... If ever I go near Ohio again (closest has been Kentucky or Indiana), I'll make an effort to take a detour... and I'll pm you...
Originally Posted by DontTreadOnI
It could be worse!
January 28th, 2013 01:38 PM
I like beer, too. Just sayin'.
Originally Posted by DontTreadOnI
I have a very strict gun control policy: if there's a gun around, I want to be in control of it.
January 28th, 2013 01:42 PM
Beer? Did someone mention beer?
I'm in favor of gun control -- I think every citizen should have control of a gun.
1 Thess. 5:16-18
January 28th, 2013 01:44 PM
I think we all agree in unanimity this thread can be closed and we'll all just be peachy happy and have all of our wishes come true. Don't you love it when some 1 Post Miracle stirs up a hornets nest and leaves?
Last edited by Rock and Glock; January 28th, 2013 at 02:47 PM.
January 28th, 2013 02:31 PM
Uh huh. About what I figured.
I would rather stand against the cannons of the wicked than against the prayers of the righteous.
AR. CHL Instr. 07/02 FFL
Like custom guns and stuff? Check this out...
Search tags for this page
2nd amendment literal interpretation
guncite-second amendment-the supreme court and the second amendment. guncite-second amendment-the supreme court and the
literal 2nd amendment
literal constitution second amendment
literal meaning of amendment 24
literal meaning of the 2nd amendment
literal meaning of the second amendment
literal translation of the 2nd amendment
second amendment literal wording
second amendment meaning
the literal meaning for the 2nd amendment
what is the literal interpretation of the second amendment
Click on a term to search for related topics.