Defensive Carry banner

2nd Amendment never was and isnt now a legitimate subject of discussion.

3K views 67 replies 28 participants last post by  CanuckQue 
#1 ·
I normally dont start threads but I feel compelled to state what follows.

After being on this forum for a while and seeing all the back and forth about federal supremacy, what SCOTUS has ruled over the years concerning 2A, reading 2A, and contemplating it for much more time than I should ever have been forced too, even I with my limited intelligence can get grasp of it.

Discussing what it means is a waste of time. It very clearly states what it means in plain English. And that meaning isnt left up for debate. 2A does not grant the right to keep and bear arms it confirms it. It does not grant ANY branch of government, at any level, or court at any level, authority to limit or regulate the right of the people to keep and bear arms. Whatever arms they wish, where ever they wish, in any manner they wish.

Not only does it not grant that authority to any person, branch of government, court etc, it expressly forbids and denies that authority to anyone.

People in power, and governments being what they are, that the ink wasnt dry on the document before someone started trying to weaken 2A and claim some authority to weaken it was inevitable. That does not however change one word of 2A or the meaning. Whatever authority these people and government took for themselves they did illegally in violation of the Constitution and 2A. The courts that upheld these illegal power grabs were forbidden to do so. The only correct move a court can possibly make when faced with a proposed regulation of 2A is to strike it down totally. And recommend the prosecution of those that proposed it in violation of the Constitution.

Beyond that SCOTUS nor any other court has authority over 2A but to uphold it in its entirety. They were never granted authority to interpret 2A or its language only abide by it.

There is a prescribed method to change 2a by the required number of states etc. And that is the only way it can be legally limited or regulated.

Everything else done over the years that we have allowed to happen is our and our forefathers own fault concerning our rights to keep and bear arms. That is debatable, and probably should be discussed at length. For we had our rights guaranteed for us and have allowed them to be taken by our own laziness, apathy, and inaction.

However debating the meaning of what 2a states, which is the God given right of the people to keep and bear arms, free from infringement by ANYONE at any time, is an exercise in futility and intellectually dishonest. My take, my belief. YMMV
 
See less See more
#2 ·
I think the portion of the 2nd Amendment that leads to the most debate is the phrase "well regulated militia." I don't think people today understand the concept of a "militia" and have heard some well-meaning, but ignorant, people state that the "militia" is the National Guard. Of course, this is ridiculous in that militias have always been comprised of civilians, free to come and go as they please, and not a conscripted or an organized service maintained by the government. Had I been one of the constitutional framers, and with foresight into the 21st century, I would have worded the 2nd Amendment as follows: "A right of the people to bear arms; being necessary to the security, liberty, and property of the citizens of a free state, shall not be infringed." Think we could get my amendment ratified?
 
#11 ·
Even that part, when taken at face value, asserts that the peoples' right to bear arms is, in fact what keeps the militia well-regulated. Without an armed citizenry, the militia is free to act to oppress that citizenry with impunity.
 
#3 ·
Whatever arms they wish, where ever they wish, in any manner they wish.
Great post...

I agree.

Concerning the quoted part above...

"So you mean we should all be able to 'keep and bear' rocket launchers"

Yes...

That's exactly what I mean...

Of course the framers could not have envisioned how far weapons technology would advance...

That's why there is a process to amend an amendment!!!

You (the people) want something changed?

Do it the right way... not by judicial legislation...

:hand15:
 
#12 ·
Great post...


Concerning the quoted part above...

"So you mean we should all be able to 'keep and bear' rocket launchers"

Yes...

That's exactly what I mean...

:hand15:
I've read some scholarly discussions of the 2A and my understanding is that the issue regarding what we can carry is defined by the term to "bear arms". My understanding is that what this means is any weapon that can be carried by the individual, which would include things like an RPG or similar item. What it does not cover are items that are considered "crew served weapons", such as a howitzer or other weapon that needs to be transported by vehicle.
 
  • Like
Reactions: oneshot
#5 ·
I entirely disagree Ghost, if only because the entirety of our constitution, all of it, and all
of our laws too, are proper topics of conversation for citizens to engage in.

I'd rather have vigorous debates among the citizens about what 2A means and does not mean,
than mindless discussions about the private lives of entertainment figures.

Absolutely 2A is an appropriate topic of discussion here and anywhere among civic minded
people.
 
#6 ·
I entirely disagree Ghost, if only because the entirety of our constitution, all of it, and all
of our laws too, are proper topics of conversation for citizens to engage in.

I'd rather have vigorous debates among the citizens about what 2A means and does not mean,
than mindless discussions about the private lives of entertainment figures.




Absolutely 2A is an appropriate topic of discussion here and anywhere among civic minded
people.
Hopyard if you note I on purpose didnt say appropriate, I said legitimate. Its appropriate for anyone to discuss something as simple as does the sun come up in the east or west until they are blue in the face.

However, discussing it, saying it comes up in the west and trying to pass a law that makes everyone say it comes up in the west does not change the fact that it comes up in the East. The discussion is appropriate since anyone can discuss anything and have a right too. Its not legitimate because no matter if the discussing folks agree it the sun comes up in the West it still will in fact come up in the East.

Same with 2a. Discuss all one must. Try to twist and turn it with words that mean nothing. The fact of 2A and what it says remains.
 
#8 ·
If your saying that the constitution affirmed that we had the right already , and that the government they were establishing was not to infringe upon it, I agree.
 
#10 ·
Thats what I said lol.

As far as what NY etc have done laws that have been passed, I think i covered that in my first post.

But to put it more simply. Because I rob a bank and get away with it, doesnt make it legal. That would be tyrants are able to do these power grabs and get away with it as I said before are a testament to our forefathers and our own apathy, laziness and inaction. The rights were there bought with blood and war, the right keep and bear existed before that.

That we have let our legacy be systematically destroyed and still are is a condemnation of the society we have become.
None of that changes 2a what it means or says one iota.
 
#9 ·
This was a great post and will likely spark as much debate as those who debate the meaning of the 2A. I especially like what you wrote: "2A does not grant the right to keep and bear arms it confirms it." Some of the Founding Fathers hesitated to write down any of the rights that we are born with, for fear that writing them down would weaken them.
 
#13 ·
It is important to note the the BOR (including the 2A) was originally meant to apply solely to the federal government. With this in mind, it becomes readily apparent that the words are literal, simple, and no reading between the lines or judicial interpretation is necessary. The right of the people to keep and bear arms was not to be tampered with AT ALL by the feds. Any gun laws were meant to be 100% state business. This was a black and white amendment, hence the wording '...shall not...' was used. This left no room for any federal influence. This was the clear purpose, intent and ratified meaning of the 2A.

When you understand that this was an application of 'states rights' philosopy, it takes any murkiness out of interpreting the words of the amendment. The 14th Amendment was specifically written to apply the BOR to the states. By any logical process, states are now just as constitutionally prohibited from infringing our RKBA as the feds are. This is as it should be, because states were misusing their power following the Civil War, in order to prevent Black people from owning guns.

Offering the current existence of gun laws as proof of their constitutionality is ridiculous on its face. Quoting the opinions of Supreme political tools is just as ridiculous, and a 5-4 vote is commonly predictable based upon political alignment. Truth has little to do with Supreme court opinions.

The People are beginning to build momentum with their own access to information concerning the history of America. This was simply impossible in past eras of incorrect Supreme court decisions. It is our duty to protect what is rightfully ours.
 
#14 ·
I agree Ghost. and we also got the bill of rights which jefferson wrote to madison saying that a bill of rights was "what the people are entitled to against every government on earth." seems pretty ABSOLUTE to me, and anyone who attempts to take those rights away WILL be held accountable.
 
#28 ·
Well, we have had a standing army, sometimes bigger and sometimes smaller, and a Navy, since
early in our lives under our constitution. While it is certainly true that the states often didn't want
to pay for it, Congress couldn't raise the money, etc., and yes--- the constitutional issue of whether or
not Uncle had the power in the first place was raised--- bottom line is we do and almost always have had
a standing army. So I think that line or reasoning above doesn't really fly very well.

And by most measures over time, our standing Army and Navy has been the backbone needed
to maintain our liberty, not the other way around.

When we didn't have one, or better said an effective one, the Brits
thought nothing of ignoring their obligations under the treaty that ended the Revolutionary War
which required them to vacate large land areas and their forts, something they wouldn't do until forced by
turns of fate during the war of 1812.

In short, as far as this 2A stuff goes, that standing army argument is a dog that don't hunt.
 
#18 ·
Ghost, for someone who claims "limited intelligence" you certainly drafted a thought provoking post!

You are spot on in your assessment of the 2A, both as it is written and was intended. The fact that activist courts, corrupt bureaucrats, a legislature that is trying to make themselves irrelevant and tyrant wanna-be's have all ignored or outright violated the US Constitution holds little relevance in determining what is right.

Hopyard has a point about dealing with the reality of a government that has systematically eroded our rights over time, but that does not mean we should accept the position. For too long our population has slept while our government has slowly assumed greater and greater control of their lives. We are becoming a weak and pathetic people; and this is very sad.
 
#19 ·
Discussing what it means is a waste of time. It very clearly states what it means in plain English. And that meaning isnt left up for debate. 2A does not grant the right to keep and bear arms it confirms it. It does not grant ANY branch of government, at any level, or court at any level, authority to limit or regulate the right of the people to keep and bear arms. Whatever arms they wish, where ever they wish, in any manner they wish.

My take, my belief. YMMV

^^^^^^^^I could not agree more with you Ghost^^^^^^



The Second Amendment has nothing to do with hunting or home defense.
It is about preserving our liberty from government ;
just like the 1st , 3rd , 4th, 5th, 6th, 9th and 10th.

Funny how some that were educated far more than most seem to grapple with this.
Makes me wonder how in the H.E. Double Hockey Sticks they got where they are.



Sometimes I wonder whether the world is being run by smart people who are putting us on or by imbeciles who really mean it. Mark Twain
 
#20 ·
Good argument. In bringing SCOTUS, if we actually read the opinions of the Heller case you would find that Scalia (my favorite SCJ) pointed out that 2A is not the only high law that guarantees us these rights. The 9th amendment clearly states that no interpretation of the Bill of Rights shall be used to otherwise deprive citizens of those rights. In other words, if BO and his goons wish to do away with 2A all together, they will have a VERY difficult time amending the constitution because both of these amendments will have to be nullified by an 80% majority in convention. What Im waiting for is someone to file an action against DHS for contracting with ATK and constricting interstate commerce for the scarcity of ammo.
 
#29 ·
In reality since we normally are in some state of war with someone declared or undeclared, while happily rebuilding everything we blow up and paying to finance every flea bag country on the globe, all the time having an army etc is pretty much an ongoing thing.
 
#34 ·
And now my point is made. All the historical Jefferson thought said opined and other musings matter not at all.

2A says what it says plainly. The right to keep and bear weapons of the time predate even our own country's founding back for thousands of years. A human has the right to be free and to defense of self and that freedom. And have exercised that right to throw off oppressors or repel attacks etc long before Old George and Tom were born. 2A upholds that and confirms it and wisely forbids anyone or any government court or official from limiting it. 2A pertains to firearms because we had progressed beyond bows swords and arrows. They were and are the most effective means to self defense available. The right to defense from attack or tyranny applies however no matter what the weaponry of the time.

No matter what verbal gymnastics one uses to attempt to deny that fact a fact it remains. No matter what illegal laws or regulations are passed by anyone, that fact, that basic human right to defend ones life and freedom remains.
No amount of discussion changes that fact. It is as simple as that. It has always been so and will always be so.

.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ccw9mm
#35 · (Edited)
There is noting wrong with the post however it is far from reality...... The Supreme Court has routinely interpreted the Constitution and will continue to do so....... Just Scallia has said the 2nd amendment is not a right to have any weapon you might want. He stated the government can set limits.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Hopyard
#37 ·
There is noting wrong with the post however it is far from reality...... The Supreme Court has routinely interpreted the Constition and will continue to do so....... Just Scallia has said the 2nd amendment is not a right to have any weapon you might want. He stated the government can set limit.
There is a reason that the Supreme Court is not given the power to enforce its opinions -- because it remains with The People to judge the court. This is a failsafe mechanism.
 
#36 ·
I would imagine that the powers that be at the present time are reeling behind closed doors at the level resisitance by many many states to what is presently being attempted. Open defiance by entire Sherrifs Associations.
History teaches that nothing immoral and illegal has ever "just continued" forever.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ccw9mm
#42 ·
WELL REGULATED .... means well equipped ... not rules and legislation

The politician knows that people do not understand this and they use it as a form of exploitation of ignorance.

But we know politicians.... oh we know... and you cant stop us!

And to those who dont know this.....

The SCOTUS is NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT ... breathe .... NOT NOT NOT the final authority on any matter of our country. "We the people are". A government of the people, for the people, and by the people. We the people have the final say so in any matter of the land. We the people can override, rule, and de-legislate anything that washington or the scotus dictate down to us from their pillars of marble and towers of borrowed power. And if any office of the office of the politician (Wash DC talk there) tells you otherwise, well that good old 2nd amendment with 100+ million angry gun owners probably have the upper hand in a discussion so to say. Of which I pray never has to happen.

If you understood liberty, bill of rights, federalist papers, and the founders then you would know this.

We the people have empowered each and every office in this country. Now taking back that power from the hands of dicatorial thug politicians buying 2 billion rounds of ammo and thousands of MRAPs is going to be a hard task but we might still retain a chance at doing so peacefully.
 
#44 ·
...we are where we are because of voter disengagement from the process...relatively few vote...most of those don't vote intelligently(straight party or in ignorance)...We, the People have neglected our job...and now we're ignored when we try to do it...to a great extent, anyways...we've enabled the gooberment to get the way it is...
WELL REGULATED .... means well equipped ... not rules and legislation

The politician knows that people do not understand this and they use it as a form of exploitation of ignorance.

But we know politicians.... oh we know... and you cant stop us!

And to those who dont know this.....

The SCOTUS is NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT ... breathe .... NOT NOT NOT the final authority on any matter of our country. "We the people are". A government of the people, for the people, and by the people. We the people have the final say so in any matter of the land. We the people can override, rule, and de-legislate anything that washington or the scotus dictate down to us from their pillars of marble and towers of borrowed power.

If you understood liberty, bill of rights, federalist papers, and the founders then you would know this.
 
#43 ·
...not a devoted history student, but I was just surmising that in the early days, they didn't keep the cannon at Joe's house...probably built an armory...but they carried all the rest home with them...
...re:the War of 1812...did we have a large and powerful standing army, or did we have a small one and the people dropped what they were doing, grabbed their ARs, and headed out to fight? I seem to remember tricking and trading Indians into fighting with us...

...these kind of threads make us think...old guys like me appreciate them...
 
#53 ·
You see, Ghost, some people believe that the "system" has a higher authority than the constitution. Because of our system of governance, they believe that if one branch of government goes through the proper channels and motions, then whatever outcome they conclude is valid and justified. They believe this, no matter if it goes directly against the constitution and the rights of the people. And so the politicians will spin the words of the second amendment to mean whatever fits their immediate agenda. They will compare it to other court cases that have set previous precedents - even if those previous cases go against the very nature of the constitution. They will justify their agenda and tell you it is for the good of the people that they are regulated while basic liberties and freedoms are removed. They will tell you that there is no other way because this country would fall apart if they didn't go through the necessary motions that were created by our founders. They will tell you that our checks and balances were created for this purpose. That the country was designed to change and evolve. So they warp it to coincide with their beliefs/politics.

Such is bureaucracy. Its a system of going through the correct motions to create a desired outcome. Add a dash of corruption, a splash of agenda, a pinch of money, a sprinkle of power lust, and stir into a bowl of politicians. Now you have a recipe for what is happening to your rights in this country.
 
  • Like
Reactions: SigPapa226
#54 ·
The United States of America is a Constitutional Republic it is not a democracy as many would have you believe. The basis of our government is the United States Constitution. It is not up for change, barter, personal interpetation or other misreadings. It is your contract with your government - you are responsible to keep it intact. No one, including elected officials are allowed to change any part of the Constitution or the Bill of Rights. Special interest groups and their attorneys have been trying to subvert those documents and their principles for the good part of 200 years without success.
 
#55 ·
I will try to state as simply as I can for those who keep supporting the gutting of 2a and our rights in the name of its not practical, that is the way it has been done for years and that the FED is all powerful if for no other reason than, well they just are and we have to do what they say once they make it a law illegal or not.

But using that as some reason to just keep following the same old illegal path and allowing it to continue and make no mistake it is being allowed for it can be stopped, actually is being stopped on several levels and will be stopped on more, is not reasonable or sound thinking.

In anyway you can spin it once boiled down that sort of reasoning is the same as reasoning that should a gang of us form a gang of bank robbers that was so good it would be extremely hard to stop us. That we robbed for years with no arrests. That we were armed so that many were afraid to try to stop us. And that a segment of the public actually liked what we were doing in some warped way and supported and helped us.

Now if anyone can in any realm of common sense say that our gang of bank robbers should not be stopped please enlighten me.

That because we had been able to rob successfully for say 20 yrs, well then thats just the way it is and better that than upset us or force our hand by opposing us. And the more we rob, well heck we already robbed millions so if we rob billions its ok.

It is the same reasoning, that makes no sense. If something is wrong it is wrong no matter who says its right.

What has been done with 2a was wrong illegal unconstitutional on so many levels its mind boggling. WRONG.
ILLEGAL. I dont know how to get it boiled down any simpler than that.
 
#56 ·
Contrary to the argument made in the OP, we as a society MUST discuss the 2nd Amendment.

Why? Because we need to decide whether it applies to convicted felons, children, the mentally ill, non-citizen residents, and others.

We need to decide what qualifies as "arms" in 2013 and what does not.

We need to decide what rights the States have in regards to gun regulations, as the original intent of the Constitution and its Amendments was to regulate the power of the Federal govt., NOT the States. Plus one can easily suggest that the 10th Amendment gives the States the power to regulate firearms within their borders.

So yes, we need to have this conversation.
 
#60 ·
This is really a moot point. I don't mean that it will not come up and be argued by the antis and the midlle of the road crowd, just that it is really, truly meaningless in the big picture kind of way.

Criminals have guns. No "Law" is going to stop that.

Those committed to mayhem will find a means to perpetrate said mayhem. No "common sense measures" will change that fact.

Only by ensuring that everyone has the choice and means to defend themselves and theirs will we ever make any kind of dent in the violent crimes against citizens by predators and anti-social monsters.
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top