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

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

This is a discussion on 2nd Amendment never was and isnt now a legitimate subject of discussion. within the The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion forums, part of the Related Topics category; 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 ...

Page 1 of 5 12345 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 68
Like Tree94Likes

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

  1. #1
    VIP Member Array Ghost1958's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    Kentucky
    Posts
    6,016

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

    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
    " It is sad governments are chief'ed by the double tongues." quote Ten Bears Movie Outlaw Josie Wales


  2. #2
    Senior Member Array KoriBustard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Massachusetts
    Posts
    616
    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?
    NRA Member
    GOAL Member
    Certified NRA RSO
    EDC: M&P 9c

  3. #3
    Senior Member Array kerberos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Arkansas
    Posts
    746
    Quote Originally Posted by Ghost1958 View Post
    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...

    "Death is lighter than a feather, but Duty is heavier than a mountain" Robert Jordan
    USMC veteran
    Glock 19 Gen 4
    Si hoc legere scis, nimis eruditionis habes

  4. #4
    Member Array jkurtz7's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Ohio
    Posts
    173
    Ghost, I agree with you 100%

  5. #5
    VIP Member
    Array Hopyard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Disappeared
    Posts
    11,662
    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.
    keboostman and wdbailey like this.
    If the Union is once severed, the line of separation will grow wider and wider, and the controversies which are now debated and settled in the halls of legislation will then be tried in fields of battle and determined by the sword.
    Andrew Jackson

  6. #6
    VIP Member Array Ghost1958's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    Kentucky
    Posts
    6,016
    Quote Originally Posted by Hopyard View Post
    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.
    oneshot likes this.
    " It is sad governments are chief'ed by the double tongues." quote Ten Bears Movie Outlaw Josie Wales

  7. #7
    VIP Member
    Array Hopyard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Disappeared
    Posts
    11,662
    Quote Originally Posted by Ghost1958 View Post
    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.
    If it plainly meant what you and many others believe it means, NY, NJ, IL, DC, could not have
    the laws they have.

    As for amending it as someone else suggested, be careful what you wish for. It could get amended
    out of existence. Better to let the states, Congress and the courts work their will as they have
    done now for 200 + years. Folks may not agree, but then at least there are Arizonas and Vermonts
    to bring some balance to the various possible interpretations.

    You seem to be saying that only one interpretation is legitimate. Sadly, in our real world it doesn't work
    that way. All we need to do is look around at all the gun laws and all the variations on all the gun laws
    and all the case law from all the states and in all the Circuit courts, and we know better.
    If the Union is once severed, the line of separation will grow wider and wider, and the controversies which are now debated and settled in the halls of legislation will then be tried in fields of battle and determined by the sword.
    Andrew Jackson

  8. #8
    Distinguished Member Array Exacto's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Virginia
    Posts
    1,630
    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.
    tony1990 and ANGLICO like this.
    Let your plans be dark and impenetrable as night, and when you move, fall like a thunder bolt...... Sun Tzu.

    The supreme art of war is to defeat the enemy without fighting........ Sun Tzu.

  9. #9
    VIP Member
    Array BenGoodLuck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    3,138
    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.
    Ben

    Cogito, ergo armatum sum. I think, therefore I am armed. (Don Mann, The Modern Day Gunslinger; the ultimate handgun training manual)


  10. #10
    VIP Member Array Ghost1958's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    Kentucky
    Posts
    6,016
    Quote Originally Posted by Exacto View Post
    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.
    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.
    " It is sad governments are chief'ed by the double tongues." quote Ten Bears Movie Outlaw Josie Wales

  11. #11
    VIP Member
    Array Mike1956's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Marion County, Ohio
    Posts
    10,677
    Quote Originally Posted by KoriBustard View Post
    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?
    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.
    The hardest thing to explain is the glaringly evident which everybody had decided not to see.
    Ayn Rand

  12. #12
    Member Array G26Raven's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Utah
    Posts
    188
    Quote Originally Posted by kerberos View Post
    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...

    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.
    oneshot likes this.

  13. #13
    Senior Member Array stanislaskasava's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    U.S.
    Posts
    1,121
    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. #14
    Member Array Bummer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Tennessee
    Posts
    20
    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.

  15. #15
    Senior Member Array Warmon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    The Old Dominion
    Posts
    608
    Only when one fully understands that a standing army is the enemy of liberty and never meant to be, does the 2A truly begin to make sense.
    ccw9mm likes this.
    I always aim for the right eye...and I never miss - Goldeneye

Page 1 of 5 12345 LastLast

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

Click on a term to search for related topics.

» Log in

User Name:

Password:

Not a member yet?
Register Now!

» DefensiveCarry Sponsors