Reply With Quote
Please share what you think was the original intent.
the 2nd Amendment has been so perverted, so far from its original intent, for BigGun profit, that it's now purely nefarious, enabling a public health hazard of gun violence.
Please share what you think was the original intent.
Why do 2 amendment huggers always ignore the militia part.
"The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country; but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person."-James Madison
http://www.uscons ution.net/madisonbor.html
"shall not be infringed" is not in the text of the Cons ution.
establishments, cities, states have "infringed" on the right to bear arms throughout the existence of the Cons ution.
nowhere does the Cons ution say regulations cannot govern the sale and ownership of guns.
Last edited by boutons_deux; 12-15-2015 at 03:21 PM.
I don't know what the different interpretations of the 2nd amendment or what its intent was. Reading it without any kind of bias, you can read it in several ways so idunno. I think the easiest way to clarify it would be to look at how/if the govt. back during the time period of the Founding Fathers legislated it.
And I doubt they did legislated against it considering the fact that regular people still had to face Native Americans traveling westward, people still did a lot of their own hunting for their food and that people settled scores with duels (even Alexander Hamilton did, a FF and a big govt. guy/Federalist no less).
Are there records of any discussions relating to 2nd Amendment misapplication of gun use being allowable for regular/non-militia folk by the FF?
a well regulated (organized, commanded) armed militia was meant to cover for the absence of US govt standing army, as a defense against Indians, English, French.
The FF were not trying to give the citizens armed power as insurrectionists against the US govt the FF were struggling to form and operate.
That the 2nd Amendment was meant to used by US citizens against the US govt is one of the many perversions of the 2nd amendment that the gun fellators/NRA/gun industry own. That's the slave state secessionists still butt hurt over losing the Civil War, and as inflamed by the Repug/NRA demagogues.
Your argument doesn't hold up.
"The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country; but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person."-James Madison
The intent of the 2nd is clear.
that is not in the Cons ution's text, so it's not law. cities, states, establishments "infringed" gun carrying to increase the safety of their customers, residents throughout these 200+ years. It's only since 1977, unconvicted murderer Harlan Carter and his fellow assholes turned the NRA into gun industry marketing/propaganda dept.
I'm not arguing the infringement as that already happens. I'm arguing your claim that the 2nd was only to arm a militia, Madison makes it clear as day that was not the intent.
then he's a really Cons ution writer for not saying it clearly. your sanity here is the key item that's infringed.
I'm not the one having trouble understanding it.
The second interpretation is that the 2nd Amendment's purpose does not only refer to the state's need for security, but to individual self-defense. This argument relies on precedent in English common law and colonial history and refers to many state cons utions and court decisions that have defined the right to bear arms as an individual right.
In addition, this interpretation relies on the fact that James Madison originally proposed this amendment as an insertion into the Cons ution's Article I, Section 9, between clauses 3 and 4. This section mentions prohibitions on suspension of habeas corpus, bills of attainder and ex post facto laws. All of these are individual civil rights that are used by citizens to defend themselves against unjust government officials. All of these limit the power of the government.
Since this is where Madison believed the insertion of the 2nd Amendment should go, this interpretation says, he must have understood the right to bear arms as an individual right. If Madison had intended "the right to bear arms" only as a state right, he should have included the 2nd Amendment in Article I, Section 8, which describes Congress' military power over the militia.
All of Madison's original amendments were meant as insertions into the Cons ution and not as a list at the end. The decision to add them at the end was made by Congress after he proposed them.
Lol second interpretation
That's a problem.
Gun Owners Of America Vows To 'Openly Defy' Obama Executive Order On Guns
Larry Pratt, executive director of Gun Owners of America, said on Friday that if President Obama implements an executive order expanding background check requirements for gun dealers, his group will “make a very public effort to openly defy the law” in what he described as a national version of the armed showdown at the Bundy ranch in Nevada.
Pratt’s group has gotten some very public support recently from GOP presidential candidate Ted Cruz, who touted GOA’s endorsement in a presidential debate and recently sent a fundraising email on behalf of the group. The president of GOA also chairs Cruz’s Second Amendment Coalition.
http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/gun-owners-america-vows-openly-defy-obama-executive-order-guns
Madison was clear in his address to congress.
"The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed, and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country: but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms, shall be compelled to render military service in person."
Read more: http://www.revolutionary-war-and-bey...#ixzz3uQmOICJA
Ohio gun nut oozes white privilege as he explains his ‘right’ to terrorize black neighborhood
Daniel Kovacevic said he was just exercising his legs and his rights by strolling around a black neighborhood with a rifle strapped to his back and a pistol holstered to his belt — but Deone Slater said the armed man made him nervous.
“He could have turned around and run loose like Rambo on the building,” said Slater, who owns Kangaroo Kutz in Akron.
Ohio allows for the open carry of firearms, and both Kovacevic and legal experts said he broke no laws because he did not point either of his weapons at Slater or verbally threaten him.
Kovacevic characterized himself as a participant in a larger political struggle between personal freedom and public safety.
“Are you willing to give up your freedom and live under a government that does not respect those rights in order to keep yourself safe?” Kovacevic said. straw man!
“I walk up and down the street for exercise — it just happens that I have guns with me,” Kovacevic said.
The 25-year-old Kovacevic has been stopped by police multiple times — including a recent incident near the University of Akron — after alarmed residents called authorities and posted photos of him walking around their mostly black neighborhood.
Kovacevic said he won’t stop walking around with his guns.
“I believe that turning back is wrong and continuing forward is right,” he said. “To turn around is not only cowardly but wrong.”
The report did not indicate why Kovacevic chose that particular neighborhood for his armed strolls.
http://www.rawstory.com/2015/12/watc...e+Raw+Story%29
gun fellators, a bunch less paranoid sickos
blatant harassment of non-white no-Euro-American non-males
Indian-American woman visited by police after asking to buy AR-15 ammo at ’s Sporting Goods
An Indian-American woman said she was questioned by California police after she asked to buy some ammunition for her AR-15 rifle.
Sim Sangha, a 24-year-old firearms instructor from Fremont, asked an employee of ’s Sporting Goods about buying eight boxes of ammunition for her military-style rifle, reported KNTV-TV.
Two days later, police visited her home for questioning after that store employee alerted them.
“I don’t know if it’s my skin color or that I’m Indian,” Sangha said. “I’m not a Muslim, but even if I were, that’s no reason to call police to my home, instantly.”
Sangha, who is preparing to join the Los Angeles Police Department, did not buy ammunition for her rifle — which is the same type of weapon used by a Muslim couple earlier this month to kill 14 co-workers and wound 17 others in San Bernardino.
She only bought an exercise mask at the sporting goods store, and she believes she was racially profiled.
“They singled me out because of the way I look,” Sangha said. “I’ve had friends buy bulk ammo, and they’ve never had police show up at their door.”
http://www.rawstory.com/2015/12/indi...e+Raw+Story%29
White man gotta keep the non-whites oppressed.
so Madison is cool with the general populace keeping and bearing nuclear arms. Neat.
It also sounds like he would be a draft dodger.
If that's what it was meant for exclusively then why wasn't dueling outlawed until 1839? Why were people allowed to hunt using guns? Especially given the former, by implication the FF intended for regular people to be allowed to self-arm, without regard for type/nationality of enemy (foreign, native or themselves) or standing army. No one's been able to produce any evidence that the FF had a problem with that, and I take it that it's because they saw it as being consistent with their intent.
Instead of grasping at straws with arguing interpretation, why not just argue for the repeal or changing/narrowing of the 2nd Amendment?
You don't do that because you don't have balls.
I got more balls than you less rigthwingnut gun fellators can only dream about.
the 2nd Amendment is untouchable. America is too polarized by the VRWC/Repugs/Christian Taliban for ANY Cons utional changes.
the 17-year ban on fed going gun violence research looks to be extended for at least an 18th year, etc, etc, thanks to you gun fellators and your hands dripping with blood from World Champion (premier league) gun violence.
It is untouchable when arguments against it don't have a basis in reality. Even if arguments based on reality wouldn't fair much or any better or worse with people, at least you can argue it without tucking your balls b/w your legs.
Yeah lousy interpretation is exactly why the 2nd Amendment needs to be changed.
But the NRA is scared ball-less to have any of that.
Agreed on the lousy interpretation. It should rewritten to read exactly how Madison proposed it in his speech to congress.
They just won a war against a tyrannical government of course the FF were giving the citizens armed power in case it were to happen in the states.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
