Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 … 10

 

2007-12-18 12:39:14
IRONCHEF
Member
+385|6928|Northern California

sergeriver wrote:

Let's take a look at the Senate version, the original thing:

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

A well regulated militia: what did they mean by regulated, and what did they mean by militia? [red] What do you think it means by regulated?  If you said the words "a well regulated militia" referring to the local Argentine militia, what do you think it means?  Could it mean well supplied?  Could it mean well trained?  And what do you think "militia" means?  Could it mean an "organized body" or a group of people organized for combat purposes?  Dumb questions Serge.[/red]

","

being necessary to the security of a free state: the security of a free state against who?  Maybe the English? [red]Does it matter who the security is against?  No.  The topic is protection from infringement..not who a potential attacker of the state is within or without.  [/red]

","

the right of the people to keep and bear Arms: could it be that they were making reference to that militia and not the individuals having firearms?[red] The militia is not getting the protection, the people are who supply the militia with arms since it couldn't supply them..they were poor colonists and since they already had their own weapons for hunting, self defense, whatever...they are getting the protection.   It is known that the state could not supply each militia member with weapons whenever they were called up so each citizen could help regulate that militia (keep it nicely stocked) with the arms they brought...kinda like a "BYOA" (bring your own arms) thing.[/red]

","

shall not be infringed: what thing shall not be infringed?  What if they meant having a militia, to protect the new free state from the English?
[red]what shall not be infringed???  read the friggen thing..the keeping and bearing of arms..and before you ask, arms are not appendages but WEAPONS/GUNS/RIFLES/PISTOLS/SIDEARMS/FLINTLOCKS etc.  The purpose for mentioning the militia is as it reads...that in order to have a well regulated militia, for the protection of the state..[/red]
damn, what are the tags for color? lol

Last edited by IRONCHEF (2007-12-18 12:39:32)

2007-12-18 12:46:13
Pug
UR father's brother's nephew's former roommate
+652|6979|Texas - Bigger than France

sergeriver wrote:

I don't ignore the context.  But you seem to forget this was written more than 200 years ago, and at the time the US was a new state, and maybe, just maybe, the writters wanted to protect the new state from the English rule.  Maybe they didn't want every single citizen having a firearm for that.  Just a militia or Armed Forces.
Define militia & Armed Forces....back then.  And you will see nothing has changed.
2007-12-18 12:49:27
KEN-JENNINGS
I am all that is MOD!
+2,991|7069|949

IRONCHEF wrote:

sergeriver wrote:

Let's take a look at the Senate version, the original thing:

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

A well regulated militia: what did they mean by regulated, and what did they mean by militia? What do you think it means by regulated?  If you said the words "a well regulated militia" referring to the local Argentine militia, what do you think it means?  Could it mean well supplied?  Could it mean well trained?  And what do you think "militia" means?  Could it mean an "organized body" or a group of people organized for combat purposes?  Dumb questions Serge.

","

being necessary to the security of a free state: the security of a free state against who?  Maybe the English? Does it matter who the security is against?  No.  The topic is protection from infringement..not who a potential attacker of the state is within or without. 

","

the right of the people to keep and bear Arms: could it be that they were making reference to that militia and not the individuals having firearms? The militia is not getting the protection, the people are who supply the militia with arms since it couldn't supply them..they were poor colonists and since they already had their own weapons for hunting, self defense, whatever...they are getting the protection.   It is known that the state could not supply each militia member with weapons whenever they were called up so each citizen could help regulate that militia (keep it nicely stocked) with the arms they brought...kinda like a "BYOA" (bring your own arms) thing.

","

shall not be infringed: what thing shall not be infringed?  What if they meant having a militia, to protect the new free state from the English?
what shall not be infringed???  read the friggen thing..the keeping and bearing of arms..and before you ask, arms are not appendages but WEAPONS/GUNS/RIFLES/PISTOLS/SIDEARMS/FLINTLOCKS etc.  The purpose for mentioning the militia is as it reads...that in order to have a well regulated militia, for the protection of the state..
damn, what are the tags for color? lol
See what I did there?

Last edited by KEN-JENNINGS (2007-12-18 12:50:24)

2007-12-18 13:20:23
apollo_fi
The Flying Kalakukko.
+94|6968|The lunar module

Pug wrote:

sergeriver wrote:

I don't ignore the context.  But you seem to forget this was written more than 200 years ago, and at the time the US was a new state, and maybe, just maybe, the writters wanted to protect the new state from the English rule.  Maybe they didn't want every single citizen having a firearm for that.  Just a militia or Armed Forces.
Define militia & Armed Forces....back then.  And you will see nothing has changed.
Back then, the word 'Militia' did have a slightly different ring to it:

'During the American Revolution, the militia provided the bulk of the American forces as well as a pool for recruiting or drafting of regulars. The militia played a similar role in the War of 1812 and the American Civil War.'

http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9052682/militia
2007-12-18 13:26:04
KEN-JENNINGS
I am all that is MOD!
+2,991|7069|949

sergeriver wrote:

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

Personally, I believe the authors of the Constitution were intending to create a civil right guaranteeing that the citizens of the United States would not be without weapons to fight off a corrupt and/or expansionist regime threatening the citizens' life and livelihood.  However, I do believe that this right needs to be heavily regulated.  I see no need for the average American to own an AR-15.  There are special circumstances where it could be needed, but that should be an exception to the rule as far as I am concerned.
Source

Our main man USM asking a similar question.
I saw that, but I present a punctuation issue too.  And regarding your last statement, about the civil right guaranteeing the freedom to fight with guns a corrupted regime, I think you have the separation of powers for that.  What are the Congress and the Supreme Court for?  If a president exceeds his power and violates the citizens rights, you can impeach him and remove him.  You don't need to shoot him.
We also have various ambiguous laws that give extreme amounts of power to the President and Congress in times of crisis.  History can show how easily many dictators and tyrants have risen to power in a democratic society.  Sure, it is an event that would only have a small probability of happening, but it (corrupt regimes/tyrants) has happened before, and most definitely will happen again.

Federal militias (USMC, US Army, etc) were explicitly created by the Continental Congress (despite the beliefs and distrust many founding principles had of standing armies), and constantly expanded by Congress, with little to no reference to the 2nd Amendment.  In fact, the Constitution was ratified AFTER the creation of these armed forces.

All we can go off in trying to figure out 'what it all really means' is to study the discourse between the founding principles and interpretation through the courts.

Last edited by KEN-JENNINGS (2007-12-18 13:29:43)

2007-12-18 13:32:01
Hurricane
Banned
+1,153|7067|Washington, DC

I think this was the best definition of the 2nd Amendment... can't remember it verbatim:

The 2nd Amendment is the "Reset button" built into the Constitution for when the government gets a little too tyrannical.
2007-12-18 13:58:04
IRONCHEF
Member
+385|6928|Northern California

Hurricane wrote:

I think this was the best definition of the 2nd Amendment... can't remember it verbatim:

The 2nd Amendment is the "Reset button" built into the Constitution for when the government gets a little too tyrannical.
Exactly.  The failsafe.  But unfortunately, it would never work.  THis government is in too many pockets, in too many special interests, runs the unconstitutional military, somehow usurps power over state military (national guard), and all of our legal guns are registered and grossly limited in type (at least in california, illinois, new york and some other states)...so we could NEVER "reset" our government.  It's too big and powerful and we'd never withstand it...so we're pretty much in the 1700's again...1200's actually without habeas corpus.  But hey, we have American Idol and Taco Bell, so what's to complain about?
2007-12-18 14:07:32
Hurricane
Banned
+1,153|7067|Washington, DC

IRONCHEF wrote:

Hurricane wrote:

I think this was the best definition of the 2nd Amendment... can't remember it verbatim:

The 2nd Amendment is the "Reset button" built into the Constitution for when the government gets a little too tyrannical.
Exactly.  The failsafe.  But unfortunately, it would never work.  THis government is in too many pockets, in too many special interests, runs the unconstitutional military, somehow usurps power over state military (national guard), and all of our legal guns are registered and grossly limited in type (at least in california, illinois, new york and some other states)...so we could NEVER "reset" our government.  It's too big and powerful and we'd never withstand it...so we're pretty much in the 1700's again...1200's actually without habeas corpus.  But hey, we have American Idol and Taco Bell, so what's to complain about?
Surely if the military's leaders and forces did not agree with the government, they could not be ordered around? Military power didn't seem to phase the South when it seceded.

edit: By a reset, I mean a tyrannical government which only works in the interest of the select few at its very head. Not a small group of anarchists or secessionists from Vermont.

Last edited by Hurricane (2007-12-18 14:08:42)

2007-12-18 14:09:27
IRONCHEF
Member
+385|6928|Northern California

sergeriver wrote:

I don't ignore the context.  But you seem to forget this was written more than 200 years ago, and at the time the US was a new state, and maybe, just maybe, the writters wanted to protect the new state from the English rule.
Are you suggesting that maybe the 2A was "ONLY" meant to protect citizen/militia members' right to keep and bear arms during conflicts with England, and since that threat is no longer there, the 2A's protection of owning and using weapons is gone?

I think you're really reaching now.
2007-12-18 14:19:59
sergeriver
Cowboy from Hell
+1,928|7194|Argentina

Hurricane wrote:

I think this was the best definition of the 2nd Amendment... can't remember it verbatim:

The 2nd Amendment is the "Reset button" built into the Constitution for when the government gets a little too tyrannical.
Isn't the purpose of the separation of powers to protect people from a tyrannical or corrupted regime?

Edit: btw, what would armed civilians do against the Armed Forces responding to a tyrannical or corrupted regime?  I tellya, they would get shot.

Last edited by sergeriver (2007-12-18 14:24:56)

2007-12-18 14:22:44
sergeriver
Cowboy from Hell
+1,928|7194|Argentina

IRONCHEF wrote:

sergeriver wrote:

I don't ignore the context.  But you seem to forget this was written more than 200 years ago, and at the time the US was a new state, and maybe, just maybe, the writters wanted to protect the new state from the English rule.
Are you suggesting that maybe the 2A was "ONLY" meant to protect citizen/militia members' right to keep and bear arms during conflicts with England, and since that threat is no longer there, the 2A's protection of owning and using weapons is gone?

I think you're really reaching now.
Easy pal, I don't want to take your guns away, I just made a different interpretation than yours.  I don't think you guys are ready to live without weapons.  It's just a debate about what the writters meant.  That's all buddy.
2007-12-18 14:27:29
Hurricane
Banned
+1,153|7067|Washington, DC

sergeriver wrote:

Hurricane wrote:

I think this was the best definition of the 2nd Amendment... can't remember it verbatim:

The 2nd Amendment is the "Reset button" built into the Constitution for when the government gets a little too tyrannical.
Isn't the purpose of the separation of powers to protect people from a tyrannical or corrupted regime?

Edit: btw, what would armed civilians do against the Armed Forces responding to a tyrannical or corrupted regime?  I tellya, they would get shot.
Again, look at the Civil War. It was all a union, with one unified military (well, different branches but you get what I'm saying). Then South Carolina decides to secede, and pretty soon the rest of the South secedes. Taking their military with them.

Same thing would happen now, sort of. I'd think it'd be more of a "supporters of the government" vs. "opponents of the government" rather than North vs. South, but that's what I am getting at.

But yes, a town rebellion against our current military would be easily crushed.

edit: Yeah, the separation of powers are SUPPOSED to do that... but just look at our current administration! Not corrupt like some 3rd world countries, but it isn't exactly a clean operation.

Last edited by Hurricane (2007-12-18 14:28:19)

2007-12-18 14:29:45
KEN-JENNINGS
I am all that is MOD!
+2,991|7069|949

sergeriver wrote:

Hurricane wrote:

I think this was the best definition of the 2nd Amendment... can't remember it verbatim:

The 2nd Amendment is the "Reset button" built into the Constitution for when the government gets a little too tyrannical.
Isn't the purpose of the separation of powers to protect people from a tyrannical or corrupted regime?

Edit: btw, what would armed civilians do against the Armed Forces responding to a tyrannical or corrupted regime?  I tellya, they would get shot.
Separation of Powers doesn't always work, as I thought I elocuted.

If the Armed Forces fired directly on the citizens at large (which would be a stretch), yes, people would get shot.  As long as we are doing the what ifs, what if the Armed Forces killed everyone?  Then there would be no use for a corrupt or tyrannical regime, because there would be no one to rule over.

I like this game, think of another.
2007-12-18 14:44:51
Dersmikner
Member
+147|6935|Texas
Here's a true story that will give you a better appreciation of the 2nd Amendment:

In 1999 I moved to a ranch outside a tiny little town in Texas about an hour and a half South of Dallas. 399 acres. Sweet place. It has 7 stock tanks, one of which is 3 acres and is used for our water supply. There's a huge filter setup and so on and so forth. In the event the power goes out, there are generators.

When I was signing the papers the real estate agent had a little form and she said "private water supply, check... Ummm are you going to have a portable generator here?"

Of course in the country you have to have generators because the power goes out all the damned time.

I answer "yes". Then I ask "Why do you want to know?"

She said, no shit, that the Sheriff's office wanted a list of all the people moving to town who were going to have private water supplies and/or generators because if shit went haywire on 12/31/1999 they were going to confiscate the generators and clean water supplies to run government offices and the hospital and so forth.

I told her "well, I'll just buy two generators... then they can take one and I'll still be gold..." I was half-joking.

She said "if you have two, they'll take two."

So I got belligerent. I actually called the Sheriff's office to ask if this were true. Sure enough, that was the community plan. I told him it was June and that there were a thousand generators at Home Depot in Dallas and if they were afraid they'd need some they needed to drive to Dallas and buy their own fucking generators.

He said that wasn't going to happen and that if power went out in town they'd be there expecting to take my generators. I told the guy flat out, no bullshit, "if you come down my road to take MY generator, you better bring a bigger gun than I have because you aren't getting the motherfucker."

Now, nothing happened, and they never came for my shit, but I guaran-goddamned-tee you that they'd think twice about stealing my shit knowing I have a gun whereas if we were all unarmed they'd take whatever the hell they wanted and not as much as say thanks.

High ideals and well-crafted legislation never stopped a man with bad intentions. I'll keep my gun thanks.

Last edited by Dersmikner (2007-12-18 14:47:54)

2007-12-18 14:54:59
IRONCHEF
Member
+385|6928|Northern California

sergeriver wrote:

IRONCHEF wrote:

sergeriver wrote:

I don't ignore the context.  But you seem to forget this was written more than 200 years ago, and at the time the US was a new state, and maybe, just maybe, the writters wanted to protect the new state from the English rule.
Are you suggesting that maybe the 2A was "ONLY" meant to protect citizen/militia members' right to keep and bear arms during conflicts with England, and since that threat is no longer there, the 2A's protection of owning and using weapons is gone?

I think you're really reaching now.
Easy pal, I don't want to take your guns away, I just made a different interpretation than yours.  I don't think you guys are ready to live without weapons.  It's just a debate about what the writters meant.  That's all buddy.
Watch who you call 'buddy' 'pal!" 

And hey, for what it's worth, I was actually on the side of the anti-gun lobby no less than 3 years ago!  I believed saturating American homes with guns would get people killed more.  I believed that the federal assault weapon ban lapse was bad.  I even believed selling guns and ammo at Walmart/Kmart was bad (yep, I like and still like Michael Moore).  But as I gained clarity in my older age..as I realized my paranoia was unfounded, and as I got educated about what I thought and what was real...I realized that EVERY man, woman, child (18 years old that is) should have the right to buy and keep a gun in their home, shoot it legally, and that they could get whatever type of gun they wanted..even an AK47 with 100 round drum mags.

So take your 'buddy' and YOU take it easy Mr. Man! 
2007-12-18 15:07:55
Hurricane
Banned
+1,153|7067|Washington, DC

Dersmikner wrote:

Here's a true story that will give you a better appreciation of the 2nd Amendment:

In 1999 I moved to a ranch outside a tiny little town in Texas about an hour and a half South of Dallas. 399 acres. Sweet place. It has 7 stock tanks, one of which is 3 acres and is used for our water supply. There's a huge filter setup and so on and so forth. In the event the power goes out, there are generators.

When I was signing the papers the real estate agent had a little form and she said "private water supply, check... Ummm are you going to have a portable generator here?"

Of course in the country you have to have generators because the power goes out all the damned time.

I answer "yes". Then I ask "Why do you want to know?"

She said, no shit, that the Sheriff's office wanted a list of all the people moving to town who were going to have private water supplies and/or generators because if shit went haywire on 12/31/1999 they were going to confiscate the generators and clean water supplies to run government offices and the hospital and so forth.

I told her "well, I'll just buy two generators... then they can take one and I'll still be gold..." I was half-joking.

She said "if you have two, they'll take two."

So I got belligerent. I actually called the Sheriff's office to ask if this were true. Sure enough, that was the community plan. I told him it was June and that there were a thousand generators at Home Depot in Dallas and if they were afraid they'd need some they needed to drive to Dallas and buy their own fucking generators.

He said that wasn't going to happen and that if power went out in town they'd be there expecting to take my generators. I told the guy flat out, no bullshit, "if you come down my road to take MY generator, you better bring a bigger gun than I have because you aren't getting the motherfucker."

Now, nothing happened, and they never came for my shit, but I guaran-goddamned-tee you that they'd think twice about stealing my shit knowing I have a gun whereas if we were all unarmed they'd take whatever the hell they wanted and not as much as say thanks.

High ideals and well-crafted legislation never stopped a man with bad intentions. I'll keep my gun thanks.
Uh, good on ya for standing your ground and all, but isn't it a little extreme threatening someone (you implied it) over a generator? Y2K was baloney.

edit: Yes, I was just as "omgwtf" as everyone else was hearing all the Y2K brouhaha back then

Last edited by Hurricane (2007-12-18 15:08:19)

2007-12-18 15:09:24
sergeriver
Cowboy from Hell
+1,928|7194|Argentina

Dersmikner wrote:

Here's a true story that will give you a better appreciation of the 2nd Amendment:

In 1999 I moved to a ranch outside a tiny little town in Texas about an hour and a half South of Dallas. 399 acres. Sweet place. It has 7 stock tanks, one of which is 3 acres and is used for our water supply. There's a huge filter setup and so on and so forth. In the event the power goes out, there are generators.

When I was signing the papers the real estate agent had a little form and she said "private water supply, check... Ummm are you going to have a portable generator here?"

Of course in the country you have to have generators because the power goes out all the damned time.

I answer "yes". Then I ask "Why do you want to know?"

She said, no shit, that the Sheriff's office wanted a list of all the people moving to town who were going to have private water supplies and/or generators because if shit went haywire on 12/31/1999 they were going to confiscate the generators and clean water supplies to run government offices and the hospital and so forth.

I told her "well, I'll just buy two generators... then they can take one and I'll still be gold..." I was half-joking.

She said "if you have two, they'll take two."

So I got belligerent. I actually called the Sheriff's office to ask if this were true. Sure enough, that was the community plan. I told him it was June and that there were a thousand generators at Home Depot in Dallas and if they were afraid they'd need some they needed to drive to Dallas and buy their own fucking generators.

He said that wasn't going to happen and that if power went out in town they'd be there expecting to take my generators. I told the guy flat out, no bullshit, "if you come down my road to take MY generator, you better bring a bigger gun than I have because you aren't getting the motherfucker."

Now, nothing happened, and they never came for my shit, but I guaran-goddamned-tee you that they'd think twice about stealing my shit knowing I have a gun whereas if we were all unarmed they'd take whatever the hell they wanted and not as much as say thanks.

High ideals and well-crafted legislation never stopped a man with bad intentions. I'll keep my gun thanks.
Wow, are you serious?  Damnit.  I guess that sheriff deserved to be shot, lol.
2007-12-18 15:10:51
sergeriver
Cowboy from Hell
+1,928|7194|Argentina

IRONCHEF wrote:

sergeriver wrote:

IRONCHEF wrote:


Are you suggesting that maybe the 2A was "ONLY" meant to protect citizen/militia members' right to keep and bear arms during conflicts with England, and since that threat is no longer there, the 2A's protection of owning and using weapons is gone?

I think you're really reaching now.
Easy pal, I don't want to take your guns away, I just made a different interpretation than yours.  I don't think you guys are ready to live without weapons.  It's just a debate about what the writters meant.  That's all buddy.
Watch who you call 'buddy' 'pal!" 

And hey, for what it's worth, I was actually on the side of the anti-gun lobby no less than 3 years ago!  I believed saturating American homes with guns would get people killed more.  I believed that the federal assault weapon ban lapse was bad.  I even believed selling guns and ammo at Walmart/Kmart was bad (yep, I like and still like Michael Moore).  But as I gained clarity in my older age..as I realized my paranoia was unfounded, and as I got educated about what I thought and what was real...I realized that EVERY man, woman, child (18 years old that is) should have the right to buy and keep a gun in their home, shoot it legally, and that they could get whatever type of gun they wanted..even an AK47 with 100 round drum mags.

So take your 'buddy' and YOU take it easy Mr. Man! 
You know you are one of my favs (even if you are a Religious nutjob).
2007-12-18 15:27:57
IRONCHEF
Member
+385|6928|Northern California
And you, mine; even though yer a godless heathen with bad breath.    Toodles.
2007-12-18 15:33:15
PZmohax01
Banned
+13|6414|St.Petersburg, Russia

IRONCHEF wrote:

AK47 with 100 round drum mags.
lol
2007-12-18 15:37:34
IRONCHEF
Member
+385|6928|Northern California

PZmohax01 wrote:

IRONCHEF wrote:

AK47 with 100 round drum mags.
lol
Ok my rusky friend, would you prefer this with a 5 round stripper clip?
2007-12-18 15:45:07
PZmohax01
Banned
+13|6414|St.Petersburg, Russia

IRONCHEF wrote:

PZmohax01 wrote:

IRONCHEF wrote:

AK47 with 100 round drum mags.
lol
Ok my rusky friend, would you prefer this with a 5 round stripper clip?
https://img91.imageshack.us/img91/8950/grozaew2.th.jpg

Thank you for taking care of me but I prefer this to Mosin rifle
2007-12-18 15:50:47
PZmohax01
Banned
+13|6414|St.Petersburg, Russia
P.S. I said LOL because a week before I tried to push a RPK 45 bullets clip into AKS 74 and I succeeded but I doubt about drum mag

Last edited by PZmohax01 (2007-12-18 15:51:08)

2007-12-18 16:50:37
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6842|North Carolina
I'll put it this way...  Technically, the OP is right that the amendment really only refers to militias and such.

However, that doesn't mean that I'm in any hurry to let the government take away my gun rights....
2007-12-18 17:30:25
ReTox
Member
+100|6936|State of RETOXification
I'm not American so hopefully my point of view will be taken as such, an outsider's point of view and not an attack on "American Freedom" as some of the posts here seem to think or imply.

The biggest, and arguably the most debatable, point that needs to be considered is that the amendment was never meant to include weapons like Uzis, 50 Caliber Sniper rifles, and other advanced weapon systems because they didn't exist.  Yes it may be legal to own them now, with the proper permit, but I'm sure those who wrote the amendment never envisioned that kind of weaponry otherwise it may have been a much different entry.

 

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 … 10

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2025 Jeff Minard