2nd Amendment....

Homesteading & Country Living Forum

Help Support Homesteading & Country Living Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Nice...!!
 
Libtards heads explode in 3, 2, 1...:drinking:

:smilie flag::tank:
 
Awesome Penn & Teller bit!
:wink::wink::wink::wink::wink:
 
Unfortunately, as much as I like the "bit," I don't agree with them believing that the "militia" is a foe of the "people." The militia IS the people, and it needs to exist to fend off a government military and/or a tyrannical government.

Here's a pretty decent read on how the 2A breaks down. It gets in the weeds a bit, but it still spells out the 2A in plain English.
https://www.lectlaw.com/files/gun01.htm
 
aDave said:
Unfortunately, as much as I like the "bit," I don't agree with them believing that the "militia" is a foe of the "people." The militia IS the people, and it needs to exist to fend off a government military and/or a tyrannical government.

Here's a pretty decent read on how the 2A breaks down. It gets in the weeds a bit, but it still spells out the 2A in plain English.
https://www.lectlaw.com/files/gun01.htm
Click to expand...

SORRY !........
But you are WRONG...........
The Militia is our citizen soldiers; ie, The nation's guard's & reserves............
 
303tom said:
SORRY !........
But you are WRONG...........
The Militia is our citizen soldiers; ie, The nation's guard's & reserves............
Click to expand...
If you're saying the militia, as referenced in the 2A is the National Guard and military reserves, I respectfully disagree. If you mean something else, then I have a hard time figuring how I was mistaken with my first post. Two citations from the website I linked (emphasis added):

"George Mason, one of the Virginians who refused to sign the Constitution because it lacked a Bill of Rights, said: "Who are the Militia? They consist now of the whole people." Likewise, the Federal Farmer, one of the most important Anti-Federalist opponents of the Constitution, referred to a "militia, when properly formed, [as] in fact the people themselves." The list goes on and on."

"It is also important to note that the Framers' chose to use the indefinite article "a" to refer to the militia, rather than the definite article "the." This choice suggests that the Framers were not referring to any particular well regulated militia but, instead, only to the concept that well regulated militias, made up of citizens bearing arms, were necessary to secure a free State."

 
The purpose of 2A is to guarantee that THE COMMON PEOPLE of future generations would be able to do what the Founders did,
which was to take up arms against their own government.

That is precisely why "militia" does not refer to National Guard, etc.

I have great respect for the Guard and many friends in it, but the Guard is under the authority of the state governor (usually).
The Guard is an instrument of the government against which 2A intends to enable the people to rebel.

Please understand: I am NOT saying that we need to rebel against our government at this time!
I am simply saying that the Founders gave us 2A so that we could.
 
aDave said:
If you're saying the militia, as referenced in the 2A is the National Guard and military reserves, I respectfully disagree. If you mean something else, then I have a hard time figuring how I was mistaken with my first post. Two citations from the website I linked (emphasis added):

"George Mason, one of the Virginians who refused to sign the Constitution because it lacked a Bill of Rights, said: "Who are the Militia? They consist now of the whole people." Likewise, the Federal Farmer, one of the most important Anti-Federalist opponents of the Constitution, referred to a "militia, when properly formed, [as] in fact the people themselves." The list goes on and on."

"It is also important to note that the Framers' chose to use the indefinite article "a" to refer to the militia, rather than the definite article "the." This choice suggests that the Framers were not referring to any particular well regulated militia but, instead, only to the concept that well regulated militias, made up of citizens bearing arms, were necessary to secure a free State."
Click to expand...

What I read sounds like a bunch of Lawyer mumbo jumbo to me that anybody could make up !................Words are like numbers, if you put em together right you pretty much get the answer you want. (emphasis on YOU want)
 
303tom said:
What I read sounds like a bunch of Lawyer mumbo jumbo to me that anybody could make up !................Words are like numbers, if you put em together right you pretty much get the answer you want. (emphasis on YOU want)
Click to expand...
Hmmm. Was George Mason a lawyer? I don't know...maybe he was. The quote attributed to George Mason is seemingly pretty accurate. (The quote specific is the fourth one from the top on the linked page below).

http://econfaculty.gmu.edu/wew/quotes/arms.html

I really didn't want to drag this out, but I'll be bold enough to say you're flat out wrong. If you believe the Militia is the National Guard, you're taking the stance that most anti-gunners try to argue in an effort to disarm the populace. The National Guard would be considered by the Framers, IMHO, as a standing army for which the citizen militia exists to guard against.
 
aDave said:
If you believe the Militia is the National Guard, you're taking the stance that most anti-gunners try to argue in an effort to disarm the populace. The National Guard would be considered by the Framers, IMHO, as a standing army for which the citizen militia exists to guard against.
Click to expand...
^^^ This
As I recall Ted Kennedy said the 2A gives us/you the right to be armed IF you are in the army..... He was wrong!
 
303tom said:
SORRY !........
But you are WRONG...........
The Militia is our citizen soldiers; ie, The nation's guard's & reserves............
Click to expand...

Ahem. 303tom needs to do some reading of the Federalist Papers.



It was correctly posted by aDave:

aDave said:
If you're saying the militia, as referenced in the 2A is the National Guard and military reserves, I respectfully disagree. If you mean something else, then I have a hard time figuring how I was mistaken with my first post. Two citations from the website I linked (emphasis added):

"George Mason, one of the Virginians who refused to sign the Constitution because it lacked a Bill of Rights, said: "Who are the Militia? They consist now of the whole people." Likewise, the Federal Farmer, one of the most important Anti-Federalist opponents of the Constitution, referred to a "militia, when properly formed, [as] in fact the people themselves." The list goes on and on."

"It is also important to note that the Framers' chose to use the indefinite article "a" to refer to the militia, rather than the definite article "the." This choice suggests that the Framers were not referring to any particular well regulated militia but, instead, only to the concept that well regulated militias, made up of citizens bearing arms, were necessary to secure a free State."
Click to expand...



Here it is, straight from the horse's mouth:

"I ask, Sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them."
George Mason
Co-author of the Second Amendment
during Virginia's Convention to Ratify the Constitution, 1788

Mr. Mason WROTE IT! He of all people should know what it means.
 
Ten ese said:
I ask, Sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them."
George Mason
Co-author of the Second Amendment
during Virginia's Convention to Ratify the Constitution, 1788

Mr. Mason WROTE IT! He of all people should know what it means.
Click to expand...

So that means the Federal Government HAS the right to Regulate the Militia/Peoples RIGHT to keep and bear arms ?...................
 
That isn't what "that" means, 303. The entirety of the Bill of Rights refers to individual rights, except for the 10th, which is about the states too. There seems to be a problem in informal logic with the application of what could be called the Exclusionary Rule. It is a fallacy. Expressing things to be included in a statement - or in a Bill of Rights - does not automatically exclude all or even any of the things not expressly included. That's one reason why SCOTUS has to mess around debating intent. What is expressly excluded is the notion that the Bill of Rights grants the government rights
 
VThillman said:
That isn't what "that" means, 303. The entirety of the Bill of Rights refers to individual rights, except for the 10th, which is about the states too. There seems to be a problem in informal logic with the application of what could be called the Exclusionary Rule. It is a fallacy. Expressing things to be included in a statement - or in a Bill of Rights - does not automatically exclude all or even any of the things not expressly included. That's one reason why SCOTUS has to mess around debating intent. What is expressly excluded is the notion that the Bill of Rights grants the government rights
Click to expand...

Then would you fracking explain it to ME any better than Penn Fraser Jillette & Raymond Joseph Teller did !.....................
 
303tom said:
Then would you fracking explain it to ME any better than Penn Fraser Jillette & Raymond Joseph Teller did !.....................
Click to expand...

I don't think I can, in this environment. At the kitchen table, with coffee mugs in front of us (maybe a bit of 'brainlube' in my coffee), I'm pretty sure I could get my points across. Like I told my friends on that other forum-now-defunct, the Constitution ain't rocket science.
 
VThillman said:
I don't think I can, in this environment. At the kitchen table, with coffee mugs in front of us (maybe a bit of 'brainlube' in my coffee), I'm pretty sure I could get my points across. Like I told my friends on that other forum-now-defunct, the Constitution ain't rocket science.
Click to expand...

Yeah and like I told aDave......Words are like numbers, if you put em together right you pretty much get the answer you want. (emphasis on YOU want)
 
303tom said:
So that means the Federal Government HAS the right to Regulate the Militia/Peoples RIGHT to keep and bear arms ?...................
Click to expand...
Actually, no. "Well regulated," as used back in the day, does not mean what you seem to think it does. It has nothing to do with regulations (being bound by rules imposed by a government). Instead, "well regulated" was used to describe something that was organized/prepared/properly functioning. And remember, the Bill of Rights, and in this case specifically, the 2A, describes the rights that the People (naturally) have. It does not give government any rights at all.

303tom said:
Then would you fracking explain it to ME any better than Penn Fraser Jillette & Raymond Joseph Teller did !.....................
Click to expand...
Notwithstanding that the Penn & Teller bit is wrong with their interpretation IMHO, like explained above by @VThillman , you're probably not going to get something that quick. However, what I will offer are two short videos (under 12 minutes total) that I think will answer the questions you have. Regards.



 
Last edited by a moderator:
aDave said:
If you believe the Militia is the National Guard, you're taking the stance that most anti-gunners try to argue in an effort to disarm the populace. The National Guard would be considered by the Framers, IMHO, as a standing army for which the citizen militia exists to guard against.
Click to expand...

EXACTLY! The Founders would have viewed the Guard as a standing army, against which they intended to empower the people to stand.
 
303tom said:
So that means the Federal Government HAS the right to Regulate the Militia/Peoples RIGHT to keep and bear arms ?...................
Click to expand...


No. It means the exact opposite.

aDave put it well, when he said,
"Actually, no. "Well regulated," as used back in the day, does not mean what you seem to think it does. It has nothing to do with regulations (being bound by rules imposed by a government). Instead, "well regulated" was used to describe something that was organized/prepared/properly functioning. And remember, the Bill of Rights, and in this case specifically, the 2A, describes the rights that the People (naturally) have. It does not give government any rights at all."

2A negates the government's "right" to regulate the people's right to own and bear arms.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
RevV said:
No. It means the exact opposite.

the Bill of Rights, and in this case specifically, the 2A, describes the rights that the People (naturally) have.

2A negates the government's "right" to regulate the people's right to own and bear arms.
Click to expand...

Exactly. Many people think that the 'Bill of Rights' grants us our rights. IT DOES NOT!

What it does do is tell the government that these rights WILL NOT be messed with. The rights that we have are natural and inalienable just for being born in this "Free State".

Of course 'We The People' have allowed the government to step in and regulate things where they were clearly directed not to.
 
Curmudgeon said:
Exactly. Many people think that the 'Bill of Rights' grants us our rights. IT DOES NOT!

What it does do is tell the government that these rights WILL NOT be messed with. The rights that we have are natural and inalienable just for being born in this "Free State".

Of course 'We The People' have allowed the government to step in and regulate things where they were clearly directed not to.
Click to expand...

Quoted for truth! It's gonna be difficult to undo the errors we made allowing government to assume powers they should not, by law, have. It'll be a cold day in hell before the gov gives up those powers without being forced to. I don't see a plausible way to fix what we allowed to happen. The end of a book about consequences I've read was extremely optimistic about the end result but the only thing without widespread unrest that has a chance in hell of being plausible. Damn shame what the past couple generations and mine have allowed to transpire.
 
It is at least theoretically possible to remove those errors in a short series of 'fell swoops' on SCOTUS. We only have to convince a majority of Justices that those faulty precedents are indeed faulty. If Trump can pull his head out of his butt long enough to help his country instead of his cronies, that could happen.
 
VThillman said:
It is at least theoretically possible to remove those errors in a short series of 'fell swoops' on SCOTUS. We only have to convince a majority of Justices that those faulty precedents are indeed faulty. If Trump can pull his head out of his butt long enough to help his country instead of his cronies, that could happen.
Click to expand...

Winning in the courts without force is a dream that will never happen. Gov will never let it happen. Either party. Both parties have the same goal. And it's not our individual liberty. But keep on waiting for a politician to come along and put our individual liberty ahead of their own agendas if that is what you feel will help. I don't have a different answer that will work either.
 
CrackbottomLouis said:
Winning in the courts without force is a dream that will never happen. Gov will never let it happen. Either party. Both parties have the same goal. And it's not our individual liberty. But keep on waiting for a politician to come along and put our individual liberty ahead of their own agendas if that is what you feel will help. I don't have a different answer that will work either.
Click to expand...

No politician. I'm looking for a genuine patriot with sufficient pull. Looking, not finding.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Back
Top