Second Amendment is the least understood...

Second Amendment is the least understood...
by DevilDog21
...part of the constitution. The founding fathers did not believe in
having a standing army and felt that citizens should be called on to
defend the nation when necessary. In that scenario, of course
allowing the citizenry to keep and bear arms was essential. Since we
DO have a standing military force, the amendment is actually moot. I
do believe in allowing hunters their shotguns and sport rifles.
Handguns, assault weapons and ammo capable of penetrating an inch of
steel are not necessary, nor protected (IMHO) by the constitution
and should be banned.
If you're a collector, collect non-firing versions of these weapons
or join the military where you can fire them.
Freedom, morals, honesty, pride, truth, fairness, equality....is all good.
Too bad none that claim to be conservative are any of these.
Just a bunch of loud mouth dip-shits that have no idea what their
representatives are up to or doing. OMG if they only knew.
Obama and democrats had better take care of this rw media we have
now. Should be in the top 10 things to do.

The Second Amendment says nothing about hunters or hunting. The
stated purpose of the Second Amendment is to preserve a free state
The Supremes have already ruled in US vs Miller that the Second
Amendment only protects the right of the people to keep and bear arms
suitabe for military use.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0307_0174_ZS.ht
ml

The USSC in Miller only decided two things:

Was Section II of the 1934 NFA an infringement on the Second Amendment?

No, as they had insufficient evidence to support the lower court's
ruling. Part of that insufficient evidence was needed to support the
sawed off shotgun as being part of militia use.

Was the 1934 NFA a federal grab of what should be a state police power?

No.

Reversed and remanded.

However, if you still think that you are correct, I would expect you to
assist me in getting my M16.

--
Sleep well tonight.........RD (The Sandman)

http://home.comcast.net/~rdsandman

"Be who you are and say what you feel...Because those that
matter...don't mind...And those that mind...don't matter."

r wiley

2008-11-13 22:05:21 UTC

Second Amendment is the least understood...
by DevilDog21
...part of the constitution. The founding fathers did not believe in
having a standing army and felt that citizens should be called on to
defend the nation when necessary. In that scenario, of course
allowing the citizenry to keep and bear arms was essential. Since we
DO have a standing military force, the amendment is actually moot. I
do believe in allowing hunters their shotguns and sport rifles.
Handguns, assault weapons and ammo capable of penetrating an inch of
steel are not necessary, nor protected (IMHO) by the constitution
and should be banned.
If you're a collector, collect non-firing versions of these weapons
or join the military where you can fire them.
Freedom, morals, honesty, pride, truth, fairness, equality....is all good.
Too bad none that claim to be conservative are any of these.
Just a bunch of loud mouth dip-shits that have no idea what their
representatives are up to or doing. OMG if they only knew.
Obama and democrats had better take care of this rw media we have
now. Should be in the top 10 things to do.

The Second Amendment says nothing about hunters or hunting. The
stated purpose of the Second Amendment is to preserve a free state
The Supremes have already ruled in US vs Miller that the Second
Amendment only protects the right of the people to keep and bear arms
suitable for military use.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0307_0174_ZS.ht
ml

Was Section II of the 1934 NFA an infringement on the Second Amendment?
No, as they had insufficient evidence to support the lower court's
ruling. Part of that insufficient evidence was needed to support the
sawed off shotgun as being part of militia use.
Was the 1934 NFA a federal grab of what should be a state police power?
No.
Reversed and remanded.
However, if you still think that you are correct, I would expect you to
assist me in getting my M16.

Obtain your AR15 promptly. The 1994 Clinton round of infringements on
the right of the people to keep and bear arms will probably be reenacted
soon, and without a sunset clause this time.

You should have no trouble googling up instructions on converting to M16
spec.

rw

RD (The Sandman)

2008-11-13 22:18:41 UTC

Second Amendment is the least understood...
by DevilDog21
...part of the constitution. The founding fathers did not believe
in having a standing army and felt that citizens should be called
on to defend the nation when necessary. In that scenario, of
course allowing the citizenry to keep and bear arms was essential.
Since we DO have a standing military force, the amendment is
actually moot. I do believe in allowing hunters their shotguns and
sport rifles. Handguns, assault weapons and ammo capable of
penetrating an inch of steel are not necessary, nor protected
(IMHO) by the constitution and should be banned.
If you're a collector, collect non-firing versions of these
weapons or join the military where you can fire them.
Freedom, morals, honesty, pride, truth, fairness, equality....is all good.
Too bad none that claim to be conservative are any of these.
Just a bunch of loud mouth dip-shits that have no idea what their
representatives are up to or doing. OMG if they only knew.
Obama and democrats had better take care of this rw media we have
now. Should be in the top 10 things to do.

The Second Amendment says nothing about hunters or hunting. The
stated purpose of the Second Amendment is to preserve a free state
The Supremes have already ruled in US vs Miller that the Second
Amendment only protects the right of the people to keep and bear
arms suitable for military use.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0307_0174_ZS.
ht ml

Was Section II of the 1934 NFA an infringement on the Second
Amendment?
No, as they had insufficient evidence to support the lower court's
ruling. Part of that insufficient evidence was needed to support the
sawed off shotgun as being part of militia use.
Was the 1934 NFA a federal grab of what should be a state police power?
No.
Reversed and remanded.
However, if you still think that you are correct, I would expect you
to assist me in getting my M16.

Obtain your AR15 promptly. The 1994 Clinton round of infringements on
the right of the people to keep and bear arms will probably be
reenacted soon, and without a sunset clause this time.

There will be a sunset clause. It will be loss of Congress due to
overreaching too soon.

Post by r wiley
You should have no trouble googling up instructions on converting to
M16 spec.

Nope, I want legit M16.

tankfixer

2008-11-18 04:49:12 UTC

Second Amendment is the least understood...
by DevilDog21
...part of the constitution. The founding fathers did not believe
in having a standing army and felt that citizens should be called
on to defend the nation when necessary. In that scenario, of
course allowing the citizenry to keep and bear arms was essential.
Since we DO have a standing military force, the amendment is
actually moot. I do believe in allowing hunters their shotguns and
sport rifles. Handguns, assault weapons and ammo capable of
penetrating an inch of steel are not necessary, nor protected
(IMHO) by the constitution and should be banned.
If you're a collector, collect non-firing versions of these
weapons or join the military where you can fire them.
Freedom, morals, honesty, pride, truth, fairness, equality....is all good.
Too bad none that claim to be conservative are any of these.
Just a bunch of loud mouth dip-shits that have no idea what their
representatives are up to or doing. OMG if they only knew.
Obama and democrats had better take care of this rw media we have
now. Should be in the top 10 things to do.

The Second Amendment says nothing about hunters or hunting. The
stated purpose of the Second Amendment is to preserve a free state
The Supremes have already ruled in US vs Miller that the Second
Amendment only protects the right of the people to keep and bear
arms suitable for military use.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0307_0174_ZS.
ht ml

Obtain your AR15 promptly. The 1994 Clinton round of infringements on
the right of the people to keep and bear arms will probably be
reenacted soon, and without a sunset clause this time.

There will be a sunset clause. It will be loss of Congress due to
overreaching too soon.

Post by r wiley
You should have no trouble googling up instructions on converting to
M16 spec.

Nope, I want legit M16.

Why ?
They are over rated...

--
Meddle ye not in the Affairs of Dragons, for Thou art Crunchy and taste
Goode with Ketchup.

RD (The Sandman)

2008-11-18 17:19:36 UTC

Second Amendment is the least understood...
by DevilDog21
...part of the constitution. The founding fathers did not
believe in having a standing army and felt that citizens should
be called on to defend the nation when necessary. In that
scenario, of course allowing the citizenry to keep and bear
arms was essential. Since we DO have a standing military force,
the amendment is actually moot. I do believe in allowing
hunters their shotguns and sport rifles. Handguns, assault
weapons and ammo capable of penetrating an inch of steel are
not necessary, nor protected (IMHO) by the constitution and
should be banned.
If you're a collector, collect non-firing versions of these
weapons or join the military where you can fire them.
Freedom, morals, honesty, pride, truth, fairness,
equality....is all good.
Too bad none that claim to be conservative are any of these.
Just a bunch of loud mouth dip-shits that have no idea what
their representatives are up to or doing. OMG if they only
knew.
Obama and democrats had better take care of this rw media we
have now. Should be in the top 10 things to do.

The Second Amendment says nothing about hunters or hunting. The
stated purpose of the Second Amendment is to preserve a free
state The Supremes have already ruled in US vs Miller that the
Second Amendment only protects the right of the people to keep
and bear arms suitable for military use.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0307_0174_
ZS. ht ml

Was Section II of the 1934 NFA an infringement on the Second Amendment?
No, as they had insufficient evidence to support the lower court's
ruling. Part of that insufficient evidence was needed to support
the sawed off shotgun as being part of militia use.
Was the 1934 NFA a federal grab of what should be a state police power?
No.
Reversed and remanded.
However, if you still think that you are correct, I would expect
you to assist me in getting my M16.

Obtain your AR15 promptly. The 1994 Clinton round of infringements
on the right of the people to keep and bear arms will probably be
reenacted soon, and without a sunset clause this time.

There will be a sunset clause. It will be loss of Congress due to
overreaching too soon.

Post by r wiley
You should have no trouble googling up instructions on converting
to M16 spec.

Nope, I want legit M16.

Why ?
They are over rated...

What does that have to do with it? I just want mine. Or my M4 carbine
or M8 assault rifle. I'm not that picky. Any one of the three will do.

tankfixer

2008-11-19 02:34:08 UTC

Second Amendment is the least understood...
by DevilDog21
...part of the constitution. The founding fathers did not
believe in having a standing army and felt that citizens should
be called on to defend the nation when necessary. In that
scenario, of course allowing the citizenry to keep and bear
arms was essential. Since we DO have a standing military force,
the amendment is actually moot. I do believe in allowing
hunters their shotguns and sport rifles. Handguns, assault
weapons and ammo capable of penetrating an inch of steel are
not necessary, nor protected (IMHO) by the constitution and
should be banned.
If you're a collector, collect non-firing versions of these
weapons or join the military where you can fire them.
Freedom, morals, honesty, pride, truth, fairness,
equality....is all good.
Too bad none that claim to be conservative are any of these.
Just a bunch of loud mouth dip-shits that have no idea what
their representatives are up to or doing. OMG if they only
knew.
Obama and democrats had better take care of this rw media we
have now. Should be in the top 10 things to do.

The Second Amendment says nothing about hunters or hunting. The
stated purpose of the Second Amendment is to preserve a free
state The Supremes have already ruled in US vs Miller that the
Second Amendment only protects the right of the people to keep
and bear arms suitable for military use.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0307_0174_
ZS. ht ml

Was Section II of the 1934 NFA an infringement on the Second Amendment?
No, as they had insufficient evidence to support the lower court's
ruling. Part of that insufficient evidence was needed to support
the sawed off shotgun as being part of militia use.
Was the 1934 NFA a federal grab of what should be a state police power?
No.
Reversed and remanded.
However, if you still think that you are correct, I would expect
you to assist me in getting my M16.

Obtain your AR15 promptly. The 1994 Clinton round of infringements
on the right of the people to keep and bear arms will probably be
reenacted soon, and without a sunset clause this time.

There will be a sunset clause. It will be loss of Congress due to
overreaching too soon.

Post by r wiley
You should have no trouble googling up instructions on converting
to M16 spec.

Nope, I want legit M16.

Why ?
They are over rated...

What does that have to do with it? I just want mine. Or my M4 carbine
or M8 assault rifle. I'm not that picky. Any one of the three will do.

While automatic weapons are fun it's expensive to feed one..

--
Meddle ye not in the Affairs of Dragons, for Thou art Crunchy and taste
Goode with Ketchup.

RD (The Sandman)

2008-11-19 17:10:38 UTC

Second Amendment is the least understood...
by DevilDog21
...part of the constitution. The founding fathers did not
believe in having a standing army and felt that citizens
should be called on to defend the nation when necessary. In
that scenario, of course allowing the citizenry to keep and
bear arms was essential. Since we DO have a standing
military force, the amendment is actually moot. I do believe
in allowing hunters their shotguns and sport rifles.
Handguns, assault weapons and ammo capable of penetrating an
inch of steel are not necessary, nor protected (IMHO) by the
constitution and should be banned.
If you're a collector, collect non-firing versions of these
weapons or join the military where you can fire them.
Freedom, morals, honesty, pride, truth, fairness,
equality....is all good.
Too bad none that claim to be conservative are any of these.
Just a bunch of loud mouth dip-shits that have no idea what
their representatives are up to or doing. OMG if they only
knew.
Obama and democrats had better take care of this rw media we
have now. Should be in the top 10 things to do.

The Second Amendment says nothing about hunters or hunting.
The stated purpose of the Second Amendment is to preserve a
free state The Supremes have already ruled in US vs Miller
that the Second Amendment only protects the right of the
people to keep and bear arms suitable for military use.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0307_01
74_ ZS. ht ml

Was Section II of the 1934 NFA an infringement on the Second Amendment?
No, as they had insufficient evidence to support the lower
court's ruling. Part of that insufficient evidence was needed
to support the sawed off shotgun as being part of militia use.
Was the 1934 NFA a federal grab of what should be a state police power?
No.
Reversed and remanded.
However, if you still think that you are correct, I would
expect you to assist me in getting my M16.

Obtain your AR15 promptly. The 1994 Clinton round of
infringements on the right of the people to keep and bear arms
will probably be reenacted soon, and without a sunset clause
this time.

There will be a sunset clause. It will be loss of Congress due to
overreaching too soon.

Post by r wiley
You should have no trouble googling up instructions on
converting to M16 spec.

Nope, I want legit M16.

Why ?
They are over rated...

What does that have to do with it? I just want mine. Or my M4
carbine or M8 assault rifle. I'm not that picky. Any one of the
three will do.

While automatic weapons are fun it's expensive to feed one..

Yep, but I wish to spend my money somewhere and I don't need another
piece of property or another vehicle. I have too many of those and just
the right amount of real estate.

Rodney King

2008-11-16 06:46:15 UTC

Only a totally incompetent moron would think this is what the 2nd
amendment meant. The government has always had a standing army before
and after the revolution. before it was a British army and after it was
American.

The second amendment says we have a right to have a militia comma and an
individual right to keep and bear arms. This doesn't just mean sticks
and stones or blunderbusses. It also does not mean a government ran
militia. A government ran militia would make the whole thing pointless.
Our forefathers found themselves being under an oppressive government
and formed a militia and fought a revolution with their own weapons.
What good would a government ran militia (British) have done them. This
is the reason our forefathers put the second amendment in there. They
put it there in case we ever found ourselves in the same predicament
they were in. Anyone with even one iota of a brain could not read it any
different unless you are a Chicago style communist like Daly, B. Hussein
Obama, etc..

The 2nd amendment is not about a government run militia. It is about one
formed of individual citizens. If it was referring to a government ran
militia, there would have been no point of putting it there in the first
place. It also means the individual has the right to bear arms. This
means for self defense, hunting or what ever.

Gun grabbers are ignorant and will try to say the 2nd amendment means
whatever they want it to mean.

RD (The Sandman)

2008-11-16 16:51:04 UTC

Only a totally incompetent moron would think this is what the 2nd
amendment meant. The government has always had a standing army before
and after the revolution. before it was a British army and after it
was American.
The second amendment says we have a right to have a militia comma and
an individual right to keep and bear arms. This doesn't just mean
sticks and stones or blunderbusses. It also does not mean a government
ran militia. A government ran militia would make the whole thing
pointless. Our forefathers found themselves being under an oppressive
government and formed a militia and fought a revolution with their own
weapons. What good would a government ran militia (British) have done
them. This is the reason our forefathers put the second amendment in
there. They put it there in case we ever found ourselves in the same
predicament they were in. Anyone with even one iota of a brain could
not read it any different unless you are a Chicago style communist
like Daly, B. Hussein Obama, etc..
The 2nd amendment is not about a government run militia.

It most certainly is. It is a state militia not the national militia in
Article I. Look at your state laws and see who your state militia
reports to when called to service. I would bet it is your governor or
AG. It isn't four guys at the local Dairy Queen.

It is about

Post by Rodney King
one formed of individual citizens.

Both the state and national militias are formed from individual citizens.

If it was referring to a government

Post by Rodney King
ran militia, there would have been no point of putting it there in the
first place. It also means the individual has the right to bear arms.
This means for self defense, hunting or what ever.

This part is true.

Post by Rodney King
Gun grabbers are ignorant and will try to say the 2nd amendment means
whatever they want it to mean.

Rodney King

2008-11-16 17:46:13 UTC

Only a totally incompetent moron would think this is what the 2nd
amendment meant. The government has always had a standing army before
and after the revolution. before it was a British army and after it
was American.
The second amendment says we have a right to have a militia comma and
an individual right to keep and bear arms. This doesn't just mean
sticks and stones or blunderbusses. It also does not mean a government
ran militia. A government ran militia would make the whole thing
pointless. Our forefathers found themselves being under an oppressive
government and formed a militia and fought a revolution with their own
weapons. What good would a government ran militia (British) have done
them. This is the reason our forefathers put the second amendment in
there. They put it there in case we ever found ourselves in the same
predicament they were in. Anyone with even one iota of a brain could
not read it any different unless you are a Chicago style communist
like Daly, B. Hussein Obama, etc..
The 2nd amendment is not about a government run militia.

If it meant a government ran militia, there wouldn't have been a
revolution because the government was the British. Why would thay have
had a revolution against themselves?

Post by RD (The Sandman)
It is about

Post by Rodney King
one formed of individual citizens.

Both the state and national militias are formed from individual citizens.
If it was referring to a government

This part is true.

Post by Rodney King
Gun grabbers are ignorant and will try to say the 2nd amendment means
whatever they want it to mean.

RD (The Sandman)

2008-11-16 21:55:08 UTC

Only a totally incompetent moron would think this is what the 2nd
amendment meant. The government has always had a standing army before
and after the revolution. before it was a British army and after it
was American.
The second amendment says we have a right to have a militia comma and
an individual right to keep and bear arms. This doesn't just mean
sticks and stones or blunderbusses. It also does not mean a
government ran militia. A government ran militia would make the whole
thing pointless. Our forefathers found themselves being under an
oppressive government and formed a militia and fought a revolution
with their own weapons. What good would a government ran militia
(British) have done them. This is the reason our forefathers put the
second amendment in there. They put it there in case we ever found
ourselves in the same predicament they were in. Anyone with even one
iota of a brain could not read it any different unless you are a
Chicago style communist like Daly, B. Hussein Obama, etc..
The 2nd amendment is not about a government run militia.

It most certainly is. It is a state militia not the national militia
in Article I. Look at your state laws and see who your state militia
reports to when called to service. I would bet it is your governor
or AG. It isn't four guys at the local Dairy Queen.

If it meant a government ran militia, there wouldn't have been a
revolution because the government was the British. Why would thay have
had a revolution against themselves?

Our government was not British when the Constitution was written. The
DOI, yes. The Constitution was written and ratified in 1789 after the
Articles of Confederation (our first attempt at governing ourselves)
failed.

At the time the Constitution was written, we were our own government and
were trying to lay out how it worked. Article I(8)(15 16) covered the
national militia. The state militias (those responsible for the
sovereignty of the individual states) were in danger of not being armed
by the feds in clause 16, therefore the anti-federalists argued for a
Bill of Rights to be added that Constitution. The Second Amendment was
part of that Bill of Rights and it protected the right of the people to
keep and bear arms so that the state militias were able to continue.
That should not be taken to mean that one must be militia member to have
RKBA. It simply means that R=KBA is protected from infringement by the
federal government.

Rodney King

2008-11-17 22:24:51 UTC

Only a totally incompetent moron would think this is what the 2nd
amendment meant. The government has always had a standing army before
and after the revolution. before it was a British army and after it
was American.
The second amendment says we have a right to have a militia comma and
an individual right to keep and bear arms. This doesn't just mean
sticks and stones or blunderbusses. It also does not mean a
government ran militia. A government ran militia would make the whole
thing pointless. Our forefathers found themselves being under an
oppressive government and formed a militia and fought a revolution
with their own weapons. What good would a government ran militia
(British) have done them. This is the reason our forefathers put the
second amendment in there. They put it there in case we ever found
ourselves in the same predicament they were in. Anyone with even one
iota of a brain could not read it any different unless you are a
Chicago style communist like Daly, B. Hussein Obama, etc..
The 2nd amendment is not about a government run militia.

It most certainly is. It is a state militia not the national militia
in Article I. Look at your state laws and see who your state militia
reports to when called to service. I would bet it is your governor
or AG. It isn't four guys at the local Dairy Queen.

If it meant a government ran militia, there wouldn't have been a
revolution because the government was the British. Why would thay have
had a revolution against themselves?

Our government was not British when the Constitution was written. The
DOI, yes. The Constitution was written and ratified in 1789 after the
Articles of Confederation (our first attempt at governing ourselves)
failed.
At the time the Constitution was written, we were our own government and
were trying to lay out how it worked. Article I(8)(15 16) covered the
national militia. The state militias (those responsible for the
sovereignty of the individual states) were in danger of not being armed
by the feds in clause 16, therefore the anti-federalists argued for a
Bill of Rights to be added that Constitution. The Second Amendment was
part of that Bill of Rights and it protected the right of the people to
keep and bear arms so that the state militias were able to continue.
That should not be taken to mean that one must be militia member to have
RKBA. It simply means that R=KBA is protected from infringement by the
federal government.

What I was pointing out was at the time of the revolution, the
government was British and the citizens formed their own militia and
fought it with their own weapons. After the war was won and the
government became American, they put the 2nd in there in case the
citizens had to fight a bad government again. If the militia the 2nd
refers to was government controlled, it would be pointless.

Scout

2008-11-17 23:01:14 UTC

Only a totally incompetent moron would think this is what the 2nd
amendment meant. The government has always had a standing army before
and after the revolution. before it was a British army and after it
was American.
The second amendment says we have a right to have a militia comma and
an individual right to keep and bear arms. This doesn't just mean
sticks and stones or blunderbusses. It also does not mean a
government ran militia. A government ran militia would make the whole
thing pointless. Our forefathers found themselves being under an
oppressive government and formed a militia and fought a revolution
with their own weapons. What good would a government ran militia
(British) have done them. This is the reason our forefathers put the
second amendment in there. They put it there in case we ever found
ourselves in the same predicament they were in. Anyone with even one
iota of a brain could not read it any different unless you are a
Chicago style communist like Daly, B. Hussein Obama, etc..
The 2nd amendment is not about a government run militia.

It most certainly is. It is a state militia not the national militia
in Article I. Look at your state laws and see who your state militia
reports to when called to service. I would bet it is your governor
or AG. It isn't four guys at the local Dairy Queen.

If it meant a government ran militia, there wouldn't have been a
revolution because the government was the British. Why would thay have
had a revolution against themselves?

Our government was not British when the Constitution was written. The
DOI, yes. The Constitution was written and ratified in 1789 after the
Articles of Confederation (our first attempt at governing ourselves)
failed.
At the time the Constitution was written, we were our own government and
were trying to lay out how it worked. Article I(8)(15 16) covered the
national militia. The state militias (those responsible for the
sovereignty of the individual states) were in danger of not being armed
by the feds in clause 16, therefore the anti-federalists argued for a
Bill of Rights to be added that Constitution. The Second Amendment was
part of that Bill of Rights and it protected the right of the people to
keep and bear arms so that the state militias were able to continue.
That should not be taken to mean that one must be militia member to have
RKBA. It simply means that R=KBA is protected from infringement by the
federal government.

What I was pointing out was at the time of the revolution, the government
was British and the citizens formed their own militia and fought it with
their own weapons. After the war was won and the government became
American, they put the 2nd in there in case the citizens had to fight a
bad government again. If the militia the 2nd refers to was government
controlled, it would be pointless.

Bingo.

See DC v. Heller for greater expansion on this idea.

RD (The Sandman)

2008-11-18 17:17:14 UTC

Post by Scout

Only a totally incompetent moron would think this is what the 2nd
amendment meant. The government has always had a standing army
before and after the revolution. before it was a British army and
after it was American.
The second amendment says we have a right to have a militia comma
and an individual right to keep and bear arms. This doesn't just
mean sticks and stones or blunderbusses. It also does not mean a
government ran militia. A government ran militia would make the
whole thing pointless. Our forefathers found themselves being
under an oppressive government and formed a militia and fought a
revolution with their own weapons. What good would a government
ran militia (British) have done them. This is the reason our
forefathers put the second amendment in there. They put it there
in case we ever found ourselves in the same predicament they were
in. Anyone with even one iota of a brain could not read it any
different unless you are a Chicago style communist like Daly, B.
Hussein Obama, etc..
The 2nd amendment is not about a government run militia.

It most certainly is. It is a state militia not the national
militia in Article I. Look at your state laws and see who your
state militia reports to when called to service. I would bet it is
your governor or AG. It isn't four guys at the local Dairy Queen.

If it meant a government ran militia, there wouldn't have been a
revolution because the government was the British. Why would thay
have had a revolution against themselves?

Our government was not British when the Constitution was written.
The DOI, yes. The Constitution was written and ratified in 1789
after the Articles of Confederation (our first attempt at governing
ourselves) failed.
At the time the Constitution was written, we were our own government
and were trying to lay out how it worked. Article I(8)(15 16)
covered the national militia. The state militias (those responsible
for the sovereignty of the individual states) were in danger of not
being armed by the feds in clause 16, therefore the anti-federalists
argued for a Bill of Rights to be added that Constitution. The
Second Amendment was part of that Bill of Rights and it protected
the right of the people to keep and bear arms so that the state
militias were able to continue. That should not be taken to mean
that one must be militia member to have RKBA. It simply means that
R=KBA is protected from infringement by the federal government.

Bingo.
See DC v. Heller for greater expansion on this idea.

Heller discusses the national militia as called by the federal
government. It does not discuss the state militias as called by the
governor of the state.

RD (The Sandman)

2008-11-18 17:16:16 UTC

Only a totally incompetent moron would think this is what the 2nd
amendment meant. The government has always had a standing army
before and after the revolution. before it was a British army and
after it was American.
The second amendment says we have a right to have a militia comma
and an individual right to keep and bear arms. This doesn't just
mean sticks and stones or blunderbusses. It also does not mean a
government ran militia. A government ran militia would make the
whole thing pointless. Our forefathers found themselves being under
an oppressive government and formed a militia and fought a
revolution with their own weapons. What good would a government ran
militia (British) have done them. This is the reason our
forefathers put the second amendment in there. They put it there in
case we ever found ourselves in the same predicament they were in.
Anyone with even one iota of a brain could not read it any
different unless you are a Chicago style communist like Daly, B.
Hussein Obama, etc..
The 2nd amendment is not about a government run militia.

It most certainly is. It is a state militia not the national
militia in Article I. Look at your state laws and see who your
state militia reports to when called to service. I would bet it is
your governor or AG. It isn't four guys at the local Dairy Queen.

If it meant a government ran militia, there wouldn't have been a
revolution because the government was the British. Why would thay
have had a revolution against themselves?

Our government was not British when the Constitution was written.
The DOI, yes. The Constitution was written and ratified in 1789
after the Articles of Confederation (our first attempt at governing
ourselves) failed.
At the time the Constitution was written, we were our own government
and were trying to lay out how it worked. Article I(8)(15 16)
covered the national militia. The state militias (those responsible
for the sovereignty of the individual states) were in danger of not
being armed by the feds in clause 16, therefore the anti-federalists
argued for a Bill of Rights to be added that Constitution. The
Second Amendment was part of that Bill of Rights and it protected the
right of the people to keep and bear arms so that the state militias
were able to continue. That should not be taken to mean that one
must be militia member to have RKBA. It simply means that R=KBA is
protected from infringement by the federal government.

The 2A is there to ensure *state* sovereignty by protecting the resource
of armed citizenry that the state militias are drawn from. That state
militia is called to service by the state. It reports to some figure in
the state government. Just which one that is varies by state. In some,
it is the governor, in some it is the AG, in some it is some other
person. Look up your state's statutes and see who that militia reports
to.

If the militia the 2nd

Post by Rodney King
refers to was government controlled, it would be pointless.

Nope, because it isn't the federal government and that is who controls
the militia in Art I(8)(15 16). The Second Amendment is about the state
militias and the individual citizen's RKBA.

Rodney King

2008-11-19 03:19:17 UTC

Only a totally incompetent moron would think this is what the 2nd
amendment meant. The government has always had a standing army
before and after the revolution. before it was a British army and
after it was American.
The second amendment says we have a right to have a militia comma
and an individual right to keep and bear arms. This doesn't just
mean sticks and stones or blunderbusses. It also does not mean a
government ran militia. A government ran militia would make the
whole thing pointless. Our forefathers found themselves being under
an oppressive government and formed a militia and fought a
revolution with their own weapons. What good would a government ran
militia (British) have done them. This is the reason our
forefathers put the second amendment in there. They put it there in
case we ever found ourselves in the same predicament they were in.
Anyone with even one iota of a brain could not read it any
different unless you are a Chicago style communist like Daly, B.
Hussein Obama, etc..
The 2nd amendment is not about a government run militia.

It most certainly is. It is a state militia not the national
militia in Article I. Look at your state laws and see who your
state militia reports to when called to service. I would bet it is
your governor or AG. It isn't four guys at the local Dairy Queen.

If it meant a government ran militia, there wouldn't have been a
revolution because the government was the British. Why would thay
have had a revolution against themselves?

Our government was not British when the Constitution was written.
The DOI, yes. The Constitution was written and ratified in 1789
after the Articles of Confederation (our first attempt at governing
ourselves) failed.
At the time the Constitution was written, we were our own government
and were trying to lay out how it worked. Article I(8)(15 16)
covered the national militia. The state militias (those responsible
for the sovereignty of the individual states) were in danger of not
being armed by the feds in clause 16, therefore the anti-federalists
argued for a Bill of Rights to be added that Constitution. The
Second Amendment was part of that Bill of Rights and it protected the
right of the people to keep and bear arms so that the state militias
were able to continue. That should not be taken to mean that one
must be militia member to have RKBA. It simply means that R=KBA is
protected from infringement by the federal government.

Post by Rodney King
refers to was government controlled, it would be pointless.

Nope, because it isn't the federal government and that is who controls
the militia in Art I(8)(15 16). The Second Amendment is about the state
militias and the individual citizen's RKBA.

The militia that whipped the British wasn't federal government or state
controlled since there weren't any states and the government was british
and I would say that is why they put the 2nd in there because of what
they had to do.

RD (The Sandman)

2008-11-19 17:11:52 UTC

Only a totally incompetent moron would think this is what the 2nd
amendment meant. The government has always had a standing army
before and after the revolution. before it was a British army and
after it was American.
The second amendment says we have a right to have a militia comma
and an individual right to keep and bear arms. This doesn't just
mean sticks and stones or blunderbusses. It also does not mean a
government ran militia. A government ran militia would make the
whole thing pointless. Our forefathers found themselves being
under an oppressive government and formed a militia and fought a
revolution with their own weapons. What good would a government
ran militia (British) have done them. This is the reason our
forefathers put the second amendment in there. They put it there
in case we ever found ourselves in the same predicament they were
in. Anyone with even one iota of a brain could not read it any
different unless you are a Chicago style communist like Daly, B.
Hussein Obama, etc..
The 2nd amendment is not about a government run militia.

It most certainly is. It is a state militia not the national
militia in Article I. Look at your state laws and see who your
state militia reports to when called to service. I would bet it
is your governor or AG. It isn't four guys at the local Dairy
Queen.

If it meant a government ran militia, there wouldn't have been a
revolution because the government was the British. Why would thay
have had a revolution against themselves?

Our government was not British when the Constitution was written.
The DOI, yes. The Constitution was written and ratified in 1789
after the Articles of Confederation (our first attempt at governing
ourselves) failed.
At the time the Constitution was written, we were our own government
and were trying to lay out how it worked. Article I(8)(15 16)
covered the national militia. The state militias (those responsible
for the sovereignty of the individual states) were in danger of not
being armed by the feds in clause 16, therefore the anti-federalists
argued for a Bill of Rights to be added that Constitution. The
Second Amendment was part of that Bill of Rights and it protected
the right of the people to keep and bear arms so that the state
militias were able to continue. That should not be taken to mean
that one must be militia member to have RKBA. It simply means that
R=KBA is protected from infringement by the federal government.

The 2A is there to ensure *state* sovereignty by protecting the
resource of armed citizenry that the state militias are drawn from.
That state militia is called to service by the state. It reports to
some figure in the state government. Just which one that is varies
by state. In some, it is the governor, in some it is the AG, in some
it is some other person. Look up your state's statutes and see who
that militia reports to.
If the militia the 2nd

Post by Rodney King
refers to was government controlled, it would be pointless.

Nope, because it isn't the federal government and that is who
controls the militia in Art I(8)(15 16). The Second Amendment is
about the state militias and the individual citizen's RKBA.

The militia that whipped the British wasn't federal government or
state controlled since there weren't any states and the government was
british and I would say that is why they put the 2nd in there because
of what they had to do.

Then you think it is redundant since the national militia (the one that
was formed out of the Revolutionary Army) is covered under Article I.

r wiley

2008-11-16 18:34:01 UTC

The Secind Amendment does not say "the federal government
shall not infringe the right of a state to raise a militia." The
Second Amendment says "the right of the people to keep and
bear arms shall not be infringed."

Unlike the First Amendment, which only limits the powers of
Congress, the Seond Amendment limits the powers of every
entity subject to the Constitution. Dishonest judges have
worked dilligently to reverse that distinction,

rw

RD (The Sandman)

2008-11-16 22:02:38 UTC

Post by r wiley
The Secind Amendment does not say "the federal government
shall not infringe the right of a state to raise a militia." The
Second Amendment says "the right of the people to keep and
bear arms shall not be infringed."

However, it is in a document that addresses the federal government and
its powers. In 1833 (Barron v Baltimore) the USSC stated that the Bill of
Rights did not apply to the states. After the 14th Amendment was passed
in 1968, the Cruikshank Court in 1876 said:

"The second and tenth counts are equally defective. The right there
specified is that of 'bearing arms for a lawful purpose.' This is not a
right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent
upon that instrument for its existence. The second amendment declares
that it shall not be infringed; but this, as has been seen, means no more
than that it shall not be infringed by Congress. This is one of the
amendments that has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the
national government, leaving the people to look for their protection
against any violation by their fellow-citizens of the rights it
recognizes, to what is called, in The City of New York v. Miln, 11 Pet.
139, the 'powers which relate to merely municipal legislation, or what
was, perhaps, more properly called internal police,' 'not surrendered or
restrained' by the Constituton of the United States. "

The Second Amendment (along with the Third, and Seventh) have not been
adjudicated as to apply to the states. I, personally, disagree with
selective incorporation but it is the current state of the 2A. It is one
of the next things to come before the Supreme Court as far as gun laws,
etc.. are concerned.

Post by r wiley
Unlike the First Amendment, which only limits the powers of
Congress, the Seond Amendment limits the powers of every
entity subject to the Constitution.

Which only addressed the federal government until the 14th amendment.

Post by r wiley
Dishonest judges have
worked dilligently to reverse that distinction,

Why is it that judges are dishonest when they rule against what we
believe and honorable when they agree? ;)

r wiley

2008-11-17 03:12:54 UTC

However, it is in a document that addresses the federal government and
its powers. In 1833 (Barron v Baltimore) the USSC stated that the Bill of
Rights did not apply to the states. After the 14th Amendment was passed
"The second and tenth counts are equally defective. The right there
specified is that of 'bearing arms for a lawful purpose.' This is not a
right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent
upon that instrument for its existence. The second amendment declares
that it shall not be infringed; but this, as has been seen, means no more
than that it shall not be infringed by Congress. This is one of the
amendments that has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the
national government, leaving the people to look for their protection
against any violation by their fellow-citizens of the rights it
recognizes, to what is called, in The City of New York v. Miln, 11 Pet.
139, the 'powers which relate to merely municipal legislation, or what
was, perhaps, more properly called internal police,' 'not surrendered or
restrained' by the Constituton of the United States. "
The Second Amendment (along with the Third, and Seventh) have not been
adjudicated as to apply to the states. I, personally, disagree with
selective incorporation but it is the current state of the 2A. It is one
of the next things to come before the Supreme Court as far as gun laws,
etc.. are concerned.

Post by r wiley
Unlike the First Amendment, which only limits the powers of
Congress, the Seond Amendment limits the powers of every
entity subject to the Constitution.

Which only addressed the federal government until the 14th amendment.

Post by r wiley
Dishonest judges have
worked dilligently to reverse that distinction,

Why is it that judges are dishonest when they rule against what we
believe and honorable when they agree? ;)

Because, no matter what a judge says, the First Amendment says "Congress
shall make no law" The Second Amendment mentions no entity. Corrupt
judges "interpret" "Congress" to include municipal governments and school
boards. Corrupt judges pretend that the Second Amendment doesn't apply
to state and local governments, or to Congress for that matter.

rw

RD (The Sandman)

2008-11-17 16:55:15 UTC

However, it is in a document that addresses the federal government
and its powers. In 1833 (Barron v Baltimore) the USSC stated that the
Bill of Rights did not apply to the states. After the 14th Amendment
"The second and tenth counts are equally defective. The right there
specified is that of 'bearing arms for a lawful purpose.' This is not
a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner
dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The second
amendment declares that it shall not be infringed; but this, as has
been seen, means no more than that it shall not be infringed by
Congress. This is one of the amendments that has no other effect than
to restrict the powers of the national government, leaving the people
to look for their protection against any violation by their
fellow-citizens of the rights it recognizes, to what is called, in
The City of New York v. Miln, 11 Pet. 139, the 'powers which relate
to merely municipal legislation, or what was, perhaps, more properly
called internal police,' 'not surrendered or restrained' by the
Constituton of the United States. "
The Second Amendment (along with the Third, and Seventh) have not
been adjudicated as to apply to the states. I, personally, disagree
with selective incorporation but it is the current state of the 2A.
It is one of the next things to come before the Supreme Court as far
as gun laws, etc.. are concerned.

Post by r wiley
Unlike the First Amendment, which only limits the powers of
Congress, the Seond Amendment limits the powers of every
entity subject to the Constitution.

Which only addressed the federal government until the 14th amendment.

Post by r wiley
Dishonest judges have
worked dilligently to reverse that distinction,

Why is it that judges are dishonest when they rule against what we
believe and honorable when they agree? ;)

Because, no matter what a judge says, the First Amendment says
"Congress shall make no law" The Second Amendment mentions no entity.
Corrupt judges "interpret" "Congress" to include municipal
governments and school boards. Corrupt judges pretend that the Second
Amendment doesn't apply to state and local governments, or to Congress
for that matter.

Sorry, but currently the Second Amendment doesn't apply to the state or
local governments. Why do you think that Chicago hadn't been challenged
until now or that Morton Grove was not granted cert at the USSC?

Do you believe that all judges are corrupt or just the ones that disagree
with you?

Congress has been heeled in somewhat with the Heller decision. We will
have to see that shake out to see just what effect it has. Perhaps, the
suits being brought against Chicago and its suburbs will end up with the
2A being incorporated as to apply to the states.

Bama Brian

2008-11-14 16:44:46 UTC

Second Amendment is the least understood... by DevilDog21
...part of the constitution. The founding fathers did not believe in
having a standing army and felt that citizens should be called on to
defend the nation when necessary. In that scenario, of course allowing
the citizenry to keep and bear arms was essential. Since we DO have a
standing military force, the amendment is actually moot. I do believe
in allowing hunters their shotguns and sport rifles. Handguns, assault
weapons and ammo capable of penetrating an inch of steel are not
necessary, nor protected (IMHO) by the constitution and should be
banned.
If you're a collector, collect non-firing versions of these weapons or
join the military where you can fire them.
Freedom, morals, honesty, pride, truth, fairness, equality....is all good.
Too bad none that claim to be conservative are any of these.
Just a bunch of loud mouth dip-shits that have no idea what their
representatives are up to or doing. OMG if they only knew.
Obama and democrats had better take care of this rw media we have now.
Should be in the top 10 things to do.

The Second Amendment says nothing about hunters or hunting. The stated
purpose of the Second Amendment is to preserve a free state The
Supremes have already ruled in US vs Miller that the Second Amendment
only protects the right of the people to keep and bear arms suitabe for
military use.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/

USSC_CR_0307_0174_ZS.html

Post by r wiley
rw

That being the case, I want my government-supplied select-fire M16, 200
rounds, grenades, night vision goggles, helmet, protective vest, and
cammies, all right now.

--
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it."
George Santayana, 1863 - 1952

Cheers,
Bama Brian
Libertarian

GeForce 2 Ultra

2008-11-16 07:02:47 UTC

I don't have guns for hunting. I've never gone hunting in my life. I
will probably never hunt in my life. I live in the suburbs and have
no reason or desire to hunt. I keep guns in the house to protect
myself, my family, my property from ordinary criminals. I guess one
day, having firearms might include protecting myself from the
criminal, globalist government who might want to take what I have
away. That's what guns are mainly for.

The Second Amendment says nothing about hunters or hunting. The stated
purpose of the Second Amendment is to preserve a free state The Supremes have
already ruled in US vs Miller that the Second Amendment only protects the right of
the people to keep and bear arms suitabe for military use.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0307_0174_ZS....
rw

Who is John Galt

2008-11-16 13:15:13 UTC