It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

How the NRA Rewrote the Second Amendment

page: 7
23
<< 4  5  6    8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 6 2015 @ 06:05 PM
link   

originally posted by: Ahabstar
Just a modest proposal, find a State that would be willing to overturn the Second within their borders. I would suggest a small state like Rhode Island or Massachusetts. Might not want to try Vermont or New Hampshire for some obvious reasons. Providing you could find such a state whose elected officials thought they could get away with it or just didn't care about reelection, give it a shot. The exodus of population and increased crime rates on the defenseless remaining people should settle the argument once and for all.


Yeah if illegals can have sanctuary cities.

So can gun owners.




posted on Oct, 6 2015 @ 06:11 PM
link   
A typical misunderstanding of what "A well regulated militia" means, and meant back then. You've heard of a well-regulated clock, I should imagine. It means a clock that works well. It does not mean a group of men under a commanding officer with appropriate discipline. It does not mean marching in a straight line and obeying orders.

And a "militia" does NOT mean "The National Guard." There was none at the time. It means every able-bodied citizen. So the phrase means, in essence, "Every citizen who know how to shoot straight." In any case, the phrase is a preamble, an explanation for why the operative statement is necessary. And that operative statement is brief and clear. The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Period.

It ain't about duck hunting.
edit on 10/6/2015 by schuyler because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 6 2015 @ 06:12 PM
link   

originally posted by: ~Lucidity

I'm still both disappointed in and suspicious of the NRA's partnerships with gun makers and influence over some in government.


Still nobody has pointed to how and where the NRA has influenced the Supreme Court.

Politico mumbo jumbo.




posted on Oct, 6 2015 @ 06:16 PM
link   
a reply to: neo96




posted on Oct, 6 2015 @ 06:17 PM
link   
a reply to: xuenchen

Do you believe the justices are so immune to "external" pressures and so totally holy and unbeholden to those who put them on the bench? Being the party in control of nominating new justices and getting a justice who will lean your way is a is a big thing, no?



posted on Oct, 6 2015 @ 06:17 PM
link   
a reply to: windword

Fairly certain that they had the frontier firmly in mind. Remember, when the Constitution was written, the frontier was a couple, three days hard ride from Philadelphia.

As for the rest? That, too, was at the forefront of their consideration.

The foreign troops had only just been removed from the new found nation, and there were still foreign troops in Canada, and in various other places only a few days away by boat.

With no standing army, or navy worth talking about any defense worth talking about resided in the homes of the common farmer and shop keeper, and in the frontiersman away in Tennessee and Kentucky, or just across the Alleghenies.

As you pointed out, correctly, their defense against whatever danger were themselves and their nearest neighbors.



posted on Oct, 6 2015 @ 06:19 PM
link   
a reply to: amicktd

In many cases, the military is outgunned by the civilians it's supposedly protecting...



posted on Oct, 6 2015 @ 06:19 PM
link   
a reply to: ~Lucidity

I recommend the federalist papers. It gives insight to the founders thoughts about various topics, including guns. Better source than some current day weenie journalist trying to rewrite history while accusing others of trying to do it. I don't even like the NRA, but they are better than weenies like this journalist.



posted on Oct, 6 2015 @ 06:26 PM
link   
a reply to: Reallyfolks

You can't really understand what the Constitution was meant to be without reading the Federalist Papers.

Should be required reading for everyone.


The Federalist Papers.


I urge everyone to read these. It really does help in understanding the thinking of several of the Founding Fathers.



posted on Oct, 6 2015 @ 06:29 PM
link   

originally posted by: ~Lucidity
a reply to: xuenchen

Do you believe the justices are so immune to "external" pressures and so totally holy and unbeholden to those who put them on the bench? Being the party in control of nominating new justices and getting a justice who will lean your way is a is a big thing, no?


I think they actually read the damn thing !!



Amendment II

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


I bet the Justices "dissenting" were "influenced".



posted on Oct, 6 2015 @ 06:31 PM
link   
a reply to: Flatfish

For starters, At the time the 2nd amendment was written, there were NO states, only colonies. 

There preamble for the US Constitution begins like this:
"We the people of the United States"
The Bill of Rights is the first five amendments to their Constitution. The Constitution had to exist before they could add amendments.
Seems like there were states.



posted on Oct, 6 2015 @ 06:34 PM
link   

originally posted by: butcherguy
a reply to: Flatfish

For starters, At the time the 2nd amendment was written, there were NO states, only colonies. 

There preamble for the US Constitution begins like this:
"We the people of the United States"
The Bill of Rights is the first five amendments to their Constitution. The Constitution had to exist before they could add amendments.
Seems like there were states.


there were 14 States when the 2nd was ratified (by the states lol)



posted on Oct, 6 2015 @ 06:35 PM
link   
a reply to: schuyler

Not to mention, at the time it was written the intent was to prevent the state from ever taking full control of the citizens again. Part of the reason they were able to win their freedom was that they were armed.

If a "well-regulated militia" were to mean a well-maintained military body, you are either advocating for formal mercenary groups operating within the bounds of the US or for the state to regulate and operate said militias meaning the state is more or less creating them as just another state military arm.

That would fly in the face of the experiences of the day of the writing of the 2nd to think the Founders meant for the militia to become another arm of the government when what they really wanted was to keep the government inside a well-constructed legal cage.



posted on Oct, 6 2015 @ 06:35 PM
link   
a reply to: xuenchen



n its 1997 decision in the case, the Supreme Court ruled that the provision of the Brady Act that compelled state and local law enforcement officials to perform the background checks was unconstitutional on 10th amendment grounds


en.wikipedia.org...

I wonder who is doing the influencing.

Background checks are UNCONSTITUTIONAL and we still have them.



posted on Oct, 6 2015 @ 06:40 PM
link   
a reply to: xuenchen

I'm sticking with it's an ambiguously constructed sentence. I can read it either way. So still not convinced.


a reply to: Reallyfolks

Also, I've been skimming through the Federalist papers (read them so long ago that I've forgotten it all), and so far there's a lot of talk about militias.

And another question...from everything I've gathered, the Antifederalists had no small influence over the drafting of the C and BoR. So to get a feeling for the entirety of the debate and the span of compromise back then, I reckon one would have to read the Antifederalist Papers as well.

a reply to: seagull
Thank you for the link.
edit on 10/6/2015 by ~Lucidity because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 6 2015 @ 06:41 PM
link   

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: schuyler

Not to mention, at the time it was written the intent was to prevent the state from ever taking full control of the citizens again. Part of the reason they were able to win their freedom was that they were armed.

If a "well-regulated militia" were to mean a well-maintained military body, you are either advocating for formal mercenary groups operating within the bounds of the US or for the state to regulate and operate said militias meaning the state is more or less creating them as just another state military arm.

That would fly in the face of the experiences of the day of the writing of the 2nd to think the Founders meant for the militia to become another arm of the government when what they really wanted was to keep the government inside a well-constructed legal cage.




Militia does not mean the military, anyone doubting that should read federalist paper 46, I hope everyone knows what the federalist papers are, and it makes it clear not only are the military and in this case militia seperate, but that the military should be far outnumbered and much weaker than the militia.



posted on Oct, 6 2015 @ 06:42 PM
link   
a reply to: Flatfish

Actually the States were States at the time the Bill of Rights were written. The Bill of Rights was the concession for several states to dissolve The Articles of Confederation and ratify The Constitution. Dissolving the Articles took a unanimous vote (as all votes under the Articles required).

As to the question of militias, the Constitution is fairly clear there as well. Congress calls them forth and is responsible for arms and other needed equipment and training. The Second, like all other enumerated rights in the Bill of Rights are held by the People (or the States) and cannot be altered by the Federal Government. The Second stands as means for the individual to protect Life, Liberty and Property by force of arms against those who would take it.

So yes, the Second grants the ability to fight a tyrannical Federal Government, but can be used on the State and Local levels as well. And even on the individual level against those who would do harm to yourself or others. I can draw and fire on a mass shooter at the risk of mistaken intentions when police arrive on scene.



posted on Oct, 6 2015 @ 06:44 PM
link   

originally posted by: Reallyfolks...but that the military should be far outnumbered and much weaker than the militia.


Well we really went sideways on that one.

Wasn't that sort of the jist of the argument made by the Antifederalists though?

Antifederalist Papers...24 and 25



posted on Oct, 6 2015 @ 06:47 PM
link   

originally posted by: ~Lucidity

originally posted by: Reallyfolks...but that the military should be far outnumbered and much weaker than the militia.


Well we really went sideways on that one.

Wasn't that sort of the jist of the argument made by the Antifederalists though?

Antifederalist Papers...24 and 25


Also made by federalist papers. Not sure the point.



posted on Oct, 6 2015 @ 06:57 PM
link   
a reply to: Reallyfolks

I'm not done yet but so far, it seems to be the Federalists were mostly for a standing army and the Antifederalists against.

Here's a bit of irony in Federalist 26: Seems Hamilton believed a standing army big enough to threaten liberty wouldn't be allowed to happen because the turnover in the legislative branch would prevent this from happening.

Seems to me we're not addressing some root causes here...as in the bought-and-paid-for professional politicians.
edit on 10/6/2015 by ~Lucidity because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
23
<< 4  5  6    8  9 >>

log in

join