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.

 

The Right of the People to Own Weapons Cant be Expunged From The Debate.

page: 4
19
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 5 2017 @ 11:07 PM
link   
a reply to: Deaf Alien

Pretty clear that the Militia and the individuals are separate.

Not really. That pesky comma. The two seem to be part of the same thought.

Still, if one goes back to Article I

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;


It sort of sounds like the 2nd was written as a way of making sure that the government didn't have to buy arms for the militia. They didn't have a lot of money in those days.

edit on 10/5/2017 by Phage because: (no reason given)




posted on Oct, 5 2017 @ 11:10 PM
link   
a reply to: DBCowboy

Or worse, because we "might".

Y'know, the same reasoning that tells us to start a war in Korea, because Korea "might" launch a missile with a nuke on it.



posted on Oct, 5 2017 @ 11:13 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage

"Well regulated" vs. "shall not be infringed".
Pesky indeed.



It sort of sounds like the 2nd was written as a way of making sure that the government didn't have to buy arms for the militia.

It's possible that they meant that they didn't want the militias to become too powerful.



posted on Oct, 5 2017 @ 11:16 PM
link   
a reply to: Deaf Alien

It's pretty clear from Article I what the role of the militia was supposed to be and how it was to be organized.



posted on Oct, 5 2017 @ 11:16 PM
link   
DBCowboy :

You want gun control legislation that will effect all gun owners for the acts of a few.


Ah, I see. Are you suggesting that only a few have so far killed 11,700 Americans in 2017 alone? Law has to affect everyone in the interest of it being applied fairly. The law is there to regulate the behaviour of everyone. It's not personal. The law doesn't want to punitively punish, it would much prefer that people regulate themselves in the co-interest of a safe and peaceful society.

Of course, there will always be criminals, but law enforcement agencies have been created to deal with them. You know what makes their job hard to do, millions of guns on the street, no wonder they shoot first and ask questions later. Take guns off the street, and their job becomes easier and less fraught.



posted on Oct, 5 2017 @ 11:17 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage

It's clear that the Militia is the body that should be well regulated commas aside.

And what is the part of the thought that explains how you arrive at a well regulated Militia? The part about the people and it explains their right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. That's how you get the well regulated militia.

They're well regulated in part because they're presumed to all know how to shoot and maintain firearms before they come to the militia.
edit on 5-10-2017 by ketsuko because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 5 2017 @ 11:18 PM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko

I..i...is it possible that we agree for the very first time?



posted on Oct, 5 2017 @ 11:18 PM
link   
a reply to: elysiumfire

Oh goody.

Please explain how anyone will remove all the guns.

No one else has the stones to even try.



posted on Oct, 5 2017 @ 11:19 PM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko

Yes, and if that regulated militia has its own arms, the government doesn't have to buy them. That's how I see it, but that's just me.


In any case, the meaning of the 2nd Amendment has been argued over for a long time. That argument is not likely to end, or wind down, soon. The courts look at the cases brought, and they make decisions.


edit on 10/5/2017 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 5 2017 @ 11:20 PM
link   
ketsuko:

So wait ... you are now in favor of people who threatened to overthrow the last administration? Or the previous one?


If you are going to make a point, elaborate on it. Who was going to overthrow who?



posted on Oct, 5 2017 @ 11:20 PM
link   
Pesky internets...what's going on?
edit on 5/10/17 by elysiumfire because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 5 2017 @ 11:20 PM
link   
Triple posted. How did that happen?
edit on 5/10/17 by elysiumfire because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 5 2017 @ 11:22 PM
link   
a reply to: elysiumfire

Nervous trigger finger.



posted on Oct, 5 2017 @ 11:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: elysiumfire

Nervous trigger finger.

Ok that was funny.



posted on Oct, 5 2017 @ 11:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: dawnstar



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.


you mean this little section of the bill or rights here???

regulated- controlled or supervised by means of rules and regulations.

note it doesn't say unregulated!! kind of tells me that yes, the federal and state gov't can pass regulations as to what kind of arms a militia can have, or any individual, as well as deny those that they deem to be too irresponsible, crazy, or in some other way unfit. and, it seems that laws have been on the books for quite some time proving that it's been accepted that the gov't has the constitutional power to do these things..
for instance, you can't have a missile legally and many criminals can't legally own a gun!

so, ya, they can make a law banning the sale of kits that turn semi-automatic weapons into automatic weapons, they can ban silencers and armored piercing bullets, or any other type of weapon that they decide presents more danger to the general public that benefit to anyone..



WRONG.....the word "regulated" in that amendment does NOT mean restricted. You are using a contemporary definition of that word. Let's put that in context shall we? Let's use a dictionary from 1780.

First, what are "Arms"?

How is "to Arm" defined in 1780 (which is like keep and bear)?

But, the biggie here, is "well regulated". How is that defined in 1780?

Now, "Militia" was also known as a "Training Band" in 1780. But how is that defined in 1780?



Source: A General Dictionary of the English Language

So, in closing, a "well regulated militia" means an orderly group of citizens, well trained in the handling of firearms. And those citizens are guaranteed to be able to personally keep and bear those firearms (i.e. own guns). Also, it clearly states this right shall not be infringed, which means not blocked or prevented.

Until we repeal that amendment, legally via the due process set in place by the founding fathers, we will have that right.....we will fight to keep that right, we will fight to assure that it is not infringed................period.



posted on Oct, 5 2017 @ 11:30 PM
link   
Phage:

Nervous trigger finger.


Lol! Indeed. Safety's on now.


That pesky comma. The two seem to be part of the same thought.


I would suggest the clause after the comma is an interjection as they debated the wording of the same point they were drafting.


Yes, and if that regulated militia has its own arms, the government doesn't have to buy them. That's how I see it, but that's just me.


Agree. I wrote something of similar sentiment in a different thread.



posted on Oct, 5 2017 @ 11:34 PM
link   
a reply to: Krakatoa

You, sir, win for the night.




edit on 10/5/2017 by Deaf Alien because: Epic win



posted on Oct, 5 2017 @ 11:39 PM
link   
a reply to: Krakatoa




So, in closing, a "well regulated militia" means an orderly group of citizens, well trained in the handling of firearms.


What do you think about what Article I (you know, the part before the Bill of Rights) says about what the militia is? Do you think the 2nd Amendment stands alone from the rest of the Constitution?



posted on Oct, 5 2017 @ 11:39 PM
link   
a reply to: Deaf Alien

Just powerful enough to make a govt bent on tyranny think twice, or even three times, then give it up as a bad idea.

That's why it says "shall not be infringed". Because to infringe it means to leave the citizens of the country open to that tyranny.

Is that really that hard to understand?



posted on Oct, 5 2017 @ 11:40 PM
link   
a reply to: seagull



Is that really that hard to understand?

Is Article I so hard to understand when it defines the role and organization of the militia?

Do you think the 2nd Amendment stands separate from the rest of the Constitution?

edit on 10/5/2017 by Phage because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
19
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join