The 2nd Amendment was created with flintlock muzzleloaders in mind.

The greatest weapon is the one that is used the less. The human mind.

No one knows for sure exactly what the original 2nd Amendment means. Not even those who've studied it.

But, as it stands now, Scalia allowed the NRA to define it.

This is like allowing Fundamental Christians to define separation of church & state.

Please, everyone, learn the 18th century meaning of :
"arms"

"firearm"

"well regulated"



Before you go off "half-cocked" and speak with ignorance of the subject.

These definitions are taken from, A General Dictionary of the English Language: Vol II (London, 1780)

a reply to: Annee
a reply to: bluechevytree
swords, catapults, rockets (invented before firearms), axes, spears, bows and arrow, sling and stones, your bodily arms are all armaments (arms), and you have the inalienable right to bear them all, up to and including firearms.

Yes, God wants us all to be able to defend our own lives by any and all means necessary, starting with your bodily arms, and including all armaments necessary and readily available.

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State. This part is one half of the list and is accurately described. It is then followed by the next item in the list, which is: the right of the people to keep and bear arms, This is a list that explains which two parties described in the US have the right to keep and bear arms.

Both the well regulated militia and the people. It is quite clear to me.

originally posted by: Annee
No one knows for sure exactly what the original 2nd Amendment means. Not even those who've studied it.

I think the idea was that each state had the right to be armed, to protect itself against the federal government, should the federal government attempt to overstep its bounds and grab more power than that granted to it in the U.S. Constitution. So, it was really a state right to have a militia and bear arms for the states protection.

You see the Constitution limited the powers of the Federal Government, but what guarantees the enforcement of that limitation? Only a well armed state militia can do that. Which is the whole point.

There's a point in law which declares any written law that cannot be enforced is automatically null and void.

So, whenever there is a written law, you need to ask who enforces it, and how do they enforce that law.

That's the right to bear arms.

It's not the right of the individual citizen to bear arms. Though, that's the interpretation that is currently in practice. This latter is an incorrect interpretation.

a reply to: AMPTAH
The State and the people are two separate parties described. The state must be free and secure, and a well regulated militia does that as long as they also have arms. But it is clear that the people themselves are grouped separately in this list and are also guaranteed their rights to keep and bear arms. They have to defend themselves from wildlife and bandits after all.

a reply to: AdKiller

Where's my nukes to protect me against the nut in the white house with his finger on his button? North Korea is standing in for the American people I suppose?

Novel. Using an extreme interpretation of the Second A and turning it on right wing followers of Trump

originally posted by: AMPTAH

originally posted by: Annee
No one knows for sure exactly what the original 2nd Amendment means. Not even those who've studied it.

I think the idea was that each state had the right to be armed, to protect itself against the federal government, should the federal government attempt to overstep its bounds and grab more power than that granted to it in the U.S. Constitution. So, it was really a state right to have a militia and bear arms for the states protection.

You see the Constitution limited the powers of the Federal Government, but what guarantees the enforcement of that limitation? Only a well armed state militia can do that. Which is the whole point.

There's a point in law which declares any written law that cannot be enforced is automatically null and void.

So, whenever there is a written law, you need to ask who enforces it, and how do they enforce that law.

That's the right to bear arms.

It's not the right of the individual citizen to bear arms. Though, that's the interpretation that is currently in practice. This latter is an incorrect interpretation.

What you fail to state in your analysis, is that each and every able bodied man was required, by law to assemble and train monthly for that militia duty. Their arms were not provided by the state, but were personal arms. So, in order to adhere to that law, they must be able to keep and bear their own personal arms.

Kinda changes your final conclusion of ...

It's not the right of the individual citizen to bear arms. Though, that's the interpretation that is currently in practice. This latter is an incorrect interpretation.

... to be completely false, doesn't it?

originally posted by: Annee
No one knows for sure exactly what the original 2nd Amendment means. Not even those who've studied it.

But, as it stands now, Scalia allowed the NRA to define it.

This is like allowing Fundamental Christians to define separation of church & state.

That isn't true, all of the bill of rights must be read in context of your natural rights. The bill of rights wasn't included in the original constitution, but later added so that the document could be ratified because some of the 'founding fathers' like Thomas Jefferson wouldn't sign off on the document without their inclusion.

Your natural rights describe those rights which are imbued to you by your Creator, they are unalienable. That is they cannot be transferred, ascribed or voided by governmental authority because the individual and their rights are superior to government. What does the Declaration of Independence say?

The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America, When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,

www.archives.gov...

The entire constitution was an attempt to form a government of by and for the people and to limit the power of government not grant it power.

Therefore each item in the Bill of Rights describes those rights which an individual has which are sovereign to government, since government is formed by the people.

The right to speak one's mind without fear of repercussion from government or others, the right to defend oneself against aggression with equal means as their aggressor, etc.

Constitutional relativism which is what has been taught by our educational system for decades has been an attempt to undermine the philosophy of natural rights and to a great degree it has been tremendously successful.

I don't know why you guys are bothering with this poster. This is obviously a troll post meant to cause crap.

He goes from thread to thread stirring up #.

You're being trolled folks.

originally posted by: SkeptiSchism

originally posted by: Annee
No one knows for sure exactly what the original 2nd Amendment means. Not even those who've studied it.

But, as it stands now, Scalia allowed the NRA to define it.

This is like allowing Fundamental Christians to define separation of church & state.

That isn't true, all of the bill of rights must be read in context of your natural rights. The bill of rights wasn't included in the original constitution, but later added so that the document could be ratified because some of the 'founding fathers' like Thomas Jefferson wouldn't sign off on the document without their inclusion.

Your natural rights describe those rights which are imbued to you by your Creator, they are unalienable. That is they cannot be transferred, ascribed or voided by governmental authority because the individual and their rights are superior to government. What does the Declaration of Independence say?

The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America, When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,

www.archives.gov...

The entire constitution was an attempt to form a government of by and for the people and to limit the power of government not grant it power.

Therefore each item in the Bill of Rights describes those rights which an individual has which are sovereign to government, since government is formed by the people.

The right to speak one's mind without fear of repercussion from government or others, the right to defend oneself against aggression with equal means as their aggressor, etc.

Constitutional relativism which is what has been taught by our educational system for decades has been an attempt to undermine the philosophy of natural rights and to a great degree it has been tremendously successful.

I like your postings.

But, where does that say EXACTLY what the 2nd Amendment means?

a reply to: Annee
Anybody who can read and understand English could see the amendment means exactly what it says, in plain English. That the State and the People have the right to keep and bear arms. The well regulated militia is necessary for a free state (National Guard for domestic, US Marines/Air Force/Army/Navy for foreign threats), and the people have the same right. Arms = armaments, as defined previously.

So you are saying the second amendment demands that local militia have equal armaments available to them as doves the United States government. Since they do not the American people are cowards and are not standing up to the United States government as they should. Therefore the only one really standing up to the United States government and Trump with his finger on the button is North Korea. a reply to: AdKiller

originally posted by: AMPTAH

originally posted by: Annee
No one knows for sure exactly what the original 2nd Amendment means. Not even those who've studied it.

I think the idea was that each state had the right to be armed, to protect itself against the federal government, should the federal government attempt to overstep its bounds and grab more power than that granted to it in the U.S. Constitution. So, it was really a state right to have a militia and bear arms for the states protection.

You see the Constitution limited the powers of the Federal Government, but what guarantees the enforcement of that limitation? Only a well armed state militia can do that. Which is the whole point.

There's a point in law which declares any written law that cannot be enforced is automatically null and void.

So, whenever there is a written law, you need to ask who enforces it, and how do they enforce that law.

That's the right to bear arms.

It's not the right of the individual citizen to bear arms. Though, that's the interpretation that is currently in practice. This latter is an incorrect interpretation.

I think this is a pretty good answer and well-written.

The 14th Amendment reversed the supremacy of the state over the federal/constitution, or at least brought the guarantees of the federal constitution and made them applicable with respect to state government. But, yes, when the Bill of Rights was written, the state could be said to have a need to protect itself from the federal government, but not after.

You're definitely right about how it is a right as applied to what the state may regulate, not so much a personal right.

If one reads Scalia's opinion, one can see that even Scalia recognized that much regulation under the 14rh Amendment was allowed.

a reply to: AdKiller

Here I was kinda hopin' you'd actually have an argument, right or wrong, that hasn't been used before...

Oh, well...maybe next time.

This is such a tired, tired argument. With no more validity this time than the first 10,000 times it's been used, nor will the next 10,000 times be any better.

Just so you know, there were repeating firearms in existance before the US constitution. The Girandani airgun was just one of them--invented, if I remember correctly more than a decade before the US constitution was ratified, or even written.

The flintlock was not the weapon that the Founding Fathers had in mind, certainly not exclusively. They knew, as they were rather smart guys, that there would be advancements, such as the aforementioned Girandani, in the technology as time wore on. Hence, the general phrasing used. If they'd meant flintlocks, or matchlock, or wheellock, that's what they'd have said.

So, try again.

originally posted by: SkeptiSchism

originally posted by: Annee
No one knows for sure exactly what the original 2nd Amendment means. Not even those who've studied it.

But, as it stands now, Scalia allowed the NRA to define it.

This is like allowing Fundamental Christians to define separation of church & state.

That isn't true, all of the bill of rights must be read in context of your natural rights. The bill of rights wasn't included in the original constitution, but later added so that the document could be ratified because some of the 'founding fathers' like Thomas Jefferson wouldn't sign off on the document without their inclusion.

Your natural rights describe those rights which are imbued to you by your Creator, they are unalienable. That is they cannot be transferred, ascribed or voided by governmental authority because the individual and their rights are superior to government. What does the Declaration of Independence say?

The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America, When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,

www.archives.gov...

The entire constitution was an attempt to form a government of by and for the people and to limit the power of government not grant it power.

Therefore each item in the Bill of Rights describes those rights which an individual has which are sovereign to government, since government is formed by the people.

The right to speak one's mind without fear of repercussion from government or others, the right to defend oneself against aggression with equal means as their aggressor, etc.

Constitutional relativism which is what has been taught by our educational system for decades has been an attempt to undermine the philosophy of natural rights and to a great degree it has been tremendously successful.

This is well-thought out and well-written.

I disagree with most people emphasizing the supremacy of natural rights and I am highly skeptical of people who speak of constitutional relativism. I prefer to speak of constitutional realism, and the reality is that we no longer live in an 18th century agrarian society.

Whereas the constitution was written in a time when people lived primarily off their physical labor and the land, and one traveled by horse, nowadays one can cross 3 states on their way to work, while ordering something on their phone from Oregon, utilizing a bank California and eating a muffin using ingredients from 3 nations.

In such a society, the federal government simply must attain a far greater degree of regulation, the Commerce clause is the most reasonable place for the basis of such powers, because it all does, in fact, touch on interstate commerce.

But, though I disagree with what I think you're getting at with respect to "constitutional relativism" (strongly), I do recognize well thought through stuff.

Most everyone in my neck of the woods is armed and skilled.
Even the kids.
There is no thought of fighting the government that I am aware of in any way.
Just keeping the neighborhood honest.

originally posted by: worldstarcountry
a reply to: Annee
a reply to: bluechevytree
swords, catapults, rockets (invented before firearms), axes, spears, bows and arrow, sling and stones, your bodily arms are all armaments (arms), and you have the inalienable right to bear them all, up to and including firearms.

Yes, God wants us all to be able to defend our own lives by any and all means necessary, starting with your bodily arms, and including all armaments necessary and readily available.

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State. This part is one half of the list and is accurately described. It is then followed by the next item in the list, which is: the right of the people to keep and bear arms, This is a list that explains which two parties described in the US have the right to keep and bear arms.

Both the well regulated militia and the people. It is quite clear to me.

and god says that in the bible, somewhere? if our "rights" were given by god then somewhere in the bible we should be able to read where he said or implied that we should be armed,or maybe the founding fathers were just making # up and contributing their ideas to god?

god said the meek will inherit the earth, and beat your swords into plowshares, jesus himself said put away your sword' so what part of the bible did the founding fathers get our god given "right" to bear arms from? maybe it was just a bunch of guys a few hundred years ago that said we had a god given right to bear arms because they knew that most people back then couldn`t read or write and didn`t own a bible so they just attributed this supposed right to god?

I just want to know where our rights" come from, because even to this day our "rights" an be taken away or added to based on the votes of senators who are merely mortal men like us, so are our rights really god given? or are they rights just because a bunch of guys a few hundred years ago said they are rights?

since they can be taken away or added to by the votes of mere humans then they aren`t god given rights.

if mere men can override gods will, then he isn`t much of a god or the rights that these mere men bestow upon us aren`t really god given rights.

a reply to: bluechevytree

Leviticus 24:16-17 16 'And whoever blasphemes the name of the LORD shall surely be put to death. All the congregation shall certainly stone him, the stranger as well as him who is born in the land. When he blasphemes the name of the Lord, he shall be put to death. 17 ' Whoever kills any man shall surely be put to death.
Nehemiah 4 17 Those who were rebuilding the wall and those who carried burdens took their load with one hand doing the work and the other holding a weapon. 18 As for the builders, each wore his sword girded at his side as he built, while the trumpeter stood near me. ... 21 So we carried on the work with half of them holding spears from dawn until the stars appeared. .... 23 So neither I, my brothers, my servants, nor the men of the guard who followed me, none of us removed our clothes, each took his weapon even to the water.
Exodus 22:2-3 2 "If the thief is found breaking in, and he is struck so that he dies, there shall be no guilt for his bloodshed.

The laws of the old testament still apply.

Matthew 5:17 Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them, but to fulfill them. 18For I tell you truly, until heaven and earth pass away, not a single jot, not a stroke of a pen, will disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished.…

There you go.

a reply to: bluechevytree

The unalienable rights that are mentioned in the Declaration of Independence could just as well have been inalienable, which means the same thing. Inalienable or unalienable refers to that which cannot be given away or taken away. However, the Founders used the word "unalienable" as defined by William Blackstone in his Commentaries on the Laws of England, 1:93, when he defined unalienable rights as: "Those rights, then, which God and nature have established, and therefore called natural rights, such as life and liberty, need not the aid of human laws to be more effectually invested in every man than they are; neither do they receive any additional strength when declared by the municipal laws to be inviolable. On the contrary, no human legislature has power to abridge or destroy them, unless the owner shall himself commit some act that amounts to a forfeiture."...in other words a person may do something to forfeit their unalienable rights...for instance the unalienable right to freedom which can be forfeited by the commission of a crime for which they may be punished by their loss of freedom. However, once they are freed after serving their punishment their right is restored.
Read more at www.yourdictionary.com...