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.

 

Comprehending the 2nd Amendment

page: 4
6
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 18 2018 @ 05:15 PM
link   

originally posted by: elysiumfire
The United States 2nd Amendment to the Constitution states…”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.” This is the Thomas Jefferson authenticated ratified version by all the states at that time.

How is the statement to be read and understood, and more importantly, does it refer to an individual right to own a gun for one’s own self-defence?

Did you fail basic English?



”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.”

It's the comma(,) that separates the militia and the citizen.

Both of whom have this right to bear arms.




posted on Feb, 18 2018 @ 06:04 PM
link   

originally posted by: elysiumfire

Perhaps, it would good to be reminded that random and instantaneous vigilantism is not good for the community. The reason being is that innocents can suffer under it, non-involved people can become involved by getting caught in the crossfire and/or gun fire exchange, potentially increasing the likelihood of deaths and casualties. This in itself nullifies the twisted logic of ‘carry and conceal’. It also places the police and Home Guard in very peculiar and threatening positions. They will have no idea who is concealing and carrying, nor if they are a good guy or a bad guy.

As things stand, the Constitution is not a haven for an individual’s right to bear arms for their own self-interest and self-preservation.



This first paragraph is predicated on the assumption that either the person firing in defense is an untrained Dirty Harry wannabe, or the innocent are complete morons that don't duck and cover.









The 2nd Amendment gives us the right to keep and bear arms, be it against a tyrannical government, or anyone wishing to do harm to us or our loved ones, and gives us the right to arm ourselves to the standard of whom we face. Many of us exercise our 2nd amendment right with proper training and safety.

I think you need to brush up on your reading comprehension and look at the constitution again.

ETA: I wonder if I should post the videos of AR-15s being used in self defense against more than 3 assailants.
edit on 18-2-2018 by Wardaddy454 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 18 2018 @ 06:08 PM
link   

originally posted by: JAY1980

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.



It's the comma(,) that separates the militia and the citizen.

Both of whom have this right to bear arms.


I would say that means that the Federal Government has no right to tell the citizens of the state that they can't keep and bear arms, "if" the state determines that is what is required to keep a "well regulated militia."

Yes, there's a comma, but not a period, separating the two statements. That suggests they are part of the same "thought".

See, the state can decide that everyone in the state should or can keep and bear arms, or the state can decide that only certain people in the state can keep and bear arms. That depends on how the state defines its militia. Is everybody part of the militia, or is the militia just a subset of the citizenry?

What gives the government the right to say "felons" and "mentally ill people" cannot keep and bear arms?

The constitution doesn't say that felons or mentally ill people are "excluded" from these "rights."

So, it is obvious that the constitution "CANNOT" mean every citizen has the right to bear arms.

And it then follows that the constitution "MUST" mean that the government has the power to decide who can bear arms.

Then, the context of that statement in the 2nd amendment clarifies that the state decides which of it's citizens can keep and bear arms, having decided how to constitute a militia, which can vary from state to state, and that once the state decides on who can keep and bear arms, the Federal Government cannot then infringe on these state determined rights.

That has got to be the correct interpretation of the U.S. constitution, because nothing else makes any sense.




edit on 18-2-2018 by AMPTAH because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 18 2018 @ 06:14 PM
link   

originally posted by: AMPTAH

originally posted by: JAY1980

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.



It's the comma(,) that separates the militia and the citizen.

Both of whom have this right to bear arms.


I would say that means that the Federal Government has no right to tell the citizens of the state that they can't keep and bear arms, "if" the state determines that is what is required to keep a "well regulated militia."

Yes, there's a comma, but not a period, separating the two statements. That suggests they are part of the same "thought".

See, the state can decide that everyone in the state should or can keep and bear arms, or the state can decide that only certain people in the state can keep and bear arms. That depends on how the state defines its militia. Is everybody part of the militia, or is the militia just a subset of the citizenry?

What gives the government the right to say "felons" and "mentally ill people" cannot keep and bear arms?

The constitution doesn't say that felons or mentally ill people are "excluded" from these "rights."

So, it is obvious that the constitution "CANNOT" mean every citizen has the right to bear arms.

And it then follows that the constitution "MUST" mean that the government has the power to decide who can bear arms.

Then, the context of that statement in the 2nd amendment clarifies that the state decides which of it's citizens can keep and bear arms, having decided how to constitute a militia, which can vary from state to state, and that once the state decides on who can keep and bare arms, the Federal Government cannot then infringe on these state determined rights.

That has got to be the correct interpretation of the U.S. constitution, because nothing else makes any sense.





Expect for that pesky part at the end that says shall not be infringed.



posted on Feb, 18 2018 @ 06:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: Wardaddy454

Expect for that pesky part at the end that says shall not be infringed.


So, even felons and mentally ill have the right to keep and bear arms?

Who has the right to "infringe" on these citizen's rights?




posted on Feb, 18 2018 @ 06:23 PM
link   

edit on 18-2-2018 by BELIEVERpriest because: (no reason given)


Never mind. I don't need to be told how to interpret the Bill of Rights, to exercise my right to own a hand cannon.
edit on 18-2-2018 by BELIEVERpriest because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 18 2018 @ 06:25 PM
link   
a reply to: AMPTAH

Should felons and the "mentally ill" be able to protect themselves?



posted on Feb, 18 2018 @ 06:31 PM
link   
On several occasions, even the very liberal supreme court that we have now has disagreed whenever it's come before them...

The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. What part of that are you having such an issue with, as regards comprehension?

Shall not be infringed. That means hands off. So long as I'm using my arms in a legal manner, the govt can not prevent me from owning.

The 2nd amendment doesn't grant me that right, it protects what is already an existing right, granted to me by God. To be able to help me keep me and mine safe to pursue lives being beholden to no one and nothing.



posted on Feb, 18 2018 @ 06:33 PM
link   

originally posted by: Ursushorribilis
a reply to: AMPTAH

Should felons and the "mentally ill" be able to protect themselves?


No. Because "their" concept of "self-defense" often differs radically from the rest of "ours."

Like White Supremists deciding to shoot and kill everyone in a black church, because he imagines they are raping our white women.



So, the constitution can't grant everyone the right to keep and bear arms.

Otherwise, background checks would be illegal, since it would be an attempt to "infringe" on a citizen's right to buy a gun for self-defense.



posted on Feb, 18 2018 @ 06:34 PM
link   
a reply to: AMPTAH

Have those felons paid for their mistakes? If not, why are they out? If they have paid their dues, then yes, they should be able to defend themselves.

Mentally ill? By whose definition? Some pesky bureaucrat who knows less than I do? Some Congressman who's only concern is getting reelected?



posted on Feb, 18 2018 @ 06:34 PM
link   

originally posted by: AMPTAH

originally posted by: Wardaddy454

Expect for that pesky part at the end that says shall not be infringed.


So, even felons and mentally ill have the right to keep and bear arms?

Who has the right to "infringe" on these citizen's rights?




Clearly a balance has already been established between law abiding citizens and felons, regarding guns.

Mental illness is a slippery slope. People with violent tendencies because of illness shouldn't have guns. And if they have those violent tendencies they are probably already in a facility for treatment. But what would stop someone with an agenda from classifying me as mentally ill because I voted for Trump and thereby automatically taking away my right to a gun over my vote? The better argument is ban guns or make mental health care better accessed for those whom haven't been diagnosed.
edit on 18-2-2018 by Wardaddy454 because: clarification



posted on Feb, 18 2018 @ 06:38 PM
link   

originally posted by: seagull


The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. What part of that are you having such an issue with, as regards comprehension?

Shall not be infringed. That means hands off. So long as I'm using my arms in a legal manner, the govt can not prevent me from owning.


See...that's the whole thing.

The "right" !

Where did you get this "right" from?

Who granted you this "right"?

The "state" grants the "right" to the citizen to keep and bear arms.

And once the "state" grants you that "right", the Federal Government cannot "infringe" on your "right".

That's it.

You are not born with the right to keep and bear arms.

God didn't give you a gun, when you entered this world.

You get the gun from someone else, and the right to have that weapon from the state.

It's a state granted "right".

The "right" comes from the "state", and the "do not infringe" sign is a message to the Federal Government,

AFTER the state has granted you that "right."



posted on Feb, 18 2018 @ 06:46 PM
link   

originally posted by: AMPTAH

originally posted by: seagull


The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. What part of that are you having such an issue with, as regards comprehension?

Shall not be infringed. That means hands off. So long as I'm using my arms in a legal manner, the govt can not prevent me from owning.


See...that's the whole thing.

The "right" !

Where did you get this "right" from?

Who granted you this "right"?

The "state" grants the "right" to the citizen to keep and bear arms.

And once the "state" grants you that "right", the Federal Government cannot "infringe" on your "right".

That's it.

You are not born with the right to keep and bear arms.

God didn't give you a gun, when you entered this world.

You get the gun from someone else, and the right to have that weapon from the state.

It's a state granted "right".

The "right" comes from the "state", and the "do not infringe" sign is a message to the Federal Government,

AFTER the state has granted you that "right."






Do you think they'll change it now?



posted on Feb, 18 2018 @ 06:52 PM
link   
a reply to: AMPTAH

I was born with it. It's inherent from the moment of my birth.

I have the right to be safe in my person from those who would harm me. Do I not?

The gun is a **bleepin'** tool. It allows me, should the time ever come, to protect myself a bit easier. It allows me to feed myself, another protection, this one from hunger.

It is, most assuredly, not granted by the state. Never has been. Never will be. If the state dissolves tomorrow, do I no longer have the right to protect myself, and my family? Think maybe I do, or rather, will.



posted on Feb, 18 2018 @ 07:07 PM
link   

originally posted by: Wardaddy454

Do you think they'll change it now?


Of course.

They have no choice.

You cannot control a population of 300 million people, with a simplistic interpretation that says every citizen has the right to keep and bear arms.

That was a misinterpretation that got enshrined into the "legal practice", for one reason or the other, and has become the norm among many legal and normal citizens alike.

It's uncertain how many mass shooting it will take, before the states clamp down and apply the more strict interpretation of the constitution to solve the problem.

The solution is there, already, in the correct interpretation of the constitution. But, because of misinterpretations in the past, there are now court cases that establish the law that is at variance with the text of the constitution itself. So, it's going to take "re-interpretation" by the supreme court in the future, to add clarity to the issue, and re-establish the law as it was originally written, by close reading the text, rather than the fuzzy unclear practice we have now, where arbitrary decisions are being made on who can or cannot keep and bear arms.

Ultimately, the supreme court decides on the "correct interpretation" for the age.

So, we await their more intelligent interpretation.

No new laws are required.

The solution is on the books.

The supreme court just has to act.



posted on Feb, 18 2018 @ 07:13 PM
link   
a reply to: AMPTAH

The People granted the State permission to act on our behalf and in our interest.

Natural rights are not granted. They are inherent and inalienable. You have your rights at birth by virtue of self-ownership. If you so choose, you can also believe that [ insert deity here ] gave them to you.

Natural rights cannot be granted, taken, or laid down. They can only be violated. There is no higher authority to ask permission from. I.E. I own my life, therefore I have a natural right to defend myself from any and all comers.

Privileges can be granted by those of a higher authority than the grantee. I.E. I can give you permission to cross my property. You have no right to cross it on your own, but you can appeal to me, the owner.

The argument you seem to be making is that "The State" which is a construct which is given power by the people who live under its government, owns the people who gave it power in the first place.



posted on Feb, 18 2018 @ 07:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: cynicalheathen
a reply to: AMPTAH

The People granted the State permission to act on our behalf and in our interest.


Right. Your neighbors decide whether they'll allow you to have a gun.

They do this by setting up "the state" and granting it authority to give you that right or not, to keep themselves safe, as they see fit.



posted on Feb, 18 2018 @ 07:21 PM
link   

originally posted by: seagull
a reply to: AMPTAH


The gun is a **bleepin'** tool. It allows me, should the time ever come, to protect myself a bit easier. It allows me to feed myself, another protection, this one from hunger.
.


Well, Iran and North Korea both think it's their right to build Nuclear Bombs, to protect themselves from aggressors.

So, they think just like you, we should be able to acquire the weapon of our own choice to defend ourselves.

The Nuclear Weapon is just a **bleepin** tool.

Why don't we all just go along with their view of what their "rights" are?



posted on Feb, 18 2018 @ 07:34 PM
link   
a reply to: AMPTAH

Well then, *poof* I decide you no longer have any rights.

No more posting on ATS, privacy, we can punish you as cruellly and unusually as we like, and you now are going to be compelled to testify against yourself.

So long as a mere majority is needed to violate your rights.

Oh wait, we live in a Republic, not a Democracy. Since you know, the word Democracy doesn't appear in the Constitution and all.

If you have no rights but what the government "allows" you, you are a subject. You are chattel property.



posted on Feb, 18 2018 @ 07:36 PM
link   

originally posted by: AMPTAH

originally posted by: Wardaddy454

Do you think they'll change it now?


Of course.

They have no choice.

You cannot control a population of 300 million people, with a simplistic interpretation that says every citizen has the right to keep and bear arms.

That was a misinterpretation that got enshrined into the "legal practice", for one reason or the other, and has become the norm among many legal and normal citizens alike.

It's uncertain how many mass shooting it will take, before the states clamp down and apply the more strict interpretation of the constitution to solve the problem.

The solution is there, already, in the correct interpretation of the constitution. But, because of misinterpretations in the past, there are now court cases that establish the law that is at variance with the text of the constitution itself. So, it's going to take "re-interpretation" by the supreme court in the future, to add clarity to the issue, and re-establish the law as it was originally written, by close reading the text, rather than the fuzzy unclear practice we have now, where arbitrary decisions are being made on who can or cannot keep and bear arms.

Ultimately, the supreme court decides on the "correct interpretation" for the age.

So, we await their more intelligent interpretation.

No new laws are required.

The solution is on the books.

The supreme court just has to act.







Well that's the point. To not control the population by granting inherent freedoms.

Mass shooting have been trending downwards. This 18 in a couples months malarkey is due to changed definitions. School shootings now constitute incidents that take place near a school, not necessarily on school grounds. Mass shootings now are regarded as least 4 persons simply receiving non-life threatening injuries. But its about the buzzwords.

The Supreme Court has also contradicted prior courts from time to time, so I wouldn't place much stock in the issue ever being settled.




top topics



 
6
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join