Who here is an expert on the Constitution?

Over the weekend I had a huge debate with one of my friends regarding the 2nd amendment. My view was that we are entitled firearms to protect our person and residence, as well as overthrow a corrupt government- all protected under the 2nd. Therefor, we are entitled the same grade of weapon as any potential threat or potential enemy.

Now, his argument was that no, no one is entitled any weapon under the 2nd, and the only reason we are able to have them is because it would be too hard to take them away and explain how the law was misinterpreted. He believes it applies solely to state militias, such as the National Guard- and they are the only group under the Constitution that is entitled firearms.

So, what does the 2nd amendment really mean? Does it entitle law-abiding citizens weapons? Military grade weapons? Only State Militias? Is the National Guard the only militia allowed?

I'm confused, please clarify.

If you wanted a literal translation of the 2nd Amendment we would only really be guaranteed to bear arms within the structure of a well regulated militia.

It doesnt say anything about defining well regulated or whos militia. And there certainly arent any restrictions on what type of "arms" we can and cannot bear.

Say my sportsmen club wanted to write up a charter declaring us as a militia. Then there isnt a single thing anyone can do about us even if we did seek nuclear weapons. Every citizen has the Constitutional right to seek and "bear" nuclear weapons if he or she so desires. Technically we could stockpile biological and chemical weapons. We could only be charged with conspiring and intent.

Be very careful about what you think are and are not laws. When you analyse the Constitution relative to todays "laws" youll realize that very few of our "laws" are actually legal.

Good luck defending yourself in a government court in front of 12 of your brainwashed "peers" though.

Outside of the Bill of Rights however, your individual state laws are perfectly legal under the 14th Amendment. As long as they do not infringe on your rights as guaranteed to you by the Constitution.

If any militia group tries to get an WMD they should be executed. Guns are one thing, WMD's are absolutely insane.

So basically what it breaks down into is one huge grey area? Where the lawmakers have been unconstitutional, and citizens are as well... so it's who is more influencial and/or more powerful?

Whos more influential?

Well, unless 300 million Americans can come together its the US military. When push comes to shove you do what they say or end up dead.

I'm no expert, but I'll tell you what I think:

When the civil war ended, the evil powers in America knew they had to keep slavery but conceal it. So they passed the 13th and 14th amendments together (written together also) which say in turn:

13th = Involuntary servitude shall not exist in America.

and

14th = All persons born or naturalized in the US, AND subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States.

So if you look closely, the 14th Amendment states clearly that all US born persons who place themselves under the US jurisdiction, are bound by it, i.e. slaves.

Proof of this is obvious. Why would a person who is born in the US ever place himself under the jurisdiction of the US authority? There is no reason, and this is why most people do not even know how they become or remain slaves. Persons who are "naturalized" have to pass lots of tests and renounce their old allegiances. When does a native born American even renounce anything or accept anything or place themselves under the jurisdiction of the US? Well, if you get a driver's license (it's their main document of consent/compliance) then you are a slave, essentially.

Food for thought:

Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, John Jay, in 1794 wrote the following in in his landmark decision, Chisolm vs. Georgia:

at the revolution, the sovereignty devolved on the people; and they are truly the sovereigns of the country, but they are sovereigns without subjects (unless the African slaves among us may be so called) and have none to govern but themselves; the citizens of America are equal as fellow citizens, and as joint tenants in the sovereignty.

The point is, you are a sovereign if you want to be, but you might have to spend a couple nights in jail to prove to your local authority that you are serious about not complying.

Funny, because so many people would rather shoot at politicians than to simply stand their ground, go to jail, and say, "Sorry, but you do not have jurisdiction or authority over me."

So owning guns is fine, but cooperation with an unjust and illegal authority, is at your own discretion.

[edit on 8-12-2006 by smallpeeps]

What qualifies as a WMD?

That moron in Illinois who wanted to throw grenades in trashbins at the mall was charged for attempting to use a WMD.

www.usatoday.com...

Derrick Shareef, 22, of Rockford, was arrested when he met with an undercover agent in a parking lot to trade a set of stereo speakers for four hand grenades and a handgun.

Federal officials said he planned to set off four hand grenades in garbage cans at the CherryVale shopping mall in Rockford, about 90 miles northwest of Chicago.

He was charged with one count of attempting to damage or destroy a building by fire or explosion and one count of attempting to use a weapon of mass destruction.

So, what's a WMD?

I don't see any reason why responsible citizens shouldn't be allowed to own firearms, including automatic weapons.

Explosives are another matter entirely. If you're not trained in handling this sort of armament, you're a danger to yourself and your community. Same goes for NBC weapons.

Originally posted by WyrdeOne
Explosives are another matter entirely. If you're not trained in handling this sort of armament, you're a danger to yourself and your community. Same goes for NBC weapons.

Do you mean Will and Grace? That show should be deemed a WMD, and banned by the Geneva convention

But seriously folks, If someone can make explosives out of household stuff, I don't see any need for it to be illegal. I mean no one's going to ask questions when I buy bleach at the local market, or fertilizer. And good luck making them illegal. With the way that things are going, I'd like to build some pipe bombs for safe keeping, after all, they are cheaper to come by than guns.

And do explosives not count as arms? I'm betting that that is one we could take to the SCOTUS.

I used to tend bar and one of my patrons was a Constitutional Lawyer.
We had a similer discussion to the one you had with your friend.
The Constitutional Lawyer informed me that the second amendment has never been interpreted to mean individuals have the right to bear arms, only the military.
He also told me that he does not agree with the rulings. He believes (like I do)
that the 'free state' refered to means 'state of freedom', and the only way to maintain a 'state of freedom' is to have the means to fight those that want to take your freedom.

I HIGHLY recommend this thread.

Watch the videos. If you are American it is your duty.
You must know your rights, where they derive from, and potential threats to them before you can even begin to contemplate the 'legality' of anti-gun laws.

Hmmm the 2nd amendment works like this..

The Federal government cannot take guns away for any reason at all, nor can they implement laws restricting gun sales (such as automatic weaponry) to individuals. The states can however.

Here is why. The Federal government has NO regulation over militias. Lets take the war of 1812 for example, a few states refused to fight the British army unless they came into their state because they where using militias not the Federal Army. At the Battle of Lake Champlain the British attacked with naval and regulars on a fortification to secure a water way into the Atlantic. Because they crossed a state line in the war, even though Washington DC was burned down, only that motivated the New York militias to go to war, the Federal government with all it's powers could do nothing.

The states regulate the militia and therefore control who gets a gun and what kind of gun. Some would even interpret the law as the State is required to buy every citizen a gun, obviously that is an extremist view.

But, the states have a responsibility to defend their citizens, and it goes as to how this "democracy" is made up.

I live in Ohio, Ohio has a constitution, it was a territory of free people before submitting an application to join a union of various other states. We are a free nation, a separate entity from say Florida or South Carolina. If we so choose to, Ohio could drop out of the union, after the civil war Lincoln passed legislation to prevent another wide scale war by allowing any state that so chooses to leave freely. Of course no one cares about state rights any more, and the Federal government has grown so large they cover up our individual states rights. But, because we are a separate nation in a union as a state under a national governing body that represents our states interest, we protect against the federal government and foreign bodies. For the Federal government to legislate on gun control when states should be the ones worried about a rather large federal government taking their rights away is insane.

The 2nd amendment in short is a way of saying the Federal government can't touch it, however the states can because of the key words "Well regulated militia" which is under the states command. At any time a state can form a militia, as can any free person within a state so long as the militia abides by state laws and listens to the state officials, other wise it is a separate entity like a guerrilla group or terrorist group. Fine line, and the law is hard to understand, but that's my take on it.

Wyrdeone -

A WMD by classical standards (cold war) is NUCLEAR WEAPONS ONLY

However..

Mr. Bush changed the American Governments recognition of such language..

A WMD now includes

Nuclear
Biological
Chemical

All these are grouped into WMD language because...... More states have Chemical weapons then nuclear right? So let us assume we invade Iran, and Iran shoots a little bit of nerve agent at us..

National retaliation laws state a state using a WMD as a first strike weapons (including Nuclear, chemical and biological) demands a retaliatory strike with a superior WMD - nerve gas is retaliated with against nuclear ICBM's fired by America.

And no, that is not an over exaggeration that is the law and policy of the Federal government, you can look it up. Kinda scary eh?

Originally posted by smallpeeps
...

13th = Involuntary servitude shall not exist in America.

and

14th = All persons born or naturalized in the US, AND subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States.

So if you look closely, the 14th Amendment states clearly that all US born persons who place themselves under the US jurisdiction, are bound by it, i.e. slaves. ...

No, the 14th amendment states that all US born/naturalized persons and that the jurisdictions applies to have to be considered as citizens. Defining citizenship is important as this is the basis for equal jurisdiction. And the only alternative to having a jurisdiction is anarchy -> no state at all.

You are AUTOMATICALLY bound to the jurisdiction of the nation you are in by BEING in that nation - you become part of the society and have to act according to the rules that society chose for itself - whether you are a citizen of that nation or not.

A slave however is someone who has been stripped of certain rights that otherwise apply to all other persons equally, AND who is subject to another person.

Originally posted by Rockpuck
Wyrdeone -

A WMD by classical standards (cold war) is NUCLEAR WEAPONS ONLY

....

"Classical" standards concerning weapons "that cause unreasonable destruction" predate the nuclear weapon by far

I however agree that the term "WMD" has excessively been abused under the current administration.

[edit on 8/12/2006 by Lonestar24]

Originally posted by Lonestar24
No, the 14th amendment states that all US born/naturalized persons and that the jurisdictions applies to have to be considered as citizens.

I quoted what you said. I don't understand it. Can you rephrase it? "all US born/naturalized persons and that the juridiction applies to"? What does this mean? Let me make it simple: Does a person have the right to travel within the US territories? Do they need a driver license? If so, why?

You have not read what the first Supreme Court judge said about sovereignty and which I quoted above. Reread it and understand that this man witnessed the American Revolution and was part of those events.

Chisolm vs. Georgia

Defining citizenship is important as this is the basis for equal jurisdiction. And the only alternative to having a jurisdiction is anarchy -> no state at all.

The only alternative to having a jurisdiction is anarchy? You are wrong, entirely.

Jurisdiction is for people who are under some kind of authority. Americans are not, unless they choose to be. I know plenty of Americans who have no driver license and no vehicle tags and who are left alone by the local authorities.

Much of it depends on if your neighbors are of the same mind or not. If your neighbors are city dwellers, they will surely follow the US codes and statues. These are optional even if they themselves do not know this.

You are AUTOMATICALLY bound to the jurisdiction of the nation you are in by BEING in that nation - you become part of the society and have to act according to the rules that society chose for itself - whether you are a citizen of that nation or not.

Sure, in most countries, but not in America.

If you are born in the American territory, you are a sovereign and have to opt-in to their jurisdiction, just like the native peoples are, although their "countries" are now reduced to pathetic reservations. Notice that indian jurisdiction and US citizen jurisdiction are very different. But aren't all American born people the progeny of the original "We the People" of the Declaration of Independence? Yes, these were our forefathers and anyone born in America has the right to that sovereignty if they choose to claim it.

You have to say "I agree to be bound" by getting a driver license, to be a part of the US Federal jurisdiction. Just because the authority assumes jurisdiction doesn't make it so.

You are perhaps saying that if we don't have driver licenses and the DMV, that anarchy will ensue? I'd like more clarification.

We're discussing the second amendment, but the main question here is is, "Should I own a gun?" The answer is, "Don't look to the law, to answer that question, because lawyers make and perpetuate the laws." To me, the second amendment is clear, but the trampling of the US Constitution since then has made jurisdiction and authority the only question to discuss when before a judge.

And yes, I have discussed this question, with a judge, in his courtroom. He summarily dismissed me and kicked me out, but only because I irritated him by my innocent questions. If you want to own a gun, don't ever expect the gummint to give you permission. That is the essence of my argument.

A slave however is someone who has been stripped of certain rights that otherwise apply to all other persons equally, AND who is subject to another person.

I ask again: Do Americans have the right to travel in the American territory? The authority says "No, not if they don't obtain a driver license." ...But the fact of the matter and the honest to god functional truth is that lots of Americans do not have this license nor do they care about nor will they ever get it. In so doing, they do not fall under the jurisdiction of the US. So too with guns. Buy them, bury them, and don't worry about your license or the second amendment because there will have to be another constitutional convention anyway with the winds that are blowing. The "Citizen"-slaves are about to get unruly. Surely we will see the true definitions of slave, citizen, and sovereign.

[edit on 8-12-2006 by smallpeeps]

Lonestar24 -

"Classical" standards concerning weapons "that cause unreasonable destruction" predate the nuclear weapon by far

The term "mass destruction" or to use many weapons (aimed artillery on a concentrated populace or carpet bombing ect.) used unreasonable would be considered weapons of mass destruction.

However, the modern term (which if you read what I said, I said Cold War era :@@ for a single device as a weapon of mass destruction (the ability to cause death, mangle, destroy innocent lives or infrastructure) is given only to atomic weaponry because of the immense damage inflicted by just one single bomb.

That is why it is .. shady at best that Bush put Chemical, and Biological under the terms WMD.. if it where in fact the case we have used WMD's consistently in desert storm with DPU Shells (radiation) - if another nation where to use a chemical assault of any varying size (be it killing a few hundred to a few thousand) troops or civilians we respond with nuclear weapons. Nukes because we technically never developed biological weapons and find the use of chemical weaponry inhumane.

Gun ownership is a moral issue that transcends legal definitions. You either think civilian gun ownership is good or bad and hiding either side of some woolly eighteenth century American-English legal document is just a transparent attempt to justify your viewpoint without really explaining it in honest terms.

The Constitution as it exists today is a historical document that should only really be argued about by historians looking at it within the context of the times when it was written. It didn't change what is right or wrong, it should not define what is right or wrong and it sure as hell isn't worth changing your true beliefs because of it.

Here's some more information:

en.wikipedia.org...

A well regulated militia, ( civilian army not influenced by the US government )being necessity to the security of free state, ( the state you live in) the right of the people ( that's you and me) to keep ( in the home) and bear ( carry on your person) arms shall not be infringed. ( taken away form you and me in any way)

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."

Simple!

Roper

"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."

Its pretty clear to me that "we" are the people, and this clearly stats both militias AND the people.

Excellent Creedo!

Now the anti's will have a very different opinion. This is because they are elitist and want to control "the people".

Roper

You've got it, Roper. It's really pretty clear:

"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 states that a well regulated Militia is necessary to insure the security of a free state. Therefore the right of the people (should they need to organize a Militia) to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Militia: 1 a : a part of the organized armed forces of a country liable to call only in emergency b : a body of citizens organized for military service
2 : the whole body of able-bodied male citizens declared by law as being subject to call to military service
m/w

So, the people (that's us) are permited to have firearms because there may come a time when we need to enforce our security ourselves by forming a regulated Militia because we may not be able to count on the regular armed forces to do so.