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 Second Amendment of the Bill of Rights...

page: 1
1

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 1 2008 @ 09:40 AM
link   
I am interested in discussion and debate on only the Second Amendment to the Bill of Rights of the Constitution of the UAS.

[Amendment II][4]

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.

4. In the Congressional Statutes at Large, Vol. 1, Page 97, at memory.loc.gov.../llsl001.db&recNum=220, the first and third commas are omitted, so that it reads:

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 seems to me that excessive threads and discussions talk about AWB, restrictions, concealed carry, instruction, registration, license with no understanding of the purpose, meaning and intent of the foundation upon which ALL of these arguements must rest, and that is the Second Amendment of the Bill of Rights to the Constitution.

Why was the Bill of Rights added to the constitution.
What is the Bill of Rights.
What does it mean.
How is it interpeted.
What are the meanings of the terms in the Bill of Rights, Second amendment.




posted on Nov, 2 2008 @ 12:47 AM
link   
So answer most of your questions, one need not seek further than a simple lesson in history.

The Bill of Rights are amendments to the constitution, to summarize what happened:

"Ok guys, what do you think? I've got this constitution here that dictates how every citizen should act and how guidelines for the government to operate under incase there is any confusion."

"Hmm, sounds good guy, but this gives way too much power to the government, how do we secure each individual citizen's rights?"

"Uhm, we'll just think of what every guy wants to have and throw it together on a piece of paper and call it the Bill of Rights."

And I think that's pretty much what happened. Thank James Madison for the Bill of Rights.

Everything else is open to interpretation, dependent on who you ask and what someone's political bias is, you're going to get very different answers to your very simple questions.

Shattered OUT...



posted on Nov, 2 2008 @ 12:54 AM
link   
Shattered is absolutely correct.

The Constitution rolled out, and they had to get all the newly formed states to ratify it...

However there was contention about the fact that the constitution did not ban many of the activities they declared independence from.

So in order to get the All the states on board, they made a political concession, and decided they would throw together a second document outlining the individual rights they wanted to protect...

Before anyone flips out that it was a political concession, keep in mind that the ratification of the constitution meant every state legislative body had to get a copy, and debate/vote in their own state assemblies...

When you think of the sheer bureaucracy involved, its actually a miracle anything got passed without being so watered down it would be ineffectual...



posted on Nov, 2 2008 @ 01:43 AM
link   
Why was the Bill of Rights added to the constitution.

To enumerate and establish the rights of US citizens.

What is the Bill of Rights.

In general, the first 10 amendments to the constitution.

What does it mean.

Exactly what they say. The wording is actually quite clear and concise, except to liberals who don't like the individual freedoms and limits on government powers that the Bill of Rights guarantees.

How is it interpeted.

To a rational and logical person, there is really nothing to interpret. The Constitution and its amendments are clear and straightforward. The only people that feel a need to "interpret" them are the nanny-state leftists that don't like what they say.

What are the meanings of the terms in the Bill of Rights, Second amendment.

The purpose of the Bill of Rights, and the US Constitution as a whole, is to protect American citizens from abuses by the federal government. Sadly, what American gun control advocates fail to comprehend is that without the 2nd amendment, there would be no other amendments. If the British would have enforced gun control in 1775, there would be no USA. Get it?



posted on Nov, 2 2008 @ 05:48 AM
link   
Thank you three for reading the thread and posting something about it.

Sounds like you three are shooters yourselves.

The Bill of Rights lists Inalienable rights. Inalienable rights are natrual rights. Natural rights are rights possessed by persons and are not Civil rights. Civil rights are granted, given, guaranteed, conferred, codified, controlled by the government. Inalienable rights are rights endowed by a persons creator.

Militia was at the time of the Revolutionary War all able bodied males over 18. First they were citizens of the thirteen original colonies. Second they were unwilling subjects of the British Empire. Third they were husbands, fathers, sons who owned an arm and used the arm for feeding family and self defense. Fourth they were voluntary members of the Militia. Fifth they were fighting to throw off the yoke of the British Empire.

Keep means, how the arm is possessed, stored, secured.
Bear means how the arm is held, carried, transported, possessed on ones self, or otherwise.
Arm is means for self defense, weapon, firearm.

Shall not be infringed means no law, condition, regulation, class requirement, fee, background check, permit or other infringement on KEEP AND BEAR clause. Infringement takes the form of magazine capacity limits, AWB, safety locks, ammunition taxes, gun free zones, and other creative infringements on the inalienable right to keep and bar arms.



posted on Nov, 2 2008 @ 05:59 AM
link   
The biggest danger to the 2nd amendment is the so called "except criminals" garbage..........when the 2nd amendment was written there were criminals around.......so why doesn't the 2nd say "keep and bear arms (except criminals)?....because the were well aware that if the except criminal clause was there the governemnt could declare mass amounts of citizens 'criminals" which has in fact happened. Under obamassiah a speeding ticket will cause one to loose the right to keep a gun.



posted on Nov, 4 2008 @ 06:04 AM
link   
I did not go to a government class, or get a government permit to attend church on Sundays.

I do not need trained on how to exercize my freedom of speech.

Do not need to pay a $115.00 fee to be permitted to redress grievances.

Do not have to have a check on my mental stability or substance use to vote.

Do not have to have a background check to prevent me from pleading the fifth amendment.

Do not have to get fingerprinted to go to an assembly of peers.

The second amendment is already being infringed upon. Those absurd infringements postulated above on other rights in the Bill of Rights make no sense. So how does anyone talking out of both sides of their mouth say "I am thinking we need certain restrictions on gun ownership, but...I support the second amendment."

I am just baffled at the incongruence of the thinking that supports comments like that.

The teeth are being pulled slowly and surely on the second amendment. As soon as it is toothless then none of the rest of the constitution or the bill of rights is worth the paper they are written upon.



posted on Nov, 6 2008 @ 06:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by fmcanarney
I did not go to a government class, or get a government permit to attend church on Sundays.

I do not need trained on how to exercize my freedom of speech.

Do not need to pay a $115.00 fee to be permitted to redress grievances.

Do not have to have a check on my mental stability or substance use to vote.

Do not have to have a background check to prevent me from pleading the fifth amendment.

Do not have to get fingerprinted to go to an assembly of peers.

The second amendment is already being infringed upon. Those absurd infringements postulated above on other rights in the Bill of Rights make no sense. So how does anyone talking out of both sides of their mouth say "I am thinking we need certain restrictions on gun ownership, but...I support the second amendment."

I am just baffled at the incongruence of the thinking that supports comments like that.

The teeth are being pulled slowly and surely on the second amendment. As soon as it is toothless then none of the rest of the constitution or the bill of rights is worth the paper they are written upon.


When obamassiah gets his "civilian guard" up and running (brown shirts) there will be a clash between them and some "hate group of 2nd amendment nuts" and he will ban all guns "for the good of the country" except his personal thugs.........most likely all recuited from the black panthers or the weather underground.............



posted on Nov, 22 2009 @ 08:29 AM
link   
I did not go to a government class, or get a government permit to attend church on Sundays.

I do not need trained on how to exercize my freedom of speech.

Do not need to pay a $115.00 fee to be permitted to redress grievances.

Do not have to have a check on my mental stability or substance use to vote.

Do not have to have a background check to prevent me from pleading the fifth amendment.

Do not have to get fingerprinted to go to an assembly of peers.

The second amendment is already being infringed upon. Those absurd infringements postulated above on other rights in the Bill of Rights make no sense. So how does anyone talking out of both sides of their mouth say "I am thinking we need certain restrictions on gun ownership, but...I support the second amendment."

I am just baffled at the incongruence of the thinking that supports comments like that.

The teeth are being pulled slowly and surely on the second amendment. As soon as it is toothless then none of the rest of the constitution or the bill of rights is worth the paper they are written upon.



posted on Nov, 22 2009 @ 09:09 AM
link   
reply to post by fmcanarney
 




The Second Amendment of the Bill of Rights...


As those who laid the foundation of this nation are no longer here to explain it to us, it is all open to interpretation. There are many variables, too. The English language has evolved quite a lot and politics being what they have always been, the twisting and restacking of words and meanings is an ever-dangerous obstacle.

Offering my own interpretation, I believe the Second Amendment was intended to serve two purposes...

1. To have a ready reserve of citizens who could respond immediately to any threat with both training and weaponry. Instead of a draft and compulsory service, there were militias.

2. To have an armed populace to prevent the kind of governmental abuses of a nation that had been so very prevalent in Europe both prior to, and then after the founding of the United States.

The die is cast and regardless of what anyone may wish, there is no way to disarm the American public that won't too lead to insurrection and a new government. This insurance policy against an open tyranny here, in this nation, works to this day.

Edit: Typos *sigh*



[edit on 22-11-2009 by redoubt]



posted on Nov, 22 2009 @ 09:27 AM
link   
reply to post by fmcanarney
 


Why was the Bill of Rights added to the constitution.

The Bill of Rights were fundamental in bringing about acceptance of the Constitution. Some critics argued without it, the people were signing over too many of their fundamental rights.

What is the Bill of Rights.

Historically the first ten amendments of the Constitution. I consider the Reconstruction Amendments to be as fundamental, and the completion of the Bill of Rights however.

What does it mean.

I don't understand what you mean.


How is it interpeted.

Article III Courts interpret the Constitution, including the Amendments.

What are the meanings of the terms in the Bill of Rights, Second amendment.

The Second Amendment protects an individual's right to bear arms. For the most up to date interpretation, see Heller. Google it.



posted on Nov, 22 2009 @ 09:09 PM
link   
to me ...aside from the history and its importance as a part of the constitution.... it means I keep my guns and surrender them to know one...

3% percenters and oath keepers are a group along with militias and just regular folks are not going to surrender their right to arms under any authority.... least not the large amount of people in my group...



new topics

top topics



 
1

log in

join