Your right to 'Bear Arms'

One way to think of of bill of rights is that it guaranties rights from a preoccupied, sloppy, or inattentive government.

Another way to think of it is as a list things a bad government will take away.

Fair warning

reply to post by Semicollegiate


This is exactly why I've come to conclude that the BoR is just a worthless piece of paper.

Government shouldnt be deciding what my rights are. And in all fairness it doesnt with this document. It simply lists examples of rights then lumps all the rest into the 9th.

But it isnt working.

My natural rights, the rights of every man woman and child, to live their life as they see fit as long as this doesnt infringe on the same rights of others, havent been respected in over a century.

Sure, we get wonderful literalists who chime in with gems like "what rights have you lost?" referring simply to the rights contained within that document explicitly. As though the BoR is some end-all-be-all list? That seems terribly sad to me. We've become so comfortable within our little box that we honestly believe the parameters of our lives are simply artificial constructs of the whims of an oligarchical conglomerate.

What we should be seeing is the common presumption of liberty. But instead what we get is the presumption of tyranny from politicians, police and peers. If somebody doesnt like a thing be it a gun, drug, relationship or attitude it must be against the law and there is an entire "justice" industry out there that is willing and eager to spend as much time and money as it takes to prove the presumption of tyranny over liberty.

Both Afghanistan and Iraq, before the respective invasions, had well regulated militias armed with guns. Don't think it deterred the invaders much.

As for armed populations preventing a tyranny, it is equally laughable unless the tyrants are downright stupid.

If under the authority of the recently passed NDAA, government agents come to arrest a person suspected of terrorism, how exactly does he/she defend themselves? Do the gun owners go armed to the door every time there is a knock on it and start shooting once they realise it is the government agents come to arrest them on suspicion of terrorism? Or they don't always go to the door armed, but have some kind of an alarm call system worked out with their family and neighbours which when given by anybody the others would come with their guns and shoot down the government agents come to arrest the person under the tyrannical laws?

Originally posted by Submarines
The second ammendment:

As ratified by the States and authenticated by Thomas Jefferson, Secretary of State:


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.


Everyone seems to leave out the first part.A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state,,

This part states the reason that we were given the right to bear arms. IMO, there has been far too much interpretation to the 2nd ammendment. Independent interpretation has taken a simple sentence and created a monster. I think if the Founding Fathers new that we would have small weapons that can cause mass destruction, this ammendment would have been written differently. On the other hand, maybe the Founding Fathers gave us way too much credit, and figured that we would be smart enough to read the entire ammendment as it was written.

The comma after "state" is separating the two clauses, not making them inclusive. "the right of the people to bear arms" is referring to individual citizens. This Amendment is referring to two separate parties, a militia and citizens.

Leftists have tried for years to do what you've just failed to do. Grammar rules still apply, and James Madison was a linguist of the highest degree. It's idiotic that anyone would argue a different meaning of the 2nd than what was intended, especially since it is probably one of the most clear Amendments written out of all 27 of them.

/TOA

reply to post by thisguyrighthere


I think Jefferson would say the cities did us in. You can't grow up in a city without being dependent on money and the society at large. Perception of that fact makes a person deferential to the collective and thinking that law and regulation are the ways of progress.

Economic independance is the prerequisite of liberty. I wonder how much space is required to be self-sufficient in food and energy at our state of technology?

Guns are not the problem. There IS however, a cultural problem within specific demographics.

You don't get rid of medicine because SOME people abuse it.

You don't get rid of food because SOME people abuse it.

You don't even get rid of alchol because SOME people abuse it. The only thing prohibition achieved was making criminals like Joe Kennedy filthy rich.

In the same way, if you take away the right to bear arms (the type that could be used to defend our country or home against invasion), then the only thing you will accomplish is the empowering and emboldening of criminals and invaders.

reply to post by The Old American


Well said, Old American... Well said...

reply to post by Observor


Everybody gathers to the sound of the guns. Have to watch intersections in widely spread rural neighborhoods.

Originally posted by Semicollegiate
reply to post by thisguyrighthere

 

I think Jefferson would say the cities did us in. You can't grow up in a city without being dependent on money and the society at large. Perception of that fact makes a person deferential to the collective and thinking that law and regulation are the ways of progress.

Economic independance is the prerequisite of liberty. I wonder how much space is required to be self-sufficient in food and energy at our state of technology?

Yes, they did.

People have made pretty successful efforts at self-sustainability on as little as 1/10th of an acre.

Food, water and clothing arent the problems and dont really require much land at all if you do it right.

The problem is that even completely self sustaining and off the grid you are still expected to pay property taxes and consequently require an income. So you can work to pay your taxes but that leaves less time to maintain your growing/farming. You could sell excess product but that opens you up to regulatory requirements including fees, taxes, inspections, equipment mandates, etc....

Either way you go to pay these property taxes you're screwed.

Originally posted by Morg234
America already has a "well-regulated militia". It's called the Army National Guard.

That is not a Militia.

I can recall the right to bear arms discussion several years ago. It was between my company commander, a platoon sgt, a staff sgt, and a lieutenant.
I stuck my head in the room and informed them, yes, the constitution says we have the right to own guns, and it was the army that requested I swear an oath of enlistment.

That oath included "serve and defend the constitution against all enemies, foreign and DOMESTIC"

I took that oath seriously. (the room went from argument to dead silence as I walked away)

Originally posted by macman

Originally posted by Morg234
America already has a "well-regulated militia". It's called the Army National Guard.

That is not a Militia.

Exactly. The Guard serves a dual role, both state and federal. So the are under the command of the president. (as well as the respective state government)

example - Guard units from LA that could not help their state during hurricane katrina, because the president had them in Iraq at the time.

I find it funny that the 2nd Amendment is the ONLY amendment that "the people" somehow doesn't mean "the people" to liberals. Perhaps we apply that same logic on "the people" to the other amendments?

,

Originally posted by brokedown
The Right to Bear Arms has always been interpreted as the weapons in which a line soldier in the militia would carry.

However,

In 1939 the Supreme Court ruled , in US vs. Miller, that a ?“sawed-off?” shotgun does NOT meet the description of a line soldiers weaponry.

This ruling sighted the Virginia Militia Act of 1785 as its basis in their decision.

The Supreme Court?’s decision was inaccurate and with out merit because the Militia of 1785 did in fact have employed the ?“Blunderbuss?”.

The Supreme Court?’s ruling became to suggest that if a weapon was a weapon a line soldier in the military used it was then legal for the citizen to posses under the Militia clause.

However, this also has been changed through Congress with the passage of the National Firearms Act of 1934, and the Gun Control Act of 1968, where by it was recognized that the citizen is able to posses a machine gun under the second amendment, but the congress will now require a tax and registration of the machine gun.

And,

That explosives as grenades will now be outlawed for the citizen, as will silencers.

It is commonly held that if a line solider in the military CARRIES a weapon, that weapon is protected under the second amendment, but our Congress has outlawed most of that as well.

edit on 19-12-2011 by brokedown because: spelling correction

edit on 19-12-2011 by brokedown because: (no reason given)

"silencers" are not outlawed or banned. During the great depression every day folks were making and selling sound suppressors to poach game to feed themselves and others from wherever they could animals including state and federal parks. This led to dramatic decrease of wild game. The laws passed regarding sound supressors implimented a 400 dollar tax and written permission required from your local sherif or police chief. Back then 400 dollars was a fortune so that cut back on the sale tremendously. Things are the same today tax and approval of cheif law enforcement officer required...but you can own them.,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

Originally posted by macman

Originally posted by Morg234
America already has a "well-regulated militia". It's called the Army National Guard.

That is not a Militia.

I always felt that since the government can invoke a draft during times of armed conflict then all citizens should be covered under the 2nd amendment.

can someone post the family guy bear arms clip i cant fid it and am not good with computers pls thanx

Originally posted by Semicollegiate
reply to post by Observor

 

Everybody gathers to the sound of the guns. Have to watch intersections in widely spread rural neighborhoods.

Who is firing first? The government agents don't need to fire, unless the person is resisting arrest and not even then. They can taser, use pacifying injections or even use silencers if firing. Is there that level of trust and solidarity between neighbours that if they see government agents arresting a person they know it is a tyrannical act and they would stop such an arrest using their arms?

What if the arrest is made not at home, but in a market place or at work?

Originally posted by browsey
firstly my name is not browsey because i browse haha

nice observation, i might go and kill a vampite with a steak in a moment...

Yes i understand in a time of need but your circumstance is not a good example, someone holds a knife to a loved ones throat? How often and how many people that you directly know has this ever happened to? Your paranoia of invasion is merely from propaganda driven by your govt. they want you to FEAR! Terrorists! Communists! These people who cannot be identified as a person or nation, i ask the question what does a terrorist look like? Or a communist?

I have no major problem wit your history and rights (If you will) to bear armaments to your choice, whether it be knives, guns, bats with spikes, cannons, explosives, the list goes on, however all i am asking is why does America , different from all other countries feel the need to defend themselves with arms and not relying on the army (for invasions) and the police (To police! Not saying the police are a good thing but hey, it is their JOB!) would you go and empty peoples bins say at 6:05 in the morning into your own dump when say the binmen come at 6:30 or whenever, speaking purely hypothetically but you would be doing a job that is paid for to be done for you, out of your own money!

Why is no other nation so paranoid in itself that it is in constant fear of invasion, attack, rape, murder, theft, all manners of crime, and seek to protect yourself? Is it a lacking in the police force and their capabilities?(We in other countries question this also!) What happened to the power of the pen, and why is the sword required?

Warren v. District of Columbia
Police are not obligated to protect individuals

Also what is a cop that is 5 miles away gonna do... I am sure the criminal will wait patiently...

It is better to have a gun and not need it, than to need a gun and not have it.

reply to post by vogon42


As an outsider who is following this debate with interest for clarity could you just explain what constitutes a domestic enemy and who decides who is a domestic enemy?

reply to post by Freeborn


DHS, 0bama and the NDAA and Battlefield Act.

Kind of tongue in cheek, but sadly, not really.
Scary times we live in.