The scandal in Washington no one is talking about (Fast/Furious was about gun control)

a reply to: SudoNim

Sorry, but you're wrong. I gave both precedence from old rulings, and modern rulings. Both interpretations are the same. Reading my post, would have made this self-evident... You didn't read it, was made evident by your reply.

What does the 2nd amendment say ? Lets break that down, although I presume you won't actually read that and inform yourself either....

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.

Ok, the misunderstanding you have is about whom is being addressed by the 2nd. Your inference is that only a militia may bear arms, but that's actually not what it states nor how it reads. Lets take it piece by piece : A Well regulated Militia...

Militia, according to Webster's Ninth Collegiate Dictionary is defined as ' an organized armed force liable to call only in an emergency ' and, ' the whole body of able bodied male citizens declared by law as being subject to call to military service '.

Ok, so the very first part states in easier language : A well regulated body of armed citizens...

Ok, so it's not addressing Militia as an entity or person, but as an object. How does this fit with the next part ? Lets try it out.

A well regulated body of armed citizens, being necessary to the security of a free state ..

So it's stating clearly, that this object is a requirement, a mandatory need in order to sustain or maintain a free state. as in to sustain this free state in the face of outside conquest or internal usurpation. To clarify, the militia isn't being addressed in the amendment as if it's being recognized as having the right to bear arms but as an objective goal, the end result, of having the right to bear arms.

A well regulated body of armed citizens, being a necessary tool for the security of a free state the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Now in the next part we get to the actual Right, it'self. It clearly states in plain English "The RIght.." So when in consideration of the subject matter being armaments, weapons and this would include guns, it's clear that the Right to bear includes those very weapons. Again you are wrong, in that the right to bear arms would include the gun in that general arsenal.

Also in this section of the amendment we finally get to whom is being addressed. The People. The people who comprise the required tool to maintain a free state. You'll notice, the authors were careful not to use the word militia again. As the militia wasn't who was being addressed, The People were being addressed. The concept of militia was only in reference as how those people bearing arms would use them to defend the security of the free state.

The RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE to keep and bear arms. Not "the privilege of Militias to bear arms", but THE PEOPLE to bear arms to comprise a militia. Also, i'd like to point out that the concept of self-defense as a God Given, or Natural Right was of such plain understanding it needed no address when discussing how a federal government would operate. As operation of the government would be well outside the scope of private individuals and their daily lives. There was no need for it. I bring this up because we find ourselves back where we started.

Original interpretation, and indeed current interpretation are still the same. You have the right to bear arms for multiple reasons, only one reason being security of your state & country. But also in self defense, and self sustainment (hunting). I'd even say The Right to bear Arms does not stop at only those 3 examples.

However to claim, that you have no right to posses or use a gun in self defense is either terribly misinformed or intentionally misleading. I don't know you, so i won't call you a liar, i'll just assume you to be misinformed.

a reply to: CrawlingChaos

Or for easier clarification. Article 1 covers the militia in detail in that Congress calls it forth and is responsible for providing arms for the militia.

With that in mind, clearly the Second is geared towards individuals and not the militia. Keep in mind that there is not supposed to be a standing Army as we have now. Individuals were to intercept immediate threats until the militia was called forth and armed at a national armory, like Harper's Ferry of John Brown fame.

originally posted by: CrawlingChaos
a reply to: SudoNim

Ok, the misunderstanding you have is about whom is being addressed by the 2nd. Your inference is that only a militia may bear arms, but that's actually not what it states nor how it reads. Lets take it piece by piece : A Well regulated Militia...

Militia, according to Webster's Ninth Collegiate Dictionary is defined as ' an organized armed force liable to call only in an emergency ' and, ' the whole body of able bodied male citizens declared by law as being subject to call to military service '.

No. You are bastardising the text to suit your agenda.

You shoot yourself in the foot(unfortunately literally) in your definition of a militia, you give it and then throw away the bits that don't agree with you.

Militia, according to Webster's Ninth Collegiate Dictionary is defined as ' an organized armed force liable to call only in an emergency

Organised army, liable to be called during an emergency. This well-regulated militia is what the 2nd Amendment gave rights to bear arms, not for some fat texan slob to sit in his arm chair polishing frantically his finest guns.

For 100's of years this answer was clear to all, it was accepted as it was meant to be. That was until the N.R.A funded a political coup to CHANGE THE MEANING of the 2nd amendment in the publics eyes.

And here we are now, sensible people want to get back to what the founding fathers wanted and suddenly your up in arms(pun intended).

However to claim, that you have no right to posses or use a gun in self defense is either terribly misinformed or intentionally misleading. I don't know you, so i won't call you a liar, i'll just assume you to be misinformed.

Once again you misquote me to fit your argument. I said the 2nd Amendment gives you no rights to own a gun for self-defense. It CLEARLY as you have already said gives the Militia rights to bear arms.

I didn't say you have no rights to own a gun, just that the 2nd amendment doesn't give you rights to own a gun. It's a clear difference.

Yet whenver its mentioned that maybe the average gun-slinging american isn't part of a well-regulated, drilled and organised miltia and therefore shouldn't hide behind the 2nd amendment as if its gives them a right to own a gun.

Take a look at the stats, you're country is scared. You own a gun because violent crime is so high you feel you need to protect yourself, violent crime is so high because seemingly everyone/anyone can own a gun. It's a circle. Guns and death go hand-in-hand, it's absolutely obvious to the rest of the world yet you'd still rather let toddlers get shot, school children massacred while you sit in your house clutching your guns. What an amazing militia, your founding fathers would be ashamed.

a reply to: SudoNim

school children massacred

There you go again.
It just happens so much here.

What an amazing militia, your founding fathers would be ashamed.

Considering that Thomas Jefferson (a founding father) expected that we would have to fight the equivalent of an American Revolution every twenty years, just to keep the government honest, I would say YES, they would be ashamed of what we have become.

a reply to: butcherguy

You are so right, those people whom have been practically deified, would shake their heads at the current state of affairs and weep openly at what is allowed to be done in the name of the republic to which they gave birth.

There's a cancerous growth in the body politic that, unless excised, will kill the host.

a reply to: SudoNim

No. You are bastardising the text to suit your agenda.

You shoot yourself in the foot(unfortunately literally) in your definition of a militia, you give it and then throw away the bits that don't agree with you.



Militia, according to Webster's Ninth Collegiate Dictionary is defined as ' an organized armed force liable to call only in an emergency

Why did you cut my statement in half to quote me, and then accuse me of whittling away the definition that didn't agree with me ? I gave the listings full defined entry.

Militia, according to Webster's Ninth Collegiate Dictionary is defined as ' an organized armed force liable to call only in an emergency ' and, ' the whole body of able bodied male citizens declared by law as being subject to call to military service '.

That's what I said, if anything was cut off it was done by you. We can all scroll up and read it. Anyhow, I've quite clearly and plainly shown how you are wrong and your interpretation, which is actually the newer view on the topic, is wrong. You can continue to misunderstand, or willfully refuse to comprehend, that's upto you. /shrug

Yet whenver its mentioned that maybe the average gun-slinging american isn't part of a well-regulated, drilled and organised miltia and therefore shouldn't hide behind the 2nd amendment as if its gives them a right to own a gun.

I understand if English isn't your first language, but you do realize in one sentence you express it does give a right to own a gun, but then the next sentence is demonizing the concept of having a right to a gun ? Either way, you are still wrong. In English the sentence, "The right of the people" means exactly whats written, of the people. That means the general public... Actually I already covered this, rehashing it won't help the language barrier.

Oh well, it's not a big deal if someone from a foreign country disagrees with how we do things. Take care man !

Then let me ask you an honest question, do you think you own your car? Or do you think that the state owns your car and simply lets you possess it?

Your car must be titled and registered by the state in which you reside. You must renew that registration yearly (or every two years). You must affix a license plate, display the registration sticker and carry minimum insurance to drive it.

With a gun in most every state, you purchase a gun and pay the sales tax. That's it for most states. Now which of those objects do you think you actually own?

Own your own house? Compare and contrast to an album of your favorite band.

originally posted by: SudoNim

Right of people as individuals? Don't you mean well-regulated militia?

Or has the 2nd Amendment been changed to fit an agenda?

The second amendment hasn't been changed... The far left are the ones wanting to change it.

Amendment II

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.

www.law.cornell.edu...

If the founding fathers wouldn't have meant to state this is a right of the people, they wouldn't have put the words the right of the people. Not to mention that we have letters, speeches and other documents which confirm they meant that it was an individual right, a right of the people.

a reply to: CrawlingChaos

I cut your quote down to save space. You defined miltia as an "organized armed force liable to call only in an emergency" and then ignored this very obvious definition to summarise it instead as a "A well regulated body of armed citizens..." this is completely different.

I think you are struggling to understand, I'll simplify;
- 2nd Amendment refers to the rights of a well-regulated militia to bear arms
- the average gun owner in america is not part of a well-regulated militia
- thus their "right" to own a gun is not protected by the 2nd amendment.

In the end you assume I'm not American and decide my opinion isn't important, I thought this place was supposed to deny ignorance?

a reply to: Ahabstar

I'm not really sure what your point was but I do like the thought.

Cars serve a main purpose of transport, however it is widely recognised that they can be dangerous. To offset this risk there are many rules about who can own/use one, what skill level they require and how the car can be tracked back to its user.

Guns serve no purpose other than to kill people, this is widely ignored by people hiding behind the 2nd Amendment. To offset the risk of criminals being able to easily obtain a gun everyone feels the need to get a gun.

a reply to: SudoNim

Lets make this easy.

The right to bear arms, as covered in the 2nd amendment, applies to the individual per several Supreme Court rulings, which is part of their job per the constitution.

While the rulings reaffirm an individual has the right to bare arms, that right is balanced upon states interest. The rulings still allow the states to enact legislation pertaining to gun regulations (where a gun can legally be carried, types of weapons allowed, disqualifying crimes, etc).

Most recently DC guns law, for a second time,was struck down as unconstitutional as they were trying to use a "may issue" doctrine as opposed to "shall issue".

While you are entitled to your opinion on this I would suggest you educate yourself on our laws, judicial system, the concept of separate sovereign's, the roll of SCOTUS and constitutional questions.

Piers Morgan had the same issues -



The US and UK have things in common, most notably the Royal Family. The UK has the Royal Family as its sovereign. The US has the 2nd amendment because of the Royal Family.


Out of curiosity when did the the US Constitution apply to everyone? The answer to this question demonstrates why you are having an issue understanding what's being talked about.

a reply to: Xcathdra

So you have a right to own anything that the Government has in order to protect against it?
Good luck getting that nuke.

Carol Roth was the fool in that conversation.

I just lost my response to Electric, but basically, the interpretation has changed. I'm sure you kicked up as much as a fuss the first time, no, I wonder why not. But now you cry "infringement".

What I find even more funny than the responses on here when someone suggests they don't need their precious guns is the ignorance. The clear unfiltered ignorance. The mere fact that you have to argue the definition of these out-dated terms and the fact that they were re-interpreted by the NRA is a clear indicator that they were not meant for modern times. They are out-dated. Yet because now you've decided it allows everyone to own a gun, "HELL YEAH, LETS ALL GET GUNS"

Regardless of the fact that on average owning a gun puts you and your family in more danger than if you did not own a gun. Fact. That's it. Bottom line. You are more likely to be shot by your own gun than to use it in self-defence.

That / is the crux of the matter, regardless of whether you think you are part of a well-regulated militia or not. The only reason you own a gun is for your own ego. You are not protecting your family, you are putting them at greater risk. It is selfish, arrogant and downright stupid.

originally posted by: ElectricUniverse

If the founding fathers wouldn't have meant to state this is a right of the people, they wouldn't have put the words the right of the people.

If the founding fathers wouldn't have meant well-regulated militia, they wouldn't have put the words well-regulated militia.

originally posted by: SudoNim
So you have a right to own anything that the Government has in order to protect against it?
Good luck getting that nuke.

So you didnt take the time to read / understand my post. If you had you would see that is addressed.

originally posted by: SudoNim
Carol Roth was the fool in that conversation.

Has nothing too do with my comments / post.

originally posted by: SudoNim
I just lost my response to Electric, but basically, the interpretation has changed. I'm sure you kicked up as much as a fuss the first time, no, I wonder why not. But now you cry "infringement".

You failed too read my post / understand it.

originally posted by: SudoNim
What I find even more funny than the responses on here when someone suggests they don't need their precious guns is the ignorance. The clear unfiltered ignorance. The mere fact that you have to argue the definition of these out-dated terms and the fact that they were re-interpreted by the NRA is a clear indicator that they were not meant for modern times. They are out-dated. Yet because now you've decided it allows everyone to own a gun, "HELL YEAH, LETS ALL GET GUNS"

You failed to read my post / understand it.

originally posted by: SudoNim
Regardless of the fact that on average owning a gun puts you and your family in more danger than if you did not own a gun. Fact. That's it. Bottom line. You are more likely to be shot by your own gun than to use it in self-defence.

You arent and again you failed to read my post / understand it.

originally posted by: SudoNim
That / is the crux of the matter, regardless of whether you think you are part of a well-regulated militia or not. The only reason you own a gun is for your own ego. You are not protecting your family, you are putting them at greater risk. It is selfish, arrogant and downright stupid.

You failed to read my post / understand it.

Please read my post, understand it, and answer the questions posed. Also what country are you from.

originally posted by: dukeofjive696969

originally posted by: WeAreAWAKE

originally posted by: dukeofjive696969

originally posted by: WeAreAWAKE

originally posted by: dukeofjive696969

originally posted by: TorqueyThePig
a reply to: dukeofjive696969

Do Obama, Hillary and a vast majority of Democrats support an assault weapons ban?

How many guns where banned, zero, but yea those evil commies are comming for your guns.


Obama and hillary pander to there voters, just like you get to cry about people coming for your guns, thats how the gop gets your vote lol.

Yeah...your right. That and our government illegally selling guns to Mexican, drug running criminals in hopes to subvert the Constitution of the United States of America because they support a dictatorship, socialism and in Obama's case...radical Islam.

But yeah...I guess it is just our little guns we care about

Your funny, obama behing a socialist, and you didint forget to add muslims lol.

Stop watching fox news, your brain will thank you.

Exactly what part of what I posted can you prove to be untrue? I'd really like to know unless you're just blowing smoke. Prove your point so we all know your not full of it. Unless, of course...you can't.

I dont need to try to prove anything, the more you post the less work i need to do, google the word socialist, then without laughing tell me how obama is a commie.

Durp durp durp

With a straight face...

"Every man, woman and child is entitled to live and enjoy his or her life and develop his or her potential to the maximum, without the curse of poverty and material want. The Socialist Equality Party insists that there exist social rights that are essential to life in a complex modern society and, therefore, “inalienable.” Working people must resolve to secure these rights through the mobilization of their strength as a class, independent of and in opposition to the corporate-controlled political parties and the institutions of the capitalist state.

These rights include:

The right to a job: The right to employment is the most basic of all. Without a steady, good-paying job, it is impossible to satisfy all other needs.

The right to a livable income: Wages are under relentless attack, and the current federal minimum wage condemns millions to poverty. It must be replaced by a guaranteed annual income that covers all needs.

The right to leisure: To improve conditions of life and provide jobs for the unemployed, the workweek must be shortened. Workers should earn a full-time income based on a 30-hour workweek.

The right to decent and affordable housing: The SEP demands an immediate halt to all foreclosures and evictions. All mortgages should be restructured to affordable levels, indexed to income and employment status.

The right to utilities and transportation: There must be an immediate end to all utilities shutoffs, which affect hundreds of thousands of American families every year, and access to affordable quality transportation must be guaranteed to all.

The right to high quality health care: The solution to the health care crisis lies in putting an end to the privately owned health care corporations and removing profit from the health care system.

The right to a secure retirement: All workers must be guaranteed pensions that allow for a secure retirement, with an income that covers all necessities of life.

The right to an education: With the growing complexity of society and work comes the need for all workers to have a quality education. Yet the state of education is abysmal and getting worse.

The right to a healthy and safe environment: Addressing environmental degradation is impossible in a society in which every decision is dictated by the pursuit of profit.

The right to culture: Access to art and culture is a basic component of a healthy society. Yet, like everything else, it is under relentless attack."

Now...with that out of the way. The ignorant idea that taking from the intelligent and hardworking (for example) and giving to the stupid and hardly working is contrary to nature. Nature (which if you didn't know includes humans) is founded upon the idea of "survival of the fittest". The process means that the species survives, grows and thrives by weeding out the weak so the strongest survive...breed and you typically end up with a better human. But socialism is contrary to nature in this manner.

Socialism promotes the idea that every human has "rights" to things that they don't. These things are products and services that others have to make or provide. The idea that there is a right to someone else's actions or that it is required of others to provide such services is unfair and unjustified. In short...you can work for an income and then buy whatever you wish. But you can't sit on your ass and claim you have a "right" to something.

The result of a socialism approach to nature usually results in a failed species that grows progressively weaker until it dies off. If it doesn't die off, it becomes full of those who take even converting the workers into lazy, unproductive individuals. So such a creature at best becomes parasitic. It only knows how to survive by taking from others.

So...YES...Obama and his administration believes that the government should take all monies and disburse them to the people to support a socialistic agenda where no one wants...where those that don't feel like working don't have to...and to repeatedly take from those that are productive. Again...the end result is failure.

Or if not failure, as already stated...the species becomes more of a leech than a lion. Personally...I won't be a leech and if I am a lion, the leech won't be feeding off me if I have any say about it. But government likes to have a say about it.

So...there ya go!

And directed to your attitude and personal attack implied in your post...please feel free to...how do you say it nicely...go find a private place and have sex with yourself.

a reply to: dukeofjive696969

PS: When your best response to "show me where I'm wrong" is "I don't need to"...you look a bit like an ignorant ass. But you're allowed to look any way you want. Maybe next time...don't speak before you think. Or at least wait until you're all grown up and understand reality instead of what Barney tells you.

originally posted by: SudoNim
a reply to: CrawlingChaos

I cut your quote down to save space. You defined miltia as an "organized armed force liable to call only in an emergency" and then ignored this very obvious definition to summarise it instead as a "A well regulated body of armed citizens..." this is completely different.

Why are you lying when everyone reading this can scroll up and see I typed in two entries ?

According to Webster's Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary, Copyright 1989 ISBN 0-87779-510-X (deluxe) PAGE 753 ; Right Hand side, last word defined is Militia. It has only the two entries I expressed above.

Mi li tia Ma-lish-a n [Latin, military service, French milit-, miles] (ca. 1659)
1 : a part of the organized armed forces of a country liable to call only in an emergency
2 : the whole body of able bodied male citizens declared by law as being subject to call to military service
___ mi-li-tia-man -man n

Stop being dishonest, and arguing dishonestly. Take care man.


EDIT : Why this exact dictionary ? Because it's the one I have on me right now.

a reply to: CrawlingChaos

You are really struggling to understand this, I know you posted two entries. You however then ignored the fact that one of them completely contradicted your "simplified english" version.

You summarised

Organised army, liable to be called during an emergency.

Into...

A well regulated body of armed citizens...

That is wrong.

originally posted by: SudoNim
a reply to: CrawlingChaos

You are really struggling to understand this, I know you posted two entries. You however then ignored the fact that one of them completely contradicted your "simplified english" version.

You summarised

Organised army, liable to be called during an emergency.

Into...

A well regulated body of armed citizens...

That is wrong.

Did you see the part where it says the right of the citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed ?

I doesn't say the right of militia members to be issued arms by a government shall not be infringed.

a reply to: butcherguy

No I didn't, I'm guessing you made it up since the text in the 2nd Amendment I was reading doesn't have the word citizen in it.

Did you not see the comma that preceded that? Or is that a completely unrelated sentence that they just decided to add at the front and you want to just take the second half of the text literally.