2nd Amendment: Has it changed since 1789?

You sound like a man on crack. ALL of your insane objections have been dealt with and destroyed, but if you like making an ass of yourself, it is your Right as an American. The founding fathers disagree with you; the man who authored the Second Amendment disagrees with your cow dung; the courts - even the United States Supreme Court disagree with your personal interpretation. Like I said, you keep repeating lies over and over again - even espousing Hitler's view of gun Rights, maybe one day you'll believe it. But, realistically, I don't think most people on this board are deluded into believing that what you said hasn't bee fairly dealt with and proven to be wrong over the past 550 + posts by umpteen people showing you that you are posting B.S. and expecting people to believe it.

- - - Updated - - -

There is one: If you're not part of the organized militia, you've got to have a firearm.

 

Were you drinking when you typed that? The War of Northern Aggression / Civil War / fill in the blank had nothing to do with the Second Amendment. Show me any legal case; a legal document; ANYTHING that challenged the Second Amendment.

As a point of FACT, the Confederate officers never gave up their sidearms and in the surrender, the former Confederate soldiers had to agree not to ever take up arms against the Union. NEVER were they told that they could not keep and bear private Arms.

There's another classic fail by danielpalos.

 

Militias that are regulated...have the ability to control weapons used in them.

Oh well.

You could probably challenge that but it would be pointless and stupid

 

Way to insult without foundation. actually
Tell you what;Why don't you personally come try and try to take my guns.
It seems that's what you are advocating.Don't be a suggestor,do!
We'll see how far you get with that.My vote says not very.

 

Insult?

How thin skinned are you people?

What exactly was the insult?

 

"You could probably challenge that but it would be pointless and stupid"
Stupid is an insult.Do you know the difference between stupid and ignorant?

 

You might have that right. But then "well regulated" means they have the right to regulate your guns regarding that militia as well.

You probably could have challenged that...but I doubt it would have gotten yu anywhere

 

Ignorance is not knowing better and doing something.Stupid is knowing better and doing it anyway.
Probably about where you align.

 

One thing is undeniable about the Military, nobody has any Civil Rights in the Regular U.S. Military, The Militia is subservient to the Military and completely subject to them, hence why the Founding Fathers distrusted a standing Army and better preferred a Citizen Militia and Uninfringed private firearms ownership,

Another undeniable fact is The People have chosen concealed carry at the State level in every State save the extreme Left States, The Liberal States that give a Rats behind about the People and Civil Rights and thankfully that just a scant few,

 

Yes they were afraid of a standing Army...which was why they supported a "well regulated militia instead.

And they called out that militia on numerous occasions to put down insurrections like you are claiming the 2nd supports.

 

You sound like someone who has nothing but propaganda and rhetoric, instead of a good argument.

Our Second Amendment expressly declares well regulated militia of the People to be Necessary, not the unorganized, militia of the People. dear, there is no other category.

 

No sir, the Second Amendment does not say that. And your gay "dear" reference is offensive. You have to be kidding. You make crap up that you cannot back with any court decisions, statements by the people that wrote the statements, and claim things are in the Constitution that aren't. You are out of your damn mind. Then you have the gall to accuse me of rhetoric and propaganda???????????????

Not one thing that you've said on this thread is accurate nor a reflection of the truth. It is carefully reworded sections of the Constitution to back false claims you make here on a daily basis. What you're doing is even worse than propaganda and rhetoric. IT IS DAMNABLE LIES.

 

A formal surrender qualifies since we are all, Klingon at heart.

 

Yes, it does. You simply don't understand, simple American English.

Our Second Amendment expressly declares well regulated militia of the People to be Necessary, not the unorganized, militia of the People. there is no other category.

It is a States' right, secured by our Second Amendment.

 

The Second Amendment does NOT say what you imply. It does not. That is your personal interpretation. It does not say what you claim and it does not mean what you claim. You're wrong and you've been proven wrong over 300 times in this thread alone. Are you freaking kidding me? Are we going to have to do this entire thread over again just to prove to you that you are wrong...factually wrong?



Now to your false and ridiculous claim that this is a state's rights issue:

"The right of a citizen to bear arms, in the lawful defense of himself or the state, is absolute. He does not derive it from the state government, but directly from the sovereign convention of the people that framed the state government. It is one of the "high powers" delegated directly to the citizen, and "is excepted out of the general powers of government." A law cannot be passed (p.402)to infringe upon or impair it, because it is above the law, and independent of the law-making power." Cockrum v. State, 24 Tex. 394 (1859)

That, sir is the RULING of a state supreme court. IF you were right, somebody would have challenged that law because that cannot be the law in one state and different in another state. That would be covered in the 14th Amendment. You are wrong, wrong, wrong. The court rulings say 180 degrees opposite of what you're arguing. And a RULING by a state supreme court is not propaganda nor rhetoric. IT IS THE LAW!

States, at best, only recognize inalienable rights. The Right to keep and bear Arms is an unalienable Right and you can't do anything about it but cry.

 

Our Second Article of Amendment does not Imply this: Our Second Amendment expressly declares well regulated militia of the People to be Necessary, not the unorganized, militia of the People. there is no other category. It declares it. You simply need better reading comprehension.

 

no it does not say that

 

yes, it does; simply because I say so, and have a good argument that supports that otherwise, unsubstantiated opinion.

i don't resort to fiat arguments, like the semi-capitalist right.

 

The only thing you've done in ....what the last 200 posts you've done on this thread is give us YOUR UNSUBSTANTIATED OPINION. You don't cite any facts, court cases, nor quotes from any sources. You simply reword the Constitution and argue from crap you make up.

Nobody is buying your B.S. I do, however, have you figured out. You make these B.S. posts and even you don't buy the horse manure you're selling. It keeps the pro-gun side busy exposing you, while the newer readers, wanting to learn something are dissuaded from reading this stupid back and forth bickering.

You want to play that game? I'm capable of using the same kind of boilerplate counter-argument. But, the bottom line is you can make accusations all day long, but you haven't been able to tell the truth even ONCE.

 

our second article of amendment does not imply this: our second amendment expressly declares well regulated militia of the people to be necessary, not the unorganized, militia of the people. There is no other category. it declares it. You simply need better reading comprehension.

it is in the first clause, not the second clause, which merely follows the first clause.

 

Still talking B.S.? YOU need some remedial help with reading, sir. The Second Amendment don't say squat about any differentiation between an unorganized militia versus an organized one. It simply guarantees the Right of the people to keep and bear Arms.

Give it up. You've been proven to be wrong by what... FIFTY people on this thread and even the other anti-gunner on this thread can't back your baseless claims.

 

you don't know what you are talking about.

the People are the Militia. you are either, well regulated or not. it really is that simple, except to the fantastical, right wing.

 

You're wasting your time with that particular poster. All he ever does is churn out meaningless word salads. I'm not a big fan of the board's 'ignore' function but you'll be doing yourself a huge service by putting him on your ignore list. Life is too short to deal with other people's mental dysfunctions. Trust me, nobody takes him seriously.

 

I have grown sick and tired of danielpalos and his attempts to hijack every Second Amendment thread with his inane allegation about the Constitution that only he buys into. It's wrong; it's easily disprovable and I'm going to do one posting (though it will take several parts) that will respond to him. I will save it on my computer and keep posting it every time he resorts to his standard lie.

“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.” Second Amendment

In order to know what that Amendment means, the best source is to ask the men who authored the Constitution, participated in the debates and discussions along with those that implemented the laws.

The author of the Second Amendment, James Madison wrote:

"Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation... Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms."
James Madison, Federalist Papers, #46 at 243-244.

By Madison's own words, you will see that the people have firearms, unlike other countries who don't trust their citizens with them. That tells me that the Second Amendment is guaranteeing an individual Right to keep and bear Arms.

"[Tyranny cannot be safe] without a standing army, an enslaved press, and a disarmed populace."
James Madison, author of the Second Amendment In his autobiography

Again, it is no secret what Madison thought in relation to your Right to keep and bear Arms. This is the same James Madison that nominated Chief Justice Joseph Story to the Supreme Court of the United States. Here is what Story said as one of the final arbiters of what the law is:

The militia is the natural defense of a free country against sudden foreign invasions, domestic insurrections, and domestic usurpations of power by rulers. It is against sound policy for a free people to keep up large military establishments and standing armies in time of peace, both from the enormous expenses, with which they are attended, and the facile means, which they afford to ambitious and unprincipled rulers, to subvert the government, or trample upon the rights of the people.” – Joseph Story - United States Supreme Court Justice - Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States. 3 vols. Boston, 1833.

"The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them."
- Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States, 1833

Over and over and over again, the people who brought the Constitution into being are telling us what the Second Amendment means and what Rights the people have. A government militia cannot protect the citizenry against arbitrary power. So, when the left is making this moronic argument that the Second Amendment is about a government run militia, they are lying to you.
The founding fathers told us how to interpret the Constitution. Here are a couple of relevant quotes:


“On every question of construction (of the Constitution) let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit of the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed.” Thomas Jefferson

"If, in the opinion of the people, the distribution or modification of the constitutional powers be in any particular wrong, let it be corrected by an amendment in the way which the Constitution designates. But let there be no change by usurpation; for though this, in one instance, may be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed." George Washington in his Farewell Address

Those casting aspersions on the Constitution and / or the founding fathers are advocating for an overthrow of the Republic and our Constitution. The founding fathers admonished us to interpret the Constitution a certain way – especially with regard to the personal ownership of firearms. I will give you a dozen quotes to back that presupposition with:

"I hope, therefore, a bill of rights will be formed to guard the people against the Federal government as they are already guarded against their State governments, in most instances." - Thomas Jefferson in a letter to James Monroe in 1788

"Among the natural rights of the colonists are these: first, a right to life, secondly to liberty, thirdly to property; together with the right to defend them in the best manner they can."
Samuel Adams

"A people armed and free forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition and is a bulwark for the nation against foreign invasion and domestic oppression."
James Madison (1751-1836), Author of the Second Amendment - Father of the Constitution for the USA, 4th US President

"Resistance to sudden violence, for the preservation not only of my person, my limbs and life, but of my property, is an indisputable right of nature which I have never surrendered to the public by the compact of society, and which perhaps, I could not surrender if I would. Nor is there anything in the common law of England ... inconsistent with that right."
John Adams(1735-1826) Founding Father, 2nd US President
Source: BOSTON GAZETTE, September 5, 1763, The Works of John Adams, p.438 (Charles F. Adams ed., 1851).

"Are we at least brought to such a humiliating and debasing degradation, that we cannot be trusted with arms for our own defense? Where is the difference between having our arms in our possession and under our own direction, and having them under the management of Congress? If our defense be the real object of having those arms, in whose hands can they be trusted with more propriety, or equal safety to us, as in our own hands?"
Patrick Henry, 3 Elliot Debates 168-169.

"The right of self-defense never ceases.(*) It is among the most sacred, and alike necessary to nations and to individuals."
President James Monroe (November 16, 181

“The project of disciplining all the militia of the United States is as futile as it would be injurious, if it were capable of being carried into execution. A tolerable expertness in military movements is a business that requires time and practice. It is not a day, or even a week, that will suffice for the attainment of it. To oblige the great body of the yeomanry, and of the other classes of the citizens, to be under arms for the purpose of going through military exercises and evolutions, as often as might be necessary to acquire the degree of perfection which would entitle them to the character of a well-regulated militia, would be a real grievance to the people, and a serious public inconvenience and loss. It would form an annual deduction from the productive labor of the country, to an amount which, calculating upon the present numbers of the people, would not fall far short of the whole expense of the civil establishments of all the States. To attempt a thing which would abridge the mass of labor and industry to so considerable an extent, would be unwise: and the experiment, if made, could not succeed, because it would not long be endured. Little more can reasonably be aimed at, with respect to the people at large, than to have them properly armed and equipped” – Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No.2

“…that standing army can never be formidable (threatening) to the liberties of the people, while there is a large body of citizens, little if at all inferior to them in the use of arms.” ( Alexander Hamilton -Federalist Paper #29)

“The great object is that every man be armed. Everyone who is able might have a gun.” Patrick Henry3 Elliot, Debates at 386

“A militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves…and include all men capable of bearing arms.” Richard Henry Lee - Additional letters from the Federal Farmer, at 169, 178

"Another source of power in government is a military force.(*) But this, to be efficient, must be superior to any force that exists among the people, or which they can command; for otherwise this force would be annihilated, on the first exercise of acts of oppression.(*) Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe.(*) The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States.(*) A military force, at the command of Congress, can execute no laws, but such as the people perceive to be just and constitutional; for they will possess the power, and jealousy will instantly inspire the inclination, to resist the execution of a law which appears to them unjust and oppressive."
Noah Webster(*) (1758-1843) American patriot and scholar, author of the 1806 edition of the dictionary that bears his name, the first dictionary of American English usage.
Defined the militia similarly as "the effective part of the people at large."
Source: An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution, Philadelphia, 1787

The words of the founding fathers are clear, unequivocal and uncompromising. But, we've looked at what the lawyers, judges, authors of the Constitution, presidents, and wordsmiths – all of them founders of our country have had to say relative to the Second Amendment.

Those who hate, loathe and despise the Constitution want you to buy into their definitions of the Second Amendment to mean exactly opposite of what the founding fathers intended. Among the trolling liberals are that the words militia and regulate somehow mean that only a government militia is permissible in America and that only the militia is guaranteed the Right. Read the words of the founding fathers and the early court rulings. Those people are full of crap. Period.

The Right to keep and bear Arms existed prior to the Constitution. Our own courts have ruled on this and that is THEIR ruling, not my opinion.

'The right there specified is that of "bearing arms for a lawful purpose." This is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence.”
United States v. Cruikshank, 92 US 542 (1875 )

There you have it. This is the UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT ruling that the Second Amendment is not a Right guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution; however, they do admit that the Right exists. It's just that the Right to keep and bear Arms is not dependent upon the Constitution. The court furthermore makes it plain that the Right exists without the Constitution. That what it means when they said it (the right) is not dependent upon the Constitution for its existence. Congress could abolish the Second Amendment tomorrow and it would not affect your individual Right to keep and bear Arms.

If we take Jefferson's writings seriously, we know what the founding fathers intended with the Second Amendment. People today see the military as invincible and that the people could not stand against it. Unlike the situation during the times of Jefferson we have planes, ships as big as small cities and weapons unimaginable in Jefferson's day. Still, at the end of the day, conflict ends with men with their rifles. The founding fathers wanted the Second Amendment because they understood the dangers of a big government that could tyrannize the people without recourse. When the colonists came here, they did so to escape the tyranny and oppression and they had suffered.

The founding fathers clearly understood what happens when government is more powerful than the citizenry it serves. You'd have to be a complete idiot to believe they would not have put safeguards into place in order to give the people the tools they need to repel authoritarian government. And so, they gave us the Second Amendment, after due consideration.

“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.” Second Amendment

The first four words mention a well regulated Militia. NOTHING there about gun bans, infringements on people, or limitations on Rights. It does not concern itself with unorganized or organized militias. The next nine words tell us that this Militia is necessary to the security of a free State. So, what do you suppose that means?

Militaries and government have the power to do whatever they want. They need no guarantee in order to do their part in insuring the security of a free State. As one person observed: The greatest reason to retain the Right to keep and bear Arms is, as a last resort, to prevent tyranny in government. I will do more later.

 

If you have a weapon and sufficient ammo, you are well regulated.

- - - Updated - - -

I see that. He is only here to try and derail pro-gun threads. His words are meaningless. I doubt that even newbies are swayed by something that does not have a meaning. Thanks for the advice. Looks like it might be worth taking.