The big myth of the second amendment

Be sure to include the premise of this thread for maximum filing efficiency.

 

Have to watch those pesky Democrats. First they want armed militia's. Then after Republicans took their slaves away, they want to be able to throw their guns in trash cans where anyone can pick them up and use them. Now they want law abiding Republicans from protecting themselves from the criminal beneficiaries of the guns they tossed.

 

Even then...

 

"evolve' is just loose talk.


No, they didn't 'evolve', the changing times simply outmoded them and replaced them with state and government militaries.

 

Read the paper and then tell me what you think.

 

What else is there to argue about except the verbiage and meaning of the text?

 

Yup and that horse is just a pile of sand now

 

Not really no. You haven't noticed how damn hard it is to eradicate low level insurgencies.

 

What does a 100 page paper written 10 years before the Heller decision with some professor going on and on abut how we all got it wrong have to do with a damn thing.

It doesn't. Its just more whining by another anti gun fanatic. Nothing more.

 

Dayum son, you can’t go about saying things like that!

 

In truth, Democrats would say that Republicans made three mistakes. First was abolishing slavery. Second one compounded the first by not abolishing the second amendment. And third was giving blacks the right to vote. So then blacks were free, could vote, and were armed just like everyone else. Democrats countered by establishing the KKK and instituted Jim Crow laws to segregate and discriminate. Republicans had to deconstruct those Democrat constructions as well. But Democrats weren't completely done yet. They pivoted, and in the name of compassion and to appear to be on the side of the angels, they conned blacks into shackling themselves to the dole of welfare, ruining the family structure, banishing Fatherhood and marriage, and breeding crime in black communities. That's where we are today. Lamentably, blacks continue to or are brainwashed into believing their white Democrat leaders. They do it with the help of more accomplished blacks like Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton and others who act as ramrods or foremen to corral and brand the black herd with a mighty D seared into their souls. White Democrats and their somewhat exalted Uncle Toms's have convinced the vast majority of blacks that Republicans are the enemy, bigoted racists, who want them to be neither happy, prosperous, nor free. It is the big lie which democrats have managed to establish in colleges, their party, the mainstream media, Hollywood, and online tech platforms. It is astonishing to me in whole. But I am less astonished at the extent evil will go to deceive and destroy than I am with the depths people will go to accommodate it in spite of all counsel and pleas contrary and to the better.

 

No, the militias of the late 18th and 19th centuries no longer exist.

 

Your characterization is right wing drivel. You're not interested in scholarship, nor could you recognize it if it were presented to you.

The paper gives a compelling argument, with documentation, that ...James Madison drafted the Second Amendment to assure his constituents in Virginia, and the South generally, that Congress could not use its newly-acquired powers to indirectly undermine the slave system by disarming the militia, on which the South relied for slave control. His argument is based on a multiplicity of the historical evidence, including debates between James Madison and George Mason and Patrick Henry at the Constitutional Ratifying Convention in Richmond, Virginia in June 1788; the record from the First Congress; and the antecedent of the American right to bear arms provision in the English Declaration of Rights of 1688.

 

Really? Can you show us the legislation that abolished them?

 

First off. lets just clear a few things up here.
1. Scalia didn't rule on anything. It was a 5-4 decision to UPHOLD the 2nd amendment AS WRITTEN.
2. All Scalia did was write the Heller majority opinion.
3. Nothing was legislated and no laws were created. It was a decision to uphold the Constitution BY VOTE which means the letter of the law as written was in effect (and still is) since its inception.
4. The right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed is clear and precise. No amount of wordsmithing over the last 200 years to defeat it has EVER won its claim.
5. There is nothing you can provide that shows where the Federalist or Anti federalist were debating whether the right of the people to keep and bear arms was at play at any time.

So you come up with a document written by someone who wrote a 100 page document 10 years prior trying to convince everyone that the Constitutions 2nd doesn't say what we think it says?

Your thread has no merit. Its just some opinion on why we shouldn't have guns. These claims are a dime a dozen and have lost EVERY TIME they go in front of a judge. Hows that for right wing drivel?

 

You NEVER retract or even attempt to answer questions about your own statements in print even when they are QUOTED to you for clarification. So why do you go onto other threads and falsify your position?

 

Nope and other than as museum pieces or reenactment accoutrement neither do .45 Caliber muzzle loading rifles. On the other hand, we the people, those whom the constitution designates as the militia, very much are and we have among us more than 300 million rifles and hand guns. The militia isn't a permanent body it shows up when needed. You ignore it at your peril.
One nut with a rifle killed 52 people in LV. Be glad he used the rifles. Had he used either of his two airplanes the body count would have been in the hundreds maybe in the thousands. By the way I am not threatening violence here. I am seventy two years old I've got gout and rheumatoid Arthritis and my wife is in even worse. And I don't own a gun. All I have is a keyboard and I will use it to promote equality not equity, liberty rather than slavery, and capitalism liberty's engine, over socialism and economic slavery.

 

With the Militia Act of 1903, several amendments made over a couple of decades, then, with the National Defense Act of 1920 and finally the National Defense Act of 1933 the National Guard was set on its path to what it is, today, which, effectively, replaces all the state's militias that existed in the 18th and 19th centuries.

 

The OP is not about 'gun ownership', it's about the historical record and circumstances giving rise to the second amendment. The paper references the arguments presented at the ratifying convention. This is history, all you have to do is read it.

 

Ignore at my peril? What does that even mean? You are living in some kind of fever swamp fantasy land.

To say 'we the people' is a militia is to render the term meaningless, as a substantial majority of households do not own firearms. There is no militia. At the very minimum, per the constitution, it is to be 'well regulated', which, in the language of the era, meant 'trained, organized, called to action, etc'. And the 'militia' at the time of the constitution, was every male over the age of 18, who were required to join, engage in meetings, patrols, and so forth. As time marched on, our nation's leaders noted, including Hamilton, that the 'militia', consisting of amateurs, drunks, post-abandoners, undisciplined types, were no match against an organized continental army and thus militias, over the years, went out of favor and, ( reiterating post #118 ):

With the Militia Act of 1903, several amendments made over a couple of decades, then, with the National Defense Act of 1920 and finally the National Defense Act of 1933 the National Guard was set on its path to become what it is, today, which, effectively, replaced all the state's militias that existed in the 18th and 19th centuries.

I'm 70, do not have gout nor arthritis ( knock on wood ) and age is no assurance of knowledge or wisdom (so I don't know why you made that point), though one would hope it would.

 

Do you just make stuff up as you go to fit your narrative? The state of Wisconsin has over 600,000 hunters that got hunting permits last year which would make them the eighth largest army in the world. More men under arms than Iran; more than France and Germany combined.

But that pales in comparison to the 750,000 that received hunting licenses in Pennsylvania. Michigan has over 700,000 registered hunters. Toss in a quarter million hunters in West Virginia, and it is literally the case that just hunters of those four states alone would comprise the largest army in the world. And that is just FOUR states. The total population of just registered hunters in America today is over 43.7 million individuals. And that doesn't even take into account hand guns, home defense, and recreational shooters.

There are more than 400 million guns currently registered in the US and thats just legally purchased weapons. When you add up just the legal gun owners of the Untied States, they have more guns than the worlds ten largest standing armys COMBINED.

 

I hate to be the one who throws water on your parade but the 2nd amendment is about gun ownership.

 

Various surveys suggest that one in every two house holds have guns. More over that gun owners are likely to be more conservative than non gun owners.

What it means sir is that if leftists push hard enough long enough it will blow up in their faces. Note the woke generals will discover as the already are as they try to purify the NG in DC to make it a sort of one off praetorian guard. By the way such things have prove a bad idea in the past. At least for the would be Emperor's who dont keep their promises to that guard and might I suggest putting them up in parking garages with no toilet facilities while some nutbar winnows them with an ideological pruning fork probably isn't a great first step.

 

32% have guns in America. Surveys vary. I'll go with 40%, tops, but not half. 34% of the nation identify as conservative, so that makes sense.

Your last rant 'what it means...' has nothing to do with the OP.

 

Well, sure, but the paper disputes the oft held reason for 2A, and gives historical evidence to support the premise.