The Second Amendment---Broken down

Discussion in 'The Constitutional & RKBA Forum' started by PharmrJohn, Oct 27, 2009.

  1. GMFWoodchuck

    GMFWoodchuck New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2008
    Messages:
    1,369
    Location:
    Binghamton, NY
    True, some arguments are worth having. Especially if it shows true colors.
  2. Bobitis

    Bobitis Guest

    I'm not here to argue with anyone. The term just sounds non-winable.
    Debate? Yes, by all means.
    And that term would imply one is open to new ideas worthy of exploration.

    That is a good thing for all involved.
    None have perfect insight. All are subject to new ideas.

    When we chooose to ignore all other ideas, we lose.

    Plenty of room at the table.:)
  3. Southern Boy

    Southern Boy New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2009
    Messages:
    110
    HMMMMM, while some on this site are not sure what the founding fathers really meant in the 2nd. amendment, we can know for sure. How you may ask? Just read what they themselves had to say on the subject.----http://www.scribd.com/doc/19804397/ContemplatIons-of-Our-Founding-Fathers-and-Others-on-the-Right-to-Keep-and-Bear-Arms --or this one -- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9P49P6aZR7c --There are many other sites where this type of info can be found on line. They most certainly had a lot to say on the matter, to support their arguement for the citizens to keep and bear arms.
  4. DemoDick115

    DemoDick115 New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 2012
    Messages:
    10
    Location:
    Arizona
    I believe that the 2nd Amendment states that militias and arms are to be protected. Militias being any group of men between the ages of 18 and 45. Arms was to mean ANY weapon. Weapon bans are completely un-Constitutional wether it is banning a knife, a firearm, a sword, etc etc. What alot of people go nuts over is the word "regulated" as in "A well REGULATED militia..." As determined by the Supreme Court "regulated" means trained and/or disciplined. Also training does NOT have to come from a U.S. Gov. Agency as said by the Supreme Court. I could go out and teach a group of men how to shoot rifles and that would suffice in the way of "regulated" And for those on this site who know i am only 14 the Supreme Court ruling said nothing on the age of the teacher for i would not be a part of the militia thus i would not have to be between the ages of 18 and 45. Just to cover my ass :D
  5. Diamondback

    Diamondback Active Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2009
    Messages:
    977
    Location:
    Silver City, Oklahoma
    This has been an interesting thread. I have learned in my lifetime that an education does not impart either wisdom or knowledge. Belercous you are, IMHO, an educated moron. The thought that we should not fight back because we could lose didn't enter into the founding fathers reasoning. After all, if they had placidly handed over their weapons simply because the king said to then we would still subjects of the english royalty.
    I read the Declaration, the Constitution and the Bill of Rights in high school and had absolutely no problem understanding what they meant to say.
    I have to admit that the last time I read or heard such drivel from a mewling, slackjawed, inbred cretin was the time I heard gore claiming he was robbed. I didn't buy into his idiocy either.

    I ask the moderators to please forgive what may be considered flaming, but sometimes..............

    As for you belecous if I have in any offended or upset you---- tango sierra. Take your whining rant to the Chaplain. Maybe he will hold your hand.
  6. Double D

    Double D Administrator Staff Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2009
    Messages:
    10,664
    Location:
    North Florida
    Uhh, this person you are worried about offending is a "former guest" from two years ago. Not really sure why this old thread was dug up....
  7. Diamondback

    Diamondback Active Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2009
    Messages:
    977
    Location:
    Silver City, Oklahoma
    Unusual for me I didn't look at the original post date, DUH. as for offending him I just don't GAS. I was more worried about offending the mods.
  8. TotheTop83

    TotheTop83 Member

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2012
    Messages:
    109
    Location:
    Southwestern PA
    old thread but WTH, might as well throw this out there.

    Check out US v Miller, Printz v US, and Lewis v US.

    In a nutshell: The 2nd Amendment technically doesn't protect any weapon that is not in "common usage in modern warfare." Miller was found guilty of violating the national firearms act (the merits of which can be debated in another discussion) with a short-barreled shotgun not because it was considered too dangerous, but because it was NOT a weapon of modern warfare. In reality, it was, the court just didn't realize that. The point is, the court decided that the 2nd Amendment protects the right of citizens to possess the very "assault" weapons that so many people are opposed to.

    Secondly (and I can't remember the case, sorry. I'm too lazy to look it up.) in order to decide on what "well regulated militia" meant, the court actually went back to dictionaries from the time the amendment was written to decide what the writers meant. The court found that (as someone above me mentioned) any male of fighting age was deemed to be part of the militia. There was no requirement for formal drilling of any kind; just to be a male and be 18-45 or so.

    Just thought I'd throw that out there in case some people weren't already aware. Our Supreme Court actually seems to be holding the line on the 2nd Amendment, for now. When Obozo appoints his two new justices I'm sure that'll change.
  9. armedandsafe

    armedandsafe Guest

    US v Miller is an interesting display of misinterpretation. What the Court said was that they could not rule on whether the weapon was in common use in the military because NO EVIDENCE HAD BEEN PRESENTED by the defendant, Miller, who was dead at the time. The Court cannot rule on what was not presented and cannot rule on points that are not before the Court.

    If you go to court to defend yourself on a traffic violation, don't complain that the Court didn't find Nixon innocent during your trial.

    Pops
  10. TotheTop83

    TotheTop83 Member

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2012
    Messages:
    109
    Location:
    Southwestern PA
    The court wrote: "In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a 'shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length' at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument."

    Which implies that had evidence been presented, the second amendment would guarantee the right to keep and bear such an instrument. In other words, show us it has a relationship to a militia and it is protected.
Similar Threads
Forum Title Date
The Constitutional & RKBA Forum Court Ruling: Waiting Periods a "Burden" on Second Amendment Rights Dec 20, 2013
The Constitutional & RKBA Forum Texas House Gives Final Approval to Impressive Number of Pro-Second Amendment Bills May 8, 2013
The Constitutional & RKBA Forum Will Roberts get a second chance at killing Obamacare? Apr 2, 2013
The Constitutional & RKBA Forum A duty to preserve the Second Amendment Mar 30, 2013
The Constitutional & RKBA Forum Second American Revolution Feb 27, 2013

Share This Page