The second amendment

[hearthman]

I've got news for you Robo--you CAN own artillery. You can even build your own. We used to build replica black powder cannons and shoot them at re-enactments and live fire competitions. The only thing regulated is the powder. We constructed a powder magazine in accordance with ATF specs and paperwork. Each man was allowed 25lbs. apiece and only have to chart in a journal each time he made a withdrawal and could take up to 5 pounds per day. With a special license, the cannon owners could draw up to 50 pounds per day. Now, a typical black powder cannon can shoot over one mile. While exploding ordinance was not allowed, a bad guy could certainly produce them easily.

Again, it's not what the Constitution allows but the opposite: we are allowed to have to do any d@mn thing we want except what is specifically listed in the Constitution or Statutes and regs. as long as they themselves are found Constitutional.

[the mojo]

http://onlygunsandmoney.blogspot.com...an-on-cnn.html

Corny you mean you are using an opinion of this due to redefine the 2nd ammendment Brady style.

Our own Federal Government suppiied weapons to the Mexican cartel,via the BATFE.

Oh, and I remember when Fox was leaving,just who was screaming the loudest about our gun dealers selling weapons to Mexico. And the democrats are thinking about 2016.

Talk about under the radar. Care for a swiss cheese sandwich,nice try though.

[Tool-Slinger]

Hmmm... not sure I would call them goofs and gaggles... they practiced gorilla/insurgent warfare; which seems to work as well or better than standing armies over history.

Regardless; the 2nd amendment is about the masses being able to abolish a bad govt and replace it... I am not sure why folks cannot wrap their minds around that... unless they do not want to...

It is the numbers GA, look at the numbers. I unfairly trimmed and weeded and cut the militia down to a measly 50-1 advantage for the militia. Assumed every military person would side against the militia, still 50-1 outstanding force.

The American militia, just the common folks with arms, is by far the most powerful domestic military force we have.

[the mojo]

Merry Christmas corny.

[ga-hvac-tech]

It is the numbers GA, look at the numbers. I unfairly trimmed and weeded and cut the militia down to a measly 50-1 advantage for the militia. Assumed every military person would side against the militia, still 50-1 outstanding force.

The American militia, just the common folks with arms, is by far the most powerful domestic military force we have.

I believe the founders well understood this reality... that citizens who love their country (and in the case of the USA, the freedom we believe in); would be the most potent force to defend the country... that is: from forces both foreign AND DOMESTIC. Those last two words suggest to me (hmmm rather tell me) the founders well understood the potential for corrupt govt; and placed many things in the founding documents to keep govt under control ov the citizens. Just voting once every couple of years was not enough safe-guards.

Again; some of the things the founders put in the founding documents are intended as absolutes to keep a balance of power... both within govt and between govt and citizens.

[Tool-Slinger]

The 'militia' is citizens. As opposed to the 'army' by definition. The National Guard is still a quite proper army, in spite of some lax serving requirements, not a 40 hour a week job.

I am not sure why you guys are arguing over court cases. This is all simple English. And JP, I am not sure why you are arguing with Corny. Snowed in for the holiday?

[jpsmith1cm]

The 'militia' is citizens. As opposed to the 'army' by definition. The National Guard is still a quite proper army, in spite of some lax serving requirements, not a 40 hour a week job.

I am not sure why you guys are arguing over court cases. This is all simple English. And JP, I am not sure why you are arguing with Corny. Snowed in for the holiday?

I'm home today.

The presents are open, the boy has been to the range with his new gun, the prime rib is roasting and I'm bored.


I actually think that corny, mcjo and I see somewhat eye-to-eye on this particular issue, we're just stating our points a bit differently.

Back to that use of language thing....

[Tool-Slinger]

I believe the founders well understood this reality... that citizens who love their country (and in the case of the USA, the freedom we believe in); would be the most potent force to defend the country... that is: from forces both foreign AND DOMESTIC. Those last two words suggest to me (hmmm rather tell me) the founders well understood the potential for corrupt govt; and placed many things in the founding documents to keep govt under control ov the citizens. Just voting once every couple of years was not enough safe-guards.

Again; some of the things the founders put in the founding documents are intended as absolutes to keep a balance of power... both within govt and between govt and citizens.

Yes it is very clear to me that the founding fathers formed a government that they knew as a last straw should be overthrown by the militia if needed should it become tyrannical. They did a fine job, but they were entering unexplored political territory at the time. They understood that. They also understood that an overwhelming militay force from abroad could only be stopped by the militia, or with that support.

An armed public is freedom. The other rights in the 'bill of rights' are worthless without the 2nd amendment.

[barbar]

There you go JP...

When I started this thread, the point was to get folks to read the first half: The part about preserving a free state (as in keeping the inevitable creep of crooked govt) from usurping freedom at bay.

As I read the 2nd amendment... I do not see anything about folks protecting themselves... methinks that was just common sense back then. However: As noted repeatedly: freedom says one has the right to pursue life, liberty, and happiness... as long as that pursuit does not infringe on anothers same pursuit.

Why is it sooo hard for folks to understand we are FREE... So take the freedom responsibly and life life.
Perhaps we have grown soft as a nation... we forgot the words of a founder: Those that would trade freedom for security, deserve neither. A wise man there... smarter than the ones we elected a few mos ago.
When I read about gun control... what I see is trading freedom for a perceived sense of security... however all one has to do is read the stats and they will find an armed society is more polite and safe than a disarmed society. Come on folks... connect the dots... (Note; not fussing at the ARP crowd, fussing at the average American who probably is not dry enough behind the ears to understand).



BTW: Not calling you out JP... I think you do understand.

Can you please show stats on the highlighted statement.
I have studied the stats on safety and arms, an you statement is incorrect, the polite bit, i am unable to find stats, so i will take your word.
History has shown (including very modern and present), that a need for a document to overthrow a govt is not required to overthrow a govt.
At what stage, is an armed uprising internally going to happen. Has the present Potus, indicated that no future elections will be held, As elections are the legitimate method of govt overthrow. And could your forefathers actually indicated that the electoral system was the method of removal of an unpopular govt (Tyrant)
You are one who wants to limit voting rights to those who do not have political maturity, yet are promoting unlimited arming of these same people who are not mature enough to vote. Is this a loss of freedom.

[garyed]

Our founding fathers did a great job with the constitution & bill of rights but they still were not perfect. Whether intentional or not they left a lot of room for interpretation in some of the amendments. Its hard to imagine that intelligent judges on the supreme court can come to 5 to 4 disagreements on what was meant by theses amendments if they were crystal clear. Let's not forget most of these revolutionary founding fathers who believed so strongly in freedom owned slaves themselves. The way I interpret the second amendment is not only do we have the right to bear arms but the government does not have the right to restrict where we bear them either. I think there should be some restrictions where & when you carry but if I were a judge I would rule against any restrictions unless the 2nd amendment was changed or repealed. I also think the ambiguity is including "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" in the same sentence with "A well regulated Militia..." separated by a comma.
One could argue that right only belongs to members of the Militia which pretty much no longer exists today. In my mind the 2nd amendment is violated every day by every city, county, state & the federal government because of the way it is interpreted & I am not a member of the NRA.

[corny]

Our founding fathers did a great job with the constitution & bill of rights but they still were not perfect. Whether intentional or not they left a lot of room for interpretation in some of the amendments. Its hard to imagine that intelligent judges on the supreme court can come to 5 to 4 disagreements on what was meant by theses amendments if they were crystal clear. Let's not forget most of these revolutionary founding fathers who believed so strongly in freedom owned slaves themselves. The way I interpret the second amendment is not only do we have the right to bear arms but the government does not have the right to restrict where we bear them either. I think there should be some restrictions where & when you carry but if I were a judge I would rule against any restrictions unless the 2nd amendment was changed or repealed. I also think the ambiguity is including "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" in the same sentence with "A well regulated Militia..." separated by a comma.
One could argue that right only belongs to members of the Militia which pretty much no longer exists today. In my mind the 2nd amendment is violated every day by every city, county, state & the federal government because of the way it is interpreted & I am not a member of the NRA.

With the 1903 militia act the national guard became the well regulated militia... they are funded...trained...have standards and uniformity...just like the militias the 2nd amendment spoke of....which were the militias described in the 1792 militia act.

There are still state militias... Tennessee has one.... and while they can be called into service for state duties they are mostly a ceremonial organization.....

But the ordinary citizen militia.....the unorganized militia spoke of in the 1903 dick act and the US code JP cited...... they aint nothing but a bunch of rabble who serve no purpose other than being called up for the draft.

Tyranny... ahoy their my mateys..

OK... so someone like Obama or Pelosi manages to get the armed forced behind them and they start their war on america or whatever a tyrannical government would do to the nation.....

The unorganized rabble..... who gives them the call to arms..... do they meet somewhere to go over plans... what kind of rank structure do they have.... are you going to have 20 guys showing up over at Joes garage each one of them calling himself a general ??? Where is the structure ??? Rules ??? Guidlines ???

And this unorganized rabble..... what about the ones who are going to side with Obama or Pelosi and their tyrannical mission to take the US.... how are we going to tell these guys apart from the rabble that want to save the union.....???

You see.... an unorganized rabble that has no mission set forth, no standing rules or guidlines, nothing whatsoever but the name....the unorganized militia....... wouldnt be good for anything unless they were taken under control by the government and brought under some sort of structured system.

My god.... could you see these guys.... a hundred generals riding down the road in thier suvs and pickup trucks.... they see an Obama army humvee with a couple of soldiers in it.... The pileup would be massive as all these self appointed generals all tried to turn around at once and flee the battle with the humvee and the 2 soldiers driving it down the road.

[corny]

That is pure BS corny as usual and you and everyone with an once of brains knows it. I could give a flip what the 1903 act said organizing the NG. That in no way affects the meaning of the Constitution.

If you want to change the 2nd Amendment then you have to change the Constitution. So please for heavens sake stop "inventing" these straw men to try and change the 2nd Amendment.

I for one am tired of you "inventing" facts, changing the meaning of things to suit your view on how things should be in your "liberal" opinion. Most liberals have this habit and you use it 24/7 in almost every post you make. Geez. Give us a break. And a Merry Christimas to you corny. Thank you, thank you very much

Not inventing facts.... the 2nd amendment spelled out the need for a militia and the militia acts provide the guidelines...
1903 militia act is what governs the militia today.

Merry Xmas, Happy New Year....

[glennac]

Not inventing facts.... the 2nd amendment spelled out the need for a militia and the militia acts provide the guidelines...
1903 militia act is what governs the militia today.

Merry Xmas, Happy New Year....

You never get it do you corny and I guess you never will. I guess I will have to spoon feed this to you. Congress can pass all the laws they want and the government can regulate all they want but you, nor Congress can change the Constitution without an Amendment ratified by the states and Congress.

Then and only then can you change what the Constitution says. I hope you can understand this simple concept but I know you won't or can't but that is it anyhow. Thank you, thank you very much