- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Winter Olympics
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
Second Amendment rights
Posted on 11/7/17 at 10:11 am
Posted on 11/7/17 at 10:11 am
I'm sick of the ignorance of so many people related to the second amendment. It has nothing to do with people owning guns for hunting. It has everything to do with the people bearing arms for the intent of protecting a free State from it's own government. The founding fathers saw hunting and farming as necessities to life. There was no need to regulate or deregulate guns for hunting. If they didn't hunt and farm they didn't eat.
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.
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.
13
Posted on 11/7/17 at 10:14 am to tigereye58
JFK quote:
quote:
By calling attention to "a well regulated militia", the "security" of the nation, and the right of each citizen "to keep and bear arms", our founding fathers recognized the essentially civilian nature of our economy. Although it is extremely unlikely that the fears of governmental tyranny which gave rise to the Second Amendment will ever be a major danger to our nation, the Amendment still remains as important declaration of our basic civilian-military relationships, in which every citizen must be ready to participate in the defense of this country. For that reason, I believe the Second Amendment will always be important.
Posted on 11/7/17 at 10:14 am to tigereye58
quote:
I'm sick of the ignorance of so many people related to the second amendment. It has nothing to do with people owning guns for hunting. It has everything to do with the people bearing arms for the intent of protecting a free State from it's own government. The founding fathers saw hunting and farming as necessities to life. There was no need to regulate or deregulate guns for hunting. If they didn't hunt and farm they didn't eat. 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.
That's why Obama wanted to take the guns. You lose the 2nd Amendment you lose the others.
Posted on 11/7/17 at 10:14 am to tigereye58
Before one of our left-leaning friends brings it up, I will go ahead and address the prefatory clause of the Second Amendment, which reads:
In their opinion in District of Columbia v. Heller, the Supreme Court held that this clause announces a purpose for the operative clause (the rest of the text of the 2nd Amendment), but does not serve as a limitation on the operative clause.
quote:
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State
In their opinion in District of Columbia v. Heller, the Supreme Court held that this clause announces a purpose for the operative clause (the rest of the text of the 2nd Amendment), but does not serve as a limitation on the operative clause.
Posted on 11/7/17 at 10:15 am to tigereye58
I believe that these days that debate has been brought up enough to remind people exactly what the 2nd Amendment is for. I believe people are a lot more educated about it than there used to be anyway. Always we could use improving that understanding, sure.
Ultimately, they don't like scary guns. And they want them removed and stripped from the people. Period.
Understand that, and you'll never lose sight each time they want to add one more regulation or law prohibiting them.
Ultimately, they don't like scary guns. And they want them removed and stripped from the people. Period.
Understand that, and you'll never lose sight each time they want to add one more regulation or law prohibiting them.
Posted on 11/7/17 at 10:16 am to tigereye58
Amen. Self defense is a given. The bearing of arms is specifically enumerated as a check on the government. The entire Bill of Rights was designed to list out the rights the citizens have that the government is not allowed to infringe upon, and the left thinks that the 2nd amendment is somehow not supposed to apply to citizens?
Posted on 11/7/17 at 10:16 am to cajuncarguy
quote:
You lose the 2nd Amendment you lose the others
Which is why it's #2 behind freedom of speech....1st you tell the politard to frick off, then shoot the dickwad if he comes at you
Posted on 11/7/17 at 10:17 am to tigereye58
quote:
It has everything to do with the people bearing arms for the intent of protecting a free State from it's own government.
From the federal government. There was no intent to limit the powers of state governments.
Posted on 11/7/17 at 10:18 am to Speedy G
quote:
From the federal government. There was no intent to limit the powers of state governments.
And the Bill of Rights have since been applied to the states via the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
This post was edited on 11/7/17 at 10:19 am
Posted on 11/7/17 at 10:22 am to Roll Tide Ravens
quote:
In their opinion in District of Columbia v. Heller, the Supreme Court held that this clause announces a purpose for the operative clause (the rest of the text of the 2nd Amendment), but does not serve as a limitation on the operative clause.
The Left's linguistic gymnastics were why that decision was ever needed in the first place.
Posted on 11/7/17 at 10:28 am to Roll Tide Ravens
quote:
And the Bill of Rights have since been applied to the states via the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
Not all of them, and certainly not en masse.
Regardless, if we are talking about original intent and the wisdom of the founding fathers, as the OP certainly seems to be, we should keep the story accurate. The 2nd Amendment was to protect the states from the federal government.
Posted on 11/7/17 at 10:33 am to Speedy G
quote:Not quite. The power was to be with the people, ultimately. The BOR was intended to define the limits on federal powers and to assign power to the states where not specifically enumerated to the feds. "The people" are ultimately where the freedom lies, not with the states or the federal government.
The 2nd Amendment was to protect the states from the federal government.
Posted on 11/7/17 at 10:38 am to tigereye58
quote:
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.
broadly interpreted, this could be construed to mean that if I could afford it, I could buy a B1 bomber, fully armed... with whatever ever payload I could afford.
As a supporter of the rights of individuals to keep and bear arms... I do not get warm fuzzies with the thought of Soros or others having their own private arsenal...
Posted on 11/7/17 at 10:43 am to klrstix
quote:
a supporter of the rights of individuals to keep and bear arms... I do not get warm fuzzies with the thought of Soros or others having their own private arsenal...
So they can just get enough political power to use the federal arsenal while you keep your single shot 410 shotgun. Sounds fantastic.
Posted on 11/7/17 at 10:44 am to tigereye58
The population of the US in 1776 was 2.5 million in 13 states. There were about 25,000 psychopaths then and undoubtedly a few were severely mentally ill and used guns in acting out their pathological fantasies. Transportation was by horse or on foot and communities were widespread. Psychos didn't have it easy when they needed to kill.
The population of the US in 2017 is nearly 330 million in 50 states. There are now about 3.3 million psychopaths and many are ill enough to use guns on people, as many as possible in a lot of cases. They have ridiculously easy targets and can move from community to community quickly and easily. Mass shooters and serial killers are common.
The population of the US will be about 450 million in 2100. There will be about 4.5 million psychos living in densely populated shooting galleries.., um, I mean communities. Better learn to shoot back if you intend to see the new century.
The population of the US in 2017 is nearly 330 million in 50 states. There are now about 3.3 million psychopaths and many are ill enough to use guns on people, as many as possible in a lot of cases. They have ridiculously easy targets and can move from community to community quickly and easily. Mass shooters and serial killers are common.
The population of the US will be about 450 million in 2100. There will be about 4.5 million psychos living in densely populated shooting galleries.., um, I mean communities. Better learn to shoot back if you intend to see the new century.
Posted on 11/7/17 at 10:48 am to FooManChoo
quote:
Not quite. The power was to be with the people, ultimately. The BOR was intended to define the limits on federal powers and to assign power to the states where not specifically enumerated to the feds. "The people" are ultimately where the freedom lies, not with the states or the federal government.
The people were the mechanism through which the states could protect themselves, but there was nothing in the bill of rights that protected the people from their own state governments. That was left up to the individual state constitutions. The founders never intended to restrict the states' abilities to govern their own citizens.
Posted on 11/7/17 at 10:49 am to tigereye58
Judge Alex Kozinski's dissenting opinion in Silveira v. Lockyer:
Posted on 11/7/17 at 10:49 am to tigereye58
In DC v. Heller, the right to guns was not limited to the purpose of protection from government.
Court also stated this:
Leaves the door open for regulations. Does not opine on restrictions for semi-autos or other more powerful firearms
quote:
Indeed, it may be true that no amount of small arms could be useful against modern-day bombers and tanks. But the fact that modern developments have limited the degree of fit between the prefatory clause and the protected right cannot change our interpretation of the right.
Court also stated this:
quote:
Nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.
Leaves the door open for regulations. Does not opine on restrictions for semi-autos or other more powerful firearms
Posted on 11/7/17 at 10:51 am to MrCarton
quote:
So they can just get enough political power to use the federal arsenal while you keep your single shot 410 shotgun. Sounds fantastic.
Not really my point...
In fact I intended no point per se, other than making an observation.
Posted on 11/7/17 at 10:55 am to m2pro
quote:
I believe that these days that debate has been brought up enough to remind people exactly what the 2nd Amendment is for. I believe people are a lot more educated about it than there used to be anyway. Always we could use improving that understanding, sure.
If people wanted to be armed to protect from government tyranny, we'd have to allow the sale of tanks and bombers to Americans. The clause is clearly outdated, as Justice Scalia and others have suggested. The idea is that the right to bear arms transcends the original purpose and/or is not limited to that purpose, however outdated.
Page 1 of 3
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News