Dare I say it? Repealing the Second Amendment. Is this an idea worth exploring?

Doesn't that sound like an increase of power in the federal government over states? Duh?

 

no, I want those who want to get rid of our right to not hide behind others with guns. If they want the government agents to harass or even kill currently law abiding citizens if those citizens refuse to turn over their guns, to be on the front lines.

 

sounds like a case where the federal government-the courts specifically are limiting the power of the states over the INDIVIDUAL. You apparently like the idea of the states violating our constitutional rights. I like the idea that if say NJ or California or Connecticut or Illinois bans AR 15s, the federal courts strike those bans down. You apparently find that to be upsetting

 

So, you think passers of the second were trying to make sure all Americans had arms rights? Possessing and using arms for a variety of reasons was commonplace and generally accepted by the people of Ameria in 1791. Why do you think the passers of the 2ND needed a provision to guarantee arms rights when it was a general consensus among all Americans that arms rights should be guaranteed to all? For that matter, why didn't the founders also pass legislation or amendments guaranteeing American rights to eat, sleep, **** or procreate?

 

I will try to make this as easy to follow as possible

1) the founders were charged with creating a new government after the AoC failed
2) they had to get enough support for the constitution to pass
3) they never gave the new federal government any power to control the arms of private citizens
they also didn't give that new government powers over speech, assembly, religious freedom etc
4) they reiterated that lack of power with the second -they had just fought a war with a monarchy that tried to disarm citizens
5) the bill of rights did not apply to the states

80 or so years later, the fourteenth amendment applied some of the bill of rights to the state

 

The Founders required every white male between the ages of 18 - 45 to be well armed and prepared for active warfare.

"The Militia Act of 1792, Passed May 8, 1792, providing federal standards for the organization of the Militia.

An ACT more effectually to provide for the National Defence, by establishing an Uniform Militia throughout the United States.

I. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, That each and every free able-bodied white male citizen of the respective States, resident therein, who is or shall be of age of eighteen years, and under the age of forty-five years (except as is herein after excepted) shall severally and respectively be enrolled in the militia, by the Captain or Commanding Officer of the company, within whose bounds such citizen shall reside, and that within twelve months after the passing of this Act. And it shall at all time hereafter be the duty of every such Captain or Commanding Officer of a company, to enroll every such citizen as aforesaid, and also those who shall, from time to time, arrive at the age of 18 years, or being at the age of 18 years, and under the age of 45 years (except as before excepted) shall come to reside within his bounds; and shall without delay notify such citizen of the said enrollment, by the proper non-commissioned Officer of the company, by whom such notice may be proved. That every citizen, so enrolled and notified, shall, within six months thereafter, provide himself with a good musket or firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints, and a knapsack, a pouch, with a box therein, to contain not less than twenty four cartridges, suited to the bore of his musket or firelock, each cartridge to contain a proper quantity of powder and ball; or with a good rifle, knapsack, shot-pouch, and powder-horn, twenty balls suited to the bore of his rifle, and a quarter of a pound of powder; and shall appear so armed, accoutred and provided, when called out to exercise or into service, except, that when called out on company days to exercise only, he may appear without a knapsack. That the commissioned Officers shall severally be armed with a sword or hanger, and espontoon; and that from and after five years from the passing of this Act, all muskets from arming the militia as is herein required, shall be of bores sufficient for balls of the eighteenth part of a pound; and every citizen so enrolled, and providing himself with the arms, ammunition and accoutrements, required as aforesaid, shall hold the same exempted from all suits, distresses, executions or sales, for debt or for the payment of taxes."

 

Dude, per number 3, read the writings and speeches of the passers of the 2ND amendment. Those passers were greatly concerned that a paper-thin army (state militias) were protecting the federal. The second was to regulate state militias so they could better (more likely, make Senators more secure in the notion) protect the federal. Anyway, the second became superfluous with the allowance of standing armies sometime after the passage of the second in 1791.

 

You forget that the same weapons that state militiamen used in war were the same weapons they used to shoot food for the dinner table. The second amendment encompasses all arms usage not just bearing arms (using arms to go to war) but also keeping arms (using arms not in a wartime situation).

 

The Founders believed the people should always be fully prepared to overthrow their government by armed force.

"What country before ever existed a century and half without a rebellion? And what country can preserve it’s liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is it’s natural manure. Our Convention has been too much impressed by the insurrection of Massachusets: and in the spur of the moment they are setting up a kite to keep the hen yard in order. I hope in god this article will be rectified before the new constitution is accepted.[2]"
https://www.monticello.org/research-education/thomas-jefferson-encyclopedia/tree-liberty-quotation/

 

Yes, including self defense and by extension armed insurrection when necessary.

 

The founders founded The Constitution. The founders believed in a bigger government, er, bigger than the Articles of Confederation.

 

You may be conflating the motives of militiamen with the motives of the second amendment. I don't think the motives of militiamen are all that important, here.

 

True that. They also believed the public should be well armed and prepared to overthrow that government by force of arms if necessary.

 

The militia, created by the Founders was every white male between the age of 18 - 45. They mattered.

 

Misinformation. Some mistrusters of The Constitution (antifederalists) may have thought this.

 

They all thought that way -- they were all revolutionaries.

"And what country can preserve it’s liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. Thomas Jefferson, In a 1787 letter to William Stephens Smith.

 

Brilliant retort.
Clearly illustrates your vast and deep understanding of the subject.

If fact, you only posted your link because you liked what it said, not because you have any real understanding of the issue.

 

Why?
Because, absent confiscation, a ban on any sort of weapon will have no effect on violent crime.
Those who support bans, but not confiscation, don't really care about violent crime - they seek only to harass the law abiding.

 

Yes... but not very well....

 

The founders weren't revolutionaries. The founders were advocates for bigger government, er, government bigger than the Articles of Confederation.

 

In fact, The Founders were the world's first revolutionaries, and perhaps the world's only real revolutionaries.

 

The people who fought in the Revolutionary War were the revolutionaries. The ones who realized there needed to be sufficient government were the founders.

 

what bothers you most? federal courts striking down laws that restrict the freedom of the citizens or states passing laws that limit constitutional and fundamental freedoms. I want LESS power over people. You seem to get upset when states cannot ban say interracial marriage, gun ownership or free speech

 

you seem conflicted, you oppose the federal government preventing state governments from abrogating the freedom of citizens

 

According to your interpretation of the last 13 words of the second amendment, you want more power for the federal government and less for states.