I believe almost all the gun restrictionists, Graboids in office and anti gun group leaders damn well know what the Second Amendment really means and what the founders intended. and that means their pathetic Graboid schemes are unconstitutional. SO they spend most of their waking moments on earth, trying to convince the Sheeple that the second amendment really didn't mean what the founders clearly intended. I have seen one clown-on another board-claim that "shall not be infringed" was actually intended to allow all sorts of INFRINGEMENTS and I have seen gun banners all over the net say "well regulated militia" is the phrase that GRANTED THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT THE POWER TO BAN machine guns and handguns etc. its really pathetic how dishonest many of the Graboid politicians are as well as their minions in the voting population. and if you understand the concept of the 2nd Amendment NOT GRANTING ANY RIGHTS but merely recognizing a right that was never abridged by any grant of power to the federal government, you cannot buy into the Graboid misinterpretation of the Second amendment
Yes, Ron. Remember that we know what the ultimate goal of the gun grabbers is. We don't believe you anymore.
what's the ultimate goal of "gun grabbers"? FEMA camps? genocide of white anglo-saxon right-wingers? lol!!!
I suspect if I used the most appropriate term I'd have my post deleted or I would get warned or infracted.
OK then. How does the Amendment actually work to further the needs of a well regulated militia to help protect the state in times of emergency? If this is your position, and if you truly want to have a debate, then tell me why the Amendment was necessary to reach the goal you claim it was intended for. I tell you your interpretation renders it meaningless. You want a debate? Tell me how your interpretation works, and I'll tell you why it's wrong. I'll tell you my interpretation, and you tell me why it's wrong. Is that fair enough? I'm going to be very busy the next couple of days, but if you want to share views on this then let me know and we will do it.
The right to keep and bear arms is not dependent on the 2nd Amendment, and exists even were the Amendment absent, or repealed, which as a practical matter simply is not going to happen. Get back to us when that happens. Meanwhile, in the real world, the murder rate in the US is at all time historical lows, and has been dropping year after year for almost 30 years now. As has all categories of crime.
The Second Amendment is used by extremists to arm up Americans. Despite violent crime decreasing since the mid 90s, mass shootings have been steadily increasing.
At the risk of repeating myself, the right to keep and bear arms for a free human exists whether or not it is enumerated in our Constitution. You could get the 2nd Amendment repealed (but you won't), and the right would still remain. Which I blame on psychotropic drugs being prescribed to people under the age of 25, as such drugs have specific warnings about side-effects of violent outbursts in those under 25 who are taking the medication. On the other hand, you're talking about something that happens often enough that you can use one, perhaps 2 hands to count the number of incidences in a country of 330,000,000 residents. Not exactly common.
What?!? Haven't you heard? All criminals have agreed to abide by the "time-out" rule. Its a gentlemen's agreement!
Except if you go read any historical writings by any of the founding fathers they clearly meant that it was the right of the citizens to be armed whether they were in a militia or not. MOD EDIT - Rule 3
Someone posted a link that stated the following: Thus, the well regulated militia necessary to the security of a free state was a militia that might someday fight against a standing army raised and supported by a tyrannical national government. Obviously, for that reason, the Framers did not say "A Militia well regulated by the Congress, being necessary to the security of a free State" -- because a militia so regulated might not be separate enough from, or free enough from, the national government, in the sense of both physical and operational control, to preserve the "security of a free State." However, its clear that the US Constitution provided for 2 militaries in the USA. The regular armed forces and The Public Militia. And as per the Constitution, which was NOT amended or rescinded by the 2nd Amendment, The Public Militia is to be armed, trained, supervised & disciplined by Congress and The State governments. It was NOT a rag-tag group of untrained, unsupervised, uncoordinated and unregulated citizen-soldiers. the US Constitution clearly states: The Congress shall have power: To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions; To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress; Yes, the Public Militia may someday have to take on govt. tyranny, but until that day comes Congress and the State governments have the Constitutional authority to regulate, arm, discripline, manage, train, organize and discipline all Militia members and their activities.
i believe banning folks 18-20 from buying a gun, any gun, is unConstitutional however, I think a law requiring all gun owners to undergo firearms trainign every 3 years, as part of the Militia, would be Constitutonal. as are background checks
