Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Yes, it was misinterpreted by the court because the Second Amendment is absolute, but the court somehow wiggled it through and ushered in a bunch of infringements.
The Court has a way of doing that to many things. Those happy with that sort of thing will change their mind once something they happen to hold dear to them gets the ax.
For decades the 2nd amendment has been argued over and over.
Right here on this forum I have asked before, that someone explain why the "people" have the right to bear arms.
I don't recall anyone answering that question.
It has always been my feeling that the mention of" a well regulated militia", followed by "the people's right to bear arms, has been misinterpreted, even by the courts.
If the people mentioned in the 2nd were the general public, then why was the word "militia" put into the amendment?"
I believe the framers of the constitution were issuing and order that people who make up a militia are the one's who's right to bear arm shall not be infringed.
Why would the framers want the general population armed?
So, please explain why the word "militia" was put into the amendment, if it wasn't the people who make up a militia who have the right to bear arms.
A "well regulated militia" would be a group of people well trained and regulated, should the need arise to have to use them once again to defend the country.
This certainly doesn't mean every Joe Blow from Alamo would be entitled to have a weapon.
You are going to get a lot of people blowing smoke over this.
The right to bear arms is a state's right, not a personal right.
The establishment of a Federal government was a concern of the states, and this was discussed a great deal at the time. The Federal government was expected to have a full time professional military, the states would not.
The states would rely on a militia, either volunteer or compulsory, that is a state right. The state could require the militia to provide their own weapons (very common in the earliest days), or decide to pay for them, that is a state's right.
The fear was that a powerful professional Federal army could potentially disarm the population and bring a state to it's knees. The possibility of some powerful general or president setting himself up as a dictator was very real to them.
So the amendment was designed specifically to protect a state's ability to maintain a militia. The amendment points this out directly in it's text.
The clause 'well regulated militia' is important here. The amendments and the full constitution were ratified by the final state in May 1790. The regulations were passed by Congress early in 1792 and modified later that same year.
For decades the 2nd amendment has been argued over and over.
Right here on this forum I have asked before, that someone explain why the "people" have the right to bear arms.
I don't recall anyone answering that question.
It has always been my feeling that the mention of" a well regulated militia", followed by "the people's right to bear arms, has been misinterpreted, even by the courts.
If the people mentioned in the 2nd were the general public, then why was the word "militia" put into the amendment?"
I believe the framers of the constitution were issuing and order that people who make up a militia are the one's who's right to bear arm shall not be infringed.
Why would the framers want the general population armed?
So, please explain why the word "militia" was put into the amendment, if it wasn't the people who make up a militia who have the right to bear arms.
A "well regulated militia" would be a group of people well trained and regulated, should the need arise to have to use them once again to defend the country.
This certainly doesn't mean every Joe Blow from Alamo would be entitled to have a weapon.
This has been beaten to death, but taking your unwillingness to accept the obvious into account:
1) The people ARE the militia.
2) Why would the Founders feel the need to codify something as obvious as the military's right to keep and bear firearms and put it second only to freedom of speech if it was really their intention to separate the militias and the people?
3) Why are there no historical accounts of the Founders enforcing that interpretation of the 2nd amendment by confiscation of arms from the public?
Why would they go to all that trouble to put something in the Bill of Rights and then completely ignore it?
So was the continental militia standing in front of the most powerful military force in the world.
Spoiler alert - the militia won.
Since the soldiers of the Confederacy were no longer part of the United States, weren't they considered "militia"? People assume that if the government were to be challenged that every member of the Armed Forces would stay loyal to the existing government. How many would turn their weapons like the West Point officers that sided with the South?
The whole idea that a modern army can beat a militia is just plain laughable.
The result of a war is never about firepower but the willingness to win.
They may win every battle, but no modern army has ever won a war against a militia, aka guerrilla warfare UNLESS the modern army is willing to slaughter everybody and everything.
it would depend on the size of the militia of course, both world wars were won by production capacity
both Korea and Vietnam had all kind of rules of engagement that separate them
the Japanese and Germans both BSed themselves with superior training, fighting spirit etc
it would depend on the size of the militia of course, both world wars were won by production capacity
both Korea and Vietnam had all kind of rules of engagement that separate them
Both world wars were wars between modern armies.
You are correct. The rules of engagement shackle a modern army. As I said, unless the modern army is willing to forgo the rules of engagement and just kill everybody, it's not going to win.
The whole idea that a modern army can beat a militia is just plain laughable.
The result of a war is never about firepower but the willingness to win.
They may win every battle, but no modern army has ever won a war against a militia, aka guerrilla warfare UNLESS the modern army is willing to slaughter everybody and everything.
Let me school you about war a little. War is never about one army fighting another. Plenty of forces, domestic and international, come into play. For example, the continental militia didn't win the war by itself. It did so by allying with France, who not only provided 90% of gunpowder and also fought the British Empire globally to a point that the British Empire thought dealing with France was far more pressing than giving up a few villages in New England.
sir you are NOT going to "school me" on anything i have digested several thousand history books in my life and continue to update my knowledge mostly ww2 until i expanded to ww1 and prewar
It will take destroying this country and killing a third to half the male population to change our gun culture now. I'll go out shooting. I don't trust the progressives nor this woke culture cancel culture narrative they are peddling. It's dangerous. Major cultural change often requires killing off most of the males though. It's the way all past wars have worked. If you don't kill off a large majority of the previous cultures males or at least disarm them, you risk they cause an insurrection and overthrow your takeover.
Bottom line...the founders understood human nature...that's why they wanted the populace to be armed. If that wasn't the intention we wouldn't have had guns throughout the entire history of our nation. Everything they did was to ensure numerous checks and balances to keep the power in the hands of the people and not the elites who end up becoming dictators. I don't trust human nature. Being armed is the ultimate way to ensure healthy checks and balances against concentration of power.
For decades the 2nd amendment has been argued over and over.
Right here on this forum I have asked before, that someone explain why the "people" have the right to bear arms.
I don't recall anyone answering that question.
It has always been my feeling that the mention of" a well regulated militia", followed by "the people's right to bear arms, has been misinterpreted, even by the courts.
If the people mentioned in the 2nd were the general public, then why was the word "militia" put into the amendment?"
I believe the framers of the constitution were issuing and order that people who make up a militia are the one's who's right to bear arm shall not be infringed.
Why would the framers want the general population armed?
So, please explain why the word "militia" was put into the amendment, if it wasn't the people who make up a militia who have the right to bear arms.
A "well regulated militia" would be a group of people well trained and regulated, should the need arise to have to use them once again to defend the country.
This certainly doesn't mean every Joe Blow from Alamo would be entitled to have a weapon.
Simply it is an inherent Right of Man that 2nd Amendment recognizes and it’ purpose is to protect that Right, not give it.
A skunk can protect itself as well as the porcupine and other animals, so can man.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
