People Control

serpentdove

serpentdove

BANNED
Banned
[High School Textbook Rewrites Second Amendment–Literally by Hillary Cherry] "The authors of United States History: Preparing for the Advanced Placement Examination have taken it upon themselves to change the Constitution of the United States. The high school textbook contains a summary of each Amendment that alters the initial intent in which they were created.

The textbook notes the Second Amendment as, "The people have a right to keep and bear arms in a state militia."

The actual Second Amendment reads, "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..." Full text: High School Textbook Rewrites Second Amendment–Literally Lk 22:36 more
 
Last edited:
Alate_One

Alate_One

Well-known member
Well gee the full text of the actual amendment says "Militia" (a frequent and convenient omission by the pro-gun lobby). I think it's pretty clear what the amendment means if you just read it. Unfortunately the Supreme Court decided it means something else.
 
serpentdove

serpentdove

BANNED
Banned
Alate_One said:
Well gee the full text of the actual amendment says "Militia" (a frequent and convenient omission by the pro-gun lobby)...
Click to expand...

"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."
 
Brother Vinny

Brother Vinny

Active member
TruthSetsFree said:
are u as loony as your avatar would tend to indicate?
Click to expand...

It's a serious question. Nothing in the language of the Second Amendment prohibits us from arming ourselves with. . . whatever. Bows, knives, guns, swords, etc. If all these are legal, why not nukes?

The counter to this, I would think, would be that the Founding Fathers never envisioned such firepower.

The counter to the counter would be, the Founding Fathers only had single-shot muskets. They couldn't have imagined the conventional firepower we have today, either.
 
C

Christian Liberty

Well-known member
Alate_One said:
Well gee the full text of the actual amendment says "Militia" (a frequent and convenient omission by the pro-gun lobby). I think it's pretty clear what the amendment means if you just read it. Unfortunately the Supreme Court decided it means something else.
Click to expand...

Not really, back then every able bodied male was in a "militia" and there was no standing army.

That said, even if you were right, that doesn't give the AP textbook a right to change the wording for their own agenda.

That said, the tenth amendment is a better argument than the second when it comes to Federal laws. The 2nd can be used but the 10th is better.

Brother Vinny said:
So. . . why doesn't the 2nd Amendment include nuclear weapons?
Click to expand...

First of all, I actually do believe any FEDERAL bans on nukes would be unconstitutional, under the 10th amendment, not the 2nd. Now, I agree that it would be absurd for any state to legalize the possession of nuclear weapons, and I believe Murray Rothbard's argument as to why the ownership of such weapons is inherently aggressive is sound. But the fact remains that, on principle, this is a state issue. Either amend the constitution, or deal with the awful hypothetical (but practically absurd) possibility that any state would legalize nuclear weapon ownership.

That said, the 2nd amendment refers to small arms, not ordinance. So I think that's the answer to your question.
 
Quincy

Quincy

New member
I don't see any text that differentiates either of the comma segments to mean a well regulated militia "as well as" each individual citizen. It's a list referring back to the topic of the sentence, a militia.

Through a militia we keep and bear arms to protect our territory. If you understand what a militia is, then you probably totally get why this gun control situation is so screwed up. I think some people believe guns should only be in possession of law enforcement and the state's national guard. Then some people think every person should have a gun sitting on their lap.

Guns should be the hands of non-professional locally regulated groups with strict guidelines keeping them separate from the federal government involvement. That is what I read from it. It makes zero sense to allow some fringe paranoid mountain hick the rights to have a private armory. We still need a force that we as a group regulate to ensure our security on a local level, it just shouldn't be a case of neighborhoods full of lone wolves.
 
Saved.One.by.Grace

Saved.One.by.Grace

New member
Alate_One said:
Well gee the full text of the actual amendment says "Militia" (a frequent and convenient omission by the pro-gun lobby). I think it's pretty clear what the amendment means if you just read it. Unfortunately the Supreme Court decided it means something else.
Click to expand...
Yeah, tell me where the right to privacy is in the US Constitution? Seems like certain judges had a plan to circumvent the Constitution creating a new right, the right to privacy.
 
Brother Vinny

Brother Vinny

Active member
Wunderhund said:
Can you afford a nuclear weapon? And if so do you have a safe and secure place to store it?
Click to expand...

For the sake of argument, let's say I can say, "Yes," to both of those. It stands to reason that the Second Amendment--as it is currently worded and widely interpreted--should allow for individual ownership of nuclear weapons. It certainly doesn't disallow it.

Since the time the Constitution was written, we have gone from single-shot muskets to automatic machine guns with armor-piercing bullets. A shooting spree in the 1700s was unheard of, in main because it would entail hauling several muskets around or stopping to reload after each shot.

I'm all for recognizing man's inalienable right to protect self, kin, and property from others, but the Second Amendment is not a law written with our time in mind.
 
serpentdove

serpentdove

BANNED
Banned
479 Sheriffs Refuse to Enforce New Laws on Gun Control

Colorado's school shooting over in 80 seconds--why?

Flashback:

Sandy Hook Elementary School A Gun Free Zone

Hunters, Fishermen Targeted by Feds for Local Violations

Federal Judge Overturns Chicago's Ban On Gun Sales

Detroit Police Chief: Concealed Carry Deters Crime, Saves Lives

Thugs Picked the Wrong Dad to Target for Shameful ‘Knockout Game’ — He’s a Concealed-Carry Permit Holder, and He Used It

Armed Homeowner + Former Female Boxer = Almost No Chance of Success for Group of Criminals

Brazen Crook Greeted by Texas Woman and a Shotgun – Guess How His Night Turned Out

Suspected Burglar Really Didn’t Know Whose House He Was Breaking Into…and It Cost Him His Life

Couple Pulls a Gun While Stealing From Sears. They Likely Weren’t Counting on the Former Marine Nearby

Is It Any Safer to Break Into a Texas Home on Christmas Eve? This Guy Found Out

Obama to Tighten Mental Health Restrictions on Gun Ownership

Anti-Second Amendment Senator Is Being Mocked Relentlessly After He Warned of '30 Magazine Clips'

Smith & Wesson to End Most CA Sales Due to Microstamping Regulation

Ammo shortage persists more than year after Sandy Hook

Supreme Court Asked to Clarify What it Means to 'Bear' Arms

Ninth Circuit Strikes Down CA Law Restricting Concealed Carry

Detroit Mom Uses 'Assault Rifle' to Ward Off Intruder

Elderly Woman Drew Gun to Ward Off Unwanted Shoveler

NYC forces gun buyers to wait six to eight months for permits

11-Year-Old Girl Shoots Cougar to Save Brother

CA Freeing Criminals While Keeping Guns from Law-Abiding Citizens

Bypassing Congress, DOJ to Announce Expansion to Gun Background Checks

Student suspended for pointing finger like gun

Obama: Doctors Should Ask About Guns in Home

Obama's Anti-Second Amendment Nominee For Surgeon General: Guns Are a Healthcare Issue

DC Man Found Guilty of Possessing Inert 'Bullets ' Lk 22:36
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top