Feedback for Defining the 2nd Amendment

Discussion in 'Legal and Activism' started by cjbubbadoc, Dec 19, 2012.

  1. cjbubbadoc

    cjbubbadoc New Member

    27
    0
    0
    As there are two parts to the amendment, and I believe that it has become very clear that the responsibilty of gun ownership is not clear to all. I live in Washington state and there is a organized militia of sorts there are 53 members in my county. What I am putting out for thoughts and concerns: Seperating the militia from the people, a militia being organized would require a regular meetings and training events. The right of the people to be able to defend themselves and property from realistic threats if they are not a member of the militia needs to be maintained. We could categorize the weapons for militia and for personal defense. I would like to get some feed back, I believe we have a short period of time before congress or the white house may do something that could affect us all in a bad way.
    We need to give the Vice President something that would make sense the majority of people and still not lose out on what the 2nd amendment means to this country. Who knows if we get this right, the militias can be come more than just a few members strong, but what the constitution intended them to be. Maybe there is someone here that can get a electronic petition to VP Biden. President Obama said they would consider all good ideas and even look at the bad ones.
     
  2. CA357

    CA357 New Member Supporter

    19,847
    3
    0
    "Shall NOT be infringed" needs NO clarification. Screw the gun grabbing bastards, we shouldn't have to explain a damn thing. We don't have a gun problem, we have a crime problem.
     

  3. cjbubbadoc

    cjbubbadoc New Member

    27
    0
    0
    I agree with you, unfortunatley support is failing for the 2nd amendment as it is written. If we can't find a way to keep it as is, it is going to change to fit the people that are scared of guns. I'm just floating an idea that may help to keep it just the way it is, and get us past the political atmosphere of today.
     
  4. CA357

    CA357 New Member Supporter

    19,847
    3
    0
    I realize that and my response wasn't directed to you. I'm just tired of explaining "Rights" to asshats.

    I'm at an age and a point in my life where I will no longer attempt to appease or debate the ill informed, the paranoid or the intentionally ignorant.
     
    Last edited: Dec 20, 2012
  5. Axxe55

    Axxe55 The Apocalypse Is Coming.....

    7
    2
    0
    i have to agree with CA357 on this. too many people like to make it more difficult than it needs to be. i simply believe in the context that the founding fathers meant it to mean, "shall not be infringed" is what they meant. they wanted the power to be in the citizens control, not the government. so for people to want to redefine the 2nd admendment is rather stupid and arrogant on their part. the founding fathers and writers of the Constitution were men of vision and rather intelligent men who also possessed a vast amount of common sense.
     
  6. fmj

    fmj Active Member

    3,460
    0
    36
    A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state

    ^^^ statement of fact^^^


    The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed

    ^^^ reminder to those in Govt and elsewhere^^^

    Militia needs not be organized. A militia is understood to be any person that is old enough to use a weapon to defend his property, family or self.

    SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED
    needs no explanation...or shouldnt!:cool:
     
  7. Axxe55

    Axxe55 The Apocalypse Is Coming.....

    7
    2
    0
    personally, i don't think the 2nd admendment needs defining or redefining, just many people need to be educated or re-educated!:eek:

    IMO, the 2nd admendment is the protector of all our other admendments. if we ever were to lose the 2nd, there is quite the posibility we will lose all the others.
     
  8. CA357

    CA357 New Member Supporter

    19,847
    3
    0
    Well, these bastards "don't want to let a crisis go to waste". They're going to give it their best shot while many are ready to capitulate and the sheep are inflamed with self righteousness. Remember, the left just assumes it always has the high ground. Repeat a lie often enough and it becomes truth.

    If you haven't read "Rules for Radicals", get it and read it now. It will explain the imperial presidency and its policies.
     
  9. LarryinCo

    LarryinCo New Member

    34
    0
    0
    The 2nd Amendment is not about hunting, or self-defense. The 2nd Amendment simply codifies the right of any people to oppose tyranny in their government.
     
  10. Stillersfan

    Stillersfan New Member

    520
    0
    0

    Or a mental illness problem that everyone seems to ignore. They have been shutting down mental hospitals for years and then they put the oweness on people who are not equipped professionally to handle it. It’s not fair, and it’s only going to get worse.
     
  11. danf_fl

    danf_fl Retired Supporter

    12,370
    59
    48
    A comma used in a sentence can be used to indicate several things. http://grammar.ccc.commnet.edu/grammar/commas.htm

    "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."
    Is the way it was penned by our forefathers.

    Yes, there are commas, and their usage could be considered improper.

    When I read the Second Amendment to our Bill of Rights, this is how I read it:
    "A well regulated Militia (being necessary to the security of a free State) and the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

    My interpretation shows one specific flaw that we have allowed to slide without our doing any action.
    We have allowed the "security of a free State" to go without keeping a well regulated militia. And any attempt to organize a "well regulated Militia" has been put down by our own government. The same people who swear an oath "To protect the Constitution from all enemies, foreign and domestic" upon taking office.

    While some believe that the Second Amendment pertains only to a "well regulated militia", the same people refuse to join such a militia.


    An interesting article:
    http://www.naturalnews.com/038375_Bill_of_Rights_liberties_Republic.html
     
    Last edited: Dec 21, 2012
  12. fmj

    fmj Active Member

    3,460
    0
    36
    Dont you know militias are domestic terror groups??? :rolleyes:
     
  13. FullautoUSA

    FullautoUSA Welcoming Committee/ Resident Pellet Gunner Lifetime Supporter

    2,627
    1
    0
    What happened was a tragedy but it was not gun violence, it was scumbag violence, gun violence would be 2 handguns having a boxing match.
     
  14. cjbubbadoc

    cjbubbadoc New Member

    27
    0
    0
    Thanks

    Just wanted to say thanks to all for pondering the dilemma or what could happen. Think I may have been spending too much time at the Huffington Post arguing with Libs and defending my position. Had to come back here for reassurance there still exists fight in this country.
     
  15. Shade

    Shade New Member

    1,720
    0
    0
    Actually at the time the Constitution was written it was common to state
    a preamble or purpose in legal writing. Also it was considered wise and
    educated to be efficient in your use of words. Unlike today’s legalize that
    is so verbose as to add confusion. So the preamble of the Second Amend-
    ment is, “A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a Free
    State,” states the purpose of the Amendment. To secure the State a Militia
    is required, a standing army was considered a threat to freedom at the time
    the Constitution was written, we will have to see if they were correct or not.
    The core of the Amendment is, “the right of the people to keep and bear
    Arms, shall not be infringed." “Of the People” was at the time of the writing
    was clearly meant as an individual right. The works to keep and bear was to
    define the right of all citizens to own Arms of any kind, firearms, and swords
    etc., all arms inclusive. Bear means to carry or present, meaning that the
    Citizen shall be able to carry with him or her, their arms at all times as they
    see fit. “Shall not be infringed,” is simple and clear, and needs no other
    comment.