The Second Amendment is NOT UNLIMITED ... why?

sudden valley gunner · Oct 25, 2013

eye95 said:
The wording of the 2A does no such thing. It does one thing and one thing only: It tells the state that it may not stop you from keeping and bearing your own personal weaponry. That Right supports a GGONIYP right to self-defense and to resist tyranny. However, it is not a specific protection of that Right.

We should resist the temptation to make the 2A more than the simple thing that it is.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

<o>

.

It tells the state nothing, it tells the Federal government that it can't infringe upon an already existing right.

"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."

How do you remain free and secure?

eye95 · Oct 25, 2013

sudden valley gunner said:
.

It tells the state nothing, it tells the Federal government that it can't infringe upon an already existing right.

"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."

How do you remain free and secure?

Actually, the wording of the 2A is arguably more broad than the 1A's "Congress shall make no law..."

"Shall not be infringed...", IMO, applies to the entity created by the Constitution and to the creators of that entity! The 2A is the only amendment I support incorporating to the States.

There are a lot of ways we remain free and secure. The 2A is not all of them. It is one that the Framers thought needed protection before the exercise of the GGONIYP right to throw off tyranny..

Again, we should not make the 2A more than it is. It is an integral part of the ability to exercise certain GGONIYP rights, but is not one of those GGONIYP rights. It is a very specific prohibition against government stepping on a very specific facet of our GGONIYP rights. That is all it is, nothing more, nothing less.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.
<O>

On edit: You may have misunderstood what I meant by "state." Whenever I refer to one of the fifty States, I capitalize it. When referring to a political entity in general (which could include our current federal government, any past or present government, or any future government), I don't capitialize. In this case, "state" referred to all levels of government in our nation under the current federal and State constitutions.

sudden valley gunner · Oct 25, 2013

eye95 said:
Actually, the wording of the 2A is arguably more broad than the 1A's "Congress shall make no law..."

"Shall not be infringed...", IMO, applies to the entity created by the Constitution and to the creators of that entity! The 2A is the only amendment I support incorporating to the States.

There are a lot of ways we remain free and secure. The 2A is not all of them. It is one that the Framers thought needed protection before the exercise of the GGONIYP right to throw off tyranny..

Again, we should not make the 2A more than it is. It is an integral part of the ability to exercise certain GGONIYP rights, but is not one of those GGONIYP rights. It is a very specific prohibition against government stepping on a very specific facet of our GGONIYP rights. That is all it is, nothing more, nothing less.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.
<O>

On edit: You may have misunderstood what I meant by "state." Whenever I refer to one of the fifty States, I capitalize it. When referring to a political entity in general (which could include our current federal government, any past or present government, or any future government), I don't capitialize. In this case, "state" referred to all levels of government in our nation under the current federal and State constitutions.

Much word wrangling. It is simple. The right to keep and bear arms, means exactly what the sentence says, it was enumerated to keep tyranny in check. Which is a human fundamental right.

eye95 · Oct 25, 2013

sudden valley gunner said:
Much word wrangling. It is simple. The right to keep and bear arms, means exactly what the sentence says, it was enumerated to keep tyranny in check. Which is a human fundamental right.

And I am simply pointing out what the meaning of the word "arms" would have been to the folks who penned it, based on the history and the context of the Right that evolved from the English duty.

davidmcbeth · Oct 25, 2013

eye95 said:
And I am simply pointing out what the meaning of the word "arms" would have been to the folks who penned it, based on the history and the context of the Right that evolved from the English duty.

Exactly ! And our founding fathers were aware of advances in weaponry from their time period and could foresee further technological advancements in the future.

Hence the broad term "arms" instead of specifying any particular type or class of arms...it means ANY arms..ie military implements. Cannons, tanks, missiles, etc...not just arms you can physically carry.

eye95 · Oct 25, 2013

Do you think that I will ever reply to you on-topic??? There are plenty of rational and intelligent folks here with whom I can agree and disagree. Why would I bother to discuss with someone who consistently argues against unreality (macbething), as you are again doing here.

stealthyeliminator · Oct 25, 2013

Couldn't you say that the 2A covers the right to form a militia, especially in order to maintain a free state? Wouldn't the formation of a militia, which might be argued to be a right protected by the 2A, include the acquisition of any weaponry reasonably necessary for the militia to maintain a free state?

eye95 · Oct 25, 2013

stealthyeliminator said:
Couldn't you say that the 2A covers the right to form a militia, especially in order to maintain a free state? Wouldn't the formation of a militia, which might be argued to be a right protected by the 2A, include the acquisition of any weaponry reasonably necessary for the militia to maintain a free state?

I wouldn't say that. It is important that we always look at the militia clause as prefatory and explanatory. In no way does it define the Right. It just tells us why the Framers thought enumerating it was so important. The statement of the Right is solely the words "[T]he right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." (Using the original and correct punctuation, no comma after "arms." There wasn't--and shouldn't be--one after "Militia" either. The damned thing reads so much more clearly without those stupid commas that some grammatically challenged moron added.)

If we don't look at the clause as being prefatory and explanatory, we end up with folks claiming that the right is of the militia and not a Right of the People.

OC for ME · Oct 25, 2013

The state forming a militia, conscripting you, would make the infringement of your 2A the last thing the state wanted.

mikeyb · Oct 25, 2013

davidmcbeth said:
2A is about ANY type of arms ... including cannons, tanks, battleships, subs, etc....any arm that has military value.

No. False. Wrong.

The term "arms" is referring to any weapon capable of being carried by the arm. In common usage, a weapon that is an extension of your physical capability. Anthropologically, look at the progression of "arms": Arm/fist, stick, bone, rock, sling shot, bow and arrow, knife, sword, guns. In fact, it is not outside the realm of possibility that the word "arms" was used to not limit defensive weapons to "firearms" as there may be future technology not thought of in the 1700's (rail gun technology, for example), but specifically exclude engines of wars like catapults and trebuchets.

If the FF meant to include all weapons or engines of war, they would have phrased it that way.

To believe the 2A includes nukes, cannons, tanks, battleships, etc., is completely preposterous. There is absolutely no compelling argument or evidence that "arms" is to include nukes, tanks, etc.

mikeyb · Oct 25, 2013

stealthyeliminator said:
Couldn't you say that the 2A covers the right to form a militia, especially in order to maintain a free state? Wouldn't the formation of a militia, which might be argued to be a right protected by the 2A, include the acquisition of any weaponry reasonably necessary for the militia to maintain a free state?

No. The 2A does not grant the government the right to form a militia. Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution provides for that. Enumerated Powers clause.

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;

Having a militia is inconsequential to the right to bear and keep arms. We have the right to be armed to be able to satisfy the needs (if ever) of the militia without placing a burden upon the government, not the other way around. Additionally, the militia is necessary to the security of a free state, not the right to bear arms.

This is what was ratified by the States: http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llsl&fileName=001/llsl001.db&recNum=220

davidmcbeth · Oct 25, 2013

mikeyb said:
No. False. Wrong.

The term "arms" is referring to any weapon capable of being carried by the arm. In common usage, a weapon that is an extension of your physical capability. Anthropologically, look at the progression of "arms": Arm/fist, stick, bone, rock, sling shot, bow and arrow, knife, sword, guns. In fact, it is not outside the realm of possibility that the word "arms" was used to not limit defensive weapons to "firearms" as there may be future technology not thought of in the 1700's (rail gun technology, for example), but specifically exclude engines of wars like catapults and trebuchets.

If the FF meant to include all weapons or engines of war, they would have phrased it that way.

To believe the 2A includes nukes, cannons, tanks, battleships, etc., is completely preposterous. There is absolutely no compelling argument or evidence that "arms" is to include nukes, tanks, etc.

No "arms" is an extension of your arm .. ie fist ie thing to smash another's face in

A tank would do that function nicely. Feel free to buy whatever arm you like.

77zach · Oct 25, 2013

mikeyb said:
No. False. Wrong.

The term "arms" is referring to any weapon capable of being carried by the arm. In common usage, a weapon that is an extension of your physical capability. Anthropologically, look at the progression of "arms": Arm/fist, stick, bone, rock, sling shot, bow and arrow, knife, sword, guns. In fact, it is not outside the realm of possibility that the word "arms" was used to not limit defensive weapons to "firearms" as there may be future technology not thought of in the 1700's (rail gun technology, for example), but specifically exclude engines of wars like catapults and trebuchets.

If the FF meant to include all weapons or engines of war, they would have phrased it that way.

To believe the 2A includes nukes, cannons, tanks, battleships, etc., is completely preposterous. There is absolutely no compelling argument or evidence that "arms" is to include nukes, tanks, etc.

Many of the people who had a hand in forming the bill of right wanted the population at least as well armed as agents of the state.

Personally, I don't think the government should have anything I can't have. Also, "arms" came to mean engines of war at least as far back as the 19th century with the phrase "arms race" being used.

mikeyb · Oct 27, 2013

77zach said:
Many of the people who had a hand in forming the bill of right wanted the population at least as well armed as agents of the state.

Personally, I don't think the government should have anything I can't have. Also, "arms" came to mean engines of war at least as far back as the 19th century with the phrase "arms race" being used.

Actually, "arms race" was first used in the 1930's, according to Dictionary.com and Merriam-Webster. Additionally, I believe the government should have weapons the citizens can't. It faces global issues. Look at the "responsible" gun owners who have NDs (really not responsible, but legal). Do you really want them to have access to nuclear weapons? What happens with an ND with a nuclear bomb? Eliminating nukes won't work, because its a global issue, and the gov't is charged with protecting us from foreign powers.

stealthyeliminator · Oct 27, 2013

mikeyb said:
Actually, "arms race" was first used in the 1930's, according to Dictionary.com and Merriam-Webster. Additionally, I believe the government should have weapons the citizens can't. It faces global issues. Look at the "responsible" gun owners who have NDs (really not responsible, but legal). Do you really want them to have access to nuclear weapons? What happens with an ND with a nuclear bomb? Eliminating nukes won't work, because its a global issue, and the gov't is charged with protecting us from foreign powers.

By ND with a nuclear bomb, you mean like Hiroshima?

It's ironic that people think governments like the US federal government need to regulate the world's nuclear weaponry when the US government is the only organization in the world to have ever used nukes to kill millions of innocent people. If anyone should be barred from possessing nuclear weapons, the US federal government should be among them.

eye95 · Oct 27, 2013

stealthyeliminator said:
By ND with a nuclear bomb, you mean like Hiroshima?

It's ironic that people think governments like the US federal government need to regulate the world's nuclear weaponry when the US government is the only organization in the world to have ever used nukes to kill millions of innocent people. If anyone should be barred from possessing nuclear weapons, the US federal government should be among them.

This crap again?

The bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were not negligent. They were quite intentional and executed as planned.

I, for one (and among the overwhelming majority) am damned glad those bombs were dropped. It was war. We should be slow to go to war, but once committed, we should go all out for unqualified victory. The lives of hundreds of thousands of people from the attacking country don't mean as much as the life of a single one of our soldiers.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

<o>

stealthyeliminator · Oct 27, 2013

eye95 said:
This crap again?

The bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were not negligent. They were quite intentional and executed as planned.

I, for one (and among the overwhelming majority) am damned glad those bombs were dropped. It was war. We should be slow to go to war, but once committed, we should go all out for unqualified victory. The lives of hundreds of thousands of people from the attacking country don't mean as much as the life of a single one of our soldiers.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

<o>

Human beings are individuals. I am no more responsible for the actions of our government - federal, state or municipal - than those innocent people were responsible for the actions of theirs. What you are advocating is unequivocally murder. The idea of "war" doesn't magically rift fundamental principles of individuality and self-ownership. These are the principles upon which all of liberty is founded. To deny them because someone said the word "war" is hypocritical. That's all I'll say about it.

eye95 · Oct 27, 2013

As I used to tell my students (the mature ones got it, the immature ones did not), it may not be your fault, but it is still your responsibility. Too many people think fault and responsibility are the same thing.

I hold everyone in Japan at the time responsible for what their nation did. If they so disliked what their government did in the name of the nation of which they were a part, then they should have done all they could to resist or they should have gotten out. They tacitly accepted what their government did and bear the responsibility. Screw 'em.

If you have to go through civilians from a warring nation to stop the war-makers, so be it. Be slow to go to war, but fast to do whatever it takes against the enemy entity to win it.

Primus · Oct 28, 2013

mikeyb said:
No. False. Wrong.

The term "arms" is referring to any weapon capable of being carried by the arm. In common usage, a weapon that is an extension of your physical capability. Anthropologically, look at the progression of "arms": Arm/fist, stick, bone, rock, sling shot, bow and arrow, knife, sword, guns. In fact, it is not outside the realm of possibility that the word "arms" was used to not limit defensive weapons to "firearms" as there may be future technology not thought of in the 1700's (rail gun technology, for example), but specifically exclude engines of wars like catapults and trebuchets.

If the FF meant to include all weapons or engines of war, they would have phrased it that way.

To believe the 2A includes nukes, cannons, tanks, battleships, etc., is completely preposterous. There is absolutely no compelling argument or evidence that "arms" is to include nukes, tanks, etc.

Well said.

sudden valley gunner · Oct 28, 2013

stealthyeliminator said:
Human beings are individuals. I am no more responsible for the actions of our government - federal, state or municipal - than those innocent people were responsible for the actions of theirs. What you are advocating is unequivocally murder. The idea of "war" doesn't magically rift fundamental principles of individuality and self-ownership. These are the principles upon which all of liberty is founded. To deny them because someone said the word "war" is hypocritical. That's all I'll say about it.

+1

I don't want to be bombed because of the unlawful action of my government. I would question the morality of those who feel it's the "citizens" fault and they deserve to be slaughtered because they didn't stop their government. What are they doing to stop the action of their government now , voting? That doesn't stop it.

The Second Amendment is NOT UNLIMITED ... why?

Regular Member

Well-known member

Regular Member

Well-known member

Banned

Well-known member

Regular Member

Well-known member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Banned

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Well-known member

Regular Member

Well-known member

Regular Member

Regular Member