< Back to the Main Site

Author Topic: What the 2nd Amendment didn't say  (Read 1698 times)

Offline GreyGeek

  • NFOA Full Member
  • **
  • Join Date: Dec 2012
  • Posts: 1687
What the 2nd Amendment didn't say
« on: February 28, 2013, 10:49:22 AM »
"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, except in cases of muskets with a bore greater than 1/4 inch, or small cannons capable of shooting more than 6 grapeshot at a time, or Congrave rockets greater than 6 pound, or daggers more than 9" in length."

And not a word about purchase permits or background checks or CHPs.    What were they thinking?

Offline DanClrk51

  • NFOA Full Member
  • **
  • Join Date: Mar 2009
  • Location: Bellevue
  • Posts: 1128
Re: What the 2nd Amendment didn't say
« Reply #1 on: March 07, 2013, 07:35:23 AM »
The were thinking that such limits would effectively defang the people against a tyrannical government and basically render the amendment itself mute.

Offline aogiss

  • Forum Member
  • *
  • Join Date: Mar 2013
  • Posts: 2
Re: What the 2nd Amendment didn't say
« Reply #2 on: March 09, 2013, 04:02:20 PM »
The current and popular interpretation of the 2nd Amendment is fraught with terrible assumptions, which are simply not true.

For example, why do we assume “the arms” are for “the militia” and or “the people” are “the militia?”

If the militia is the pool of citizens the state may call upon for its defense, why limit them to inferior weaponry?  We would have to assume the state will arm the people, but why then guarantee their right to bear arms?  Why not say all people are subject to conscription and the state will arm them?

If the militia (read army & police) is not the people, why reference them?

What about “well regulated?”  How can we equate gun control with “a well regulated militia?”

If the people are the militia, wouldn’t well regulated mean ensuring the people are armed sufficiently to defend the state?  Could we defend the state today with single action firearms or 10 round magazines?

If the people are not the militia, well regulated clearly does not apply to the people.

 Here is what the 2nd Amendment means:

“Since a nation cannot expect to survive without well armed forces, and since history is replete with governments turning against it citizens, nothing must interfere with citizens’ rights to equally arm and defend themselves from the government.  Additionally, since the government cannot guarantee the safety of its citizens from violent criminals or foreign invaders, citizens must have the means to defend themselves from such on equal terms.”

Gun control fanatics would have you believe the 2nd Amendment means:

“Since we have an army and police, people do not need firearms to protect themselves.”  (And of course they also mean we do not want you to be able to forcibly remove us from office when we tax you into the stone age.)

If gun control fanatics are right, how did Sandy Hook happen?  Criminals will always find a way and the government cannot protect you.

 http://www.dangeroustruths.com/MILITIA.HTM
« Last Edit: March 09, 2013, 07:37:31 PM by aogiss »

Offline Dan W

  • NFOA Co-Founder
  • *****
  • Join Date: Oct 2007
  • Location: Lincoln NE
  • Posts: 8143
Re: What the 2nd Amendment didn't say
« Reply #3 on: March 09, 2013, 04:48:50 PM »
What about “well regulated?”  How can we equate gun control with “a well regulated militia?”

Well regulated does not mean regulated by law or ordinance, but rather meant that the militia must remain well prepared or "tuned", as in a clock that keeps perfect time. There is even a clock called "Regulator"
Dan W    NFOA Co Founder
Today, we need a nation of Minutemen, citizens who are not only prepared to take arms, but citizens who regard the preservation of freedom as the basic purpose of their daily life and who are willing to consciously work and sacrifice for that freedom.   J. F. K.

Offline Hank

  • Lead Benefactor
  • **
  • Join Date: Mar 2013
  • Posts: 186
Re: What the 2nd Amendment didn't say
« Reply #4 on: March 09, 2013, 05:17:55 PM »
Well regulated does not mean regulated by law or ordinance, but rather meant that the militia must remain well prepared or "tuned", as in a clock that keeps perfect time. There is even a clock called "Regulator"
Precisely what it means by my interpretation Dan W, and how I remember being taught in High School...(I think they might have different books though now)

Offline SS_N_NE

  • NFOA Full Member
  • **
  • Join Date: Feb 2012
  • Posts: 429
Re: What the 2nd Amendment didn't say
« Reply #5 on: March 09, 2013, 05:37:34 PM »
I don't think many people understand the concept of RIGHT by any interpretation. Just the fact that we need background checks, purchase permits, mandatory training and carry permits makes this pretty clear.

The recent events of children suspended from school for pointing a finger like a gun, parents bashing a teacher because a _un card had a picture of a gun to fill in the missing letter, a student suspended for wearing a Marines tee shirt with a pair of crossed AR's below the word.

Or this:
Caro, MI (KTNV) -- The father of a Michigan third grade student was fired up over a controversy caused by cupcakes.
 
Last week, Casey Fountain's son had a birthday party at school.
 
To celebrate, his wife baked 30 cupcakes for the entire class then topped them with those green plastic Army men.
 
That's when he said the principal called him and said decorating cupcakes with soldiers was insensitive, considering recent gun-related tragedies.
 
But the call didn't sit well with Fountain, "I think it's disgusting that they won't allow them in our schools. They are lumping them together with sociopaths that shoot children, because they use the same tool."
 
The school had the figures removed from the cupcakes.

Offline GreyGeek

  • NFOA Full Member
  • **
  • Join Date: Dec 2012
  • Posts: 1687
Re: What the 2nd Amendment didn't say
« Reply #6 on: March 09, 2013, 05:54:18 PM »
That's when he said the principal called him and said decorating cupcakes with soldiers was insensitive, considering recent gun-related tragedies.

"insensitive"?   Where, in the 1st Amendment is being "insensitive" defined?  By whose definition is it determined that something said or done is "insensitive"?  The principle is too stupid to realize that soldiers in uniform did not shoot up Sandy Hook, or he deliberately ignored that fact so he could express his disdain for the soldiers who keep him free.   

The "John Kerry's" on the Far Left  were the people who were spitting on the Viet Nam vets in the 70s and calling them "baby killers" as they walked off the airplanes.   In my book THAT is insensitive and unpatriotic.

Offline Phantom

  • NFOA Full Member
  • **
  • Join Date: Feb 2012
  • Location: Omaha/Bellevue
  • Posts: 503
Re: What the 2nd Amendment didn't say
« Reply #7 on: March 09, 2013, 06:29:03 PM »
Say some thing enough times.
It will become an urban legend and then a Law to most people.  :o

Just like things they see posted on the internet.

and we all know where that leads.   ::)
"If the primates that we came from had known that someday politicians would come out of the...the gene pool, they'd a stayed up in the trees and written evolution off as a bad idea.....Hell, I always thought the opposable thumb was overrated.  "-- Sheridan, "Babylon 5"

Offline aogiss

  • Forum Member
  • *
  • Join Date: Mar 2013
  • Posts: 2
Re: What the 2nd Amendment didn't say
« Reply #8 on: March 09, 2013, 07:45:25 PM »
Well regulated does not mean regulated by law or ordinance, but rather meant that the militia must remain well prepared or "tuned", as in a clock that keeps perfect time. There is even a clock called "Regulator"

Exactly.  Most of the time I write such things, the questions are rhetorical.  The primary reason for the question, actually all of what I wrote, is that it seems pro-constitution Americans are always defending the 2nd Amendment based on the ludicrous definitions and assumptions of those opposed.

How many times have we heard citizens do not need "assault weapons" because "the militia" is obsolete, due to the armed forces, police, etc.  I would say it amazes me that some could find such meaning in the verbiage, but knowing their true goals puts all of the languid logic and red herrings in a proper place.

I still  boggle at the drive to eliminate "high capacity" magazines.  I think mostly I hear a ten round limit, but I think I read fifteen in the Colorado legislation.  I could be wrong.  They push this nonsense with a straight face, knowing full well the facts, such as the "assault rifle" used in the Columbine shooting only having ten round magazines...but he had thirteen of them.

There are simply too many Americans who do not think for themselves.  They swallow whole everything shoved in their face and then line up to vote based on a head full of nonsense and lies.

Offline Dan W

  • NFOA Co-Founder
  • *****
  • Join Date: Oct 2007
  • Location: Lincoln NE
  • Posts: 8143
Re: What the 2nd Amendment didn't say
« Reply #9 on: March 09, 2013, 09:47:45 PM »
If I recall, the Supreme Court majority in Heller v DC found that the fundamental right to bear arms in defense of self predated the Constitution, and that the Bill of Rights merely affirmed the natural right to self defense, and limited the governments power to infringe upon it.

 
Dan W    NFOA Co Founder
Today, we need a nation of Minutemen, citizens who are not only prepared to take arms, but citizens who regard the preservation of freedom as the basic purpose of their daily life and who are willing to consciously work and sacrifice for that freedom.   J. F. K.

Offline Phantom

  • NFOA Full Member
  • **
  • Join Date: Feb 2012
  • Location: Omaha/Bellevue
  • Posts: 503
Re: What the 2nd Amendment didn't say
« Reply #10 on: March 09, 2013, 09:53:29 PM »
If I recall, the Supreme Court majority in Heller v DC found that the fundamental right to bear arms in defense of self predated the Constitution, and that the Bill of Rights merely affirmed the natural right to self defense, and limited the governments power to infringe upon it.

Dan they the government don't seem to be very limited in the power to infringe upon it right now
"If the primates that we came from had known that someday politicians would come out of the...the gene pool, they'd a stayed up in the trees and written evolution off as a bad idea.....Hell, I always thought the opposable thumb was overrated.  "-- Sheridan, "Babylon 5"

Offline Hank

  • Lead Benefactor
  • **
  • Join Date: Mar 2013
  • Posts: 186
Re: What the 2nd Amendment didn't say
« Reply #11 on: March 09, 2013, 11:27:33 PM »
skip everything else and just read under; Ratification Debates, thats all you need to know..lol

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2nd_Amendment_USA

Offline GreyGeek

  • NFOA Full Member
  • **
  • Join Date: Dec 2012
  • Posts: 1687
Re: What the 2nd Amendment didn't say
« Reply #12 on: March 10, 2013, 11:13:45 AM »
Ratification Debates, thats all you need to know..lol

The Executive Branch has attempted to peal off a bit of the authority of the Judicial Branch by dividing the "Judicial Process" definition into two types: that of  the current "Judicial Process" involving the requirement for warrants to invade personal space or homes and seize personal property, trial by jury of ones peers with the right to cross examine accusers, etc..., and the new version called "due process" defined by AG Holder in which the POTUS, by Executive Order, has the "right" to declare any citizen on  American  soil a "terrorist" and have him or her executed without Judicial Process.   The "due process" Holder referred to takes place entirely in the mind of the POTUS.   It is EXACTLY the kind of "due process" that is used by Kings and Tyrants.   Holder was forced to back down but the E.O. has not been revoked.

Meanwhile, we now have a stream of warrantless searches  taking place in homes, on persons, at "DUI" road stops,  VIPER stops, all backed up by law enforcement officers who have been given military grade equipment and many show no hesitation using it against ordinary people who are considered guilty until THEY prove themselves innocent.  Some seem to enjoy  their ability to  abuse power with military grade  equipment.  The government has ordered thousands  of drones to supplement their warrantless seizure of emails and personal information from ISPs (Google refused!),  credit card companies, phone companies, some libraries, and their monitoring of ALL internet traffic using the grandson of Echelon.   The worst abuse is the  NSL, authorized by the hypocritically name PATRIOT Act, which prevents the accused or their attorney from mentioning the  accusation oir chages against them to  anyone,  including spouse or family, prevents them from seeing the evidence against them (to protect "national security"), and subjects them to trial in a special court with  a specially trained judge, exactly the kind of court and judge Hitler made extensive use of.    A  jury of peers is not welcome.   Local law enforcement, especially in cities with strict gun control laws, are attacking law abiding citizens who video tape their public activities on public land, filing bogus "resisting arrest" charges when no crime or suspicion of crime is evident, and then destroying the video record.  In cases where secondary videos were revealed in  court challenges the video record destroyed the testimony of police who often claim they were attacked first, or the accused was at a place or doing something the second video repudiates.

We are on the edge of slipping into a police state,  for our "own safety", or "for the children".   Despots always surround their public images with children or victims, real or imaginary.

Wikipedia relates the attitude of the Framers of the Constituion, especially the 2nd Amendment:

A foundation of American political thought during the Revolutionary period was the well justified concern about political corruption and governmental tyranny. Even the federalists, fending off their opponents who accused them of creating an oppressive regime, were careful to acknowledge the risks of tyranny. Against that backdrop, the framers saw the personal right to bear arms as a potential check against tyranny. Theodore Sedgwick of Massachusetts expressed this sentiment by declaring that it is "a chimerical idea to suppose that a country like this could ever be enslaved . . . Is it possible . . . that an army could be raised for the purpose of enslaving themselves or their brethren? or, if raised whether they could subdue a nation of freemen, who know how to prize liberty and who have arms in their hands?"  Noah Webster similarly argued:

Before a standing army can rule the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretence, raised in the United States.

George Mason argued the importance of the militia and right to bear arms by reminding his compatriots of England's efforts "to disarm the people; that it was the best and most effectual way to enslave them . . . by totally disusing and neglecting the militia." He also clarified that under prevailing practice the militia included all people, rich and poor. "Who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers." Because all were members of the militia, all enjoyed the right to individually bear arms to serve therein.

The framers thought the personal right to bear arms to be a paramount right by which other rights could be protected. Therefore, writing after the ratification of the Constitution, but before the election of the first Congress, James Monroe included "the right to keep and bear arms" in a list of basic "human rights", which he proposed to be added to the Constitution.

Patrick Henry, in the Virginia ratification convention June 5, 1788, argued for the dual rights to arms and resistance to oppression:

Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are inevitably ruined.

While both Monroe and Adams supported ratification of the Constitution, its most influential framer was James Madison. In Federalist No. 46, he confidently contrasted the federal government of the United States to the European kingdoms, which he contemptuously described as "afraid to trust the people with arms." He assured his fellow citizens that they need never fear their government because of "the advantage of being armed....

"A well regulated militia being the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

Those opposed to the 2nd Amendment are now in a battle not to infringe it, but to REPEAL IT.   Considering it  is they who want to use "due process" instead of "judicial process", who are now flying drones, seizing and searching our private communications, making warrantless road stops, and home searches and arrests, and doing all the other things the "Kings Men" did, we should be concerned about what their true motives are.    They took an oath to "protect and defend the Constitution from ALL enemies, foreign and domestic,  willingly, without mental reservations or purpose of evasion".   That they are now doing their best, against their own oath,  to infringe that which should not be infringed indicates that they have other motives. 

It isn't about "assault" rifles, because those were banned in the 1980s, and the vast majority of mass shootings taking place in "gun free zones" were committed by psychotic individuals carrying semi-automatic pistols, not assault weapons or even semi-automatic rifles.   Honest, law abiding citizens did not commit those  heinous crimes, and the "assault weapon ban" from 1994 to 2004 did NOT reduce the number of mass shootings.  In the 17 years before than ban there were 16 mass shootings.  During that ban there were 26.  Since that ban sunset  there have been 27 more shootings.  The ban had NO affect, and new bans will not be any more effective.  The shootings reveal a pattern that only an ideologue with an agenda could miss: the shooters are on psychotic drugs!    It is not law abiding citizens, or even armed felons, who  are doing the shooting in areas where guns are not supposed to be carried.   That doesn't seem to give THEM a clue that while the shooters are mentally disturbed, they are not so stupid as to not realize that they won't be fired upon while killing innocents in gun free zones because law abiding citizens will not carry arms in those zones, even to their own peril or death.

Now, Colorado has passed their solution, which increases the number of gun free zones and further disarms law abiding citizens so that they will be an even more vulnerable prey to  the psychotic shooter or the merciless thug, neither of which care a whit about gun laws.  It should be more obvious than ever that their real agenda is to replace our Republic with  their version of a Socialist Utopia in which the citizens are unarmed benefactors of their "benevolent" good will and "social" justice reigns supreme, unless you not on their "entitlement" list.
« Last Edit: March 10, 2013, 11:32:20 AM by GreyGeek »

Offline SS_N_NE

  • NFOA Full Member
  • **
  • Join Date: Feb 2012
  • Posts: 429
Re: What the 2nd Amendment didn't say
« Reply #13 on: March 10, 2013, 12:13:55 PM »
I have offered up numerous times that the entire gun control debate is not about the control of firearms.  Although some individuals would enjoy the control they imposed on citizens they are not really interested in limiting a few firearms. The true goal is everything that can be hidden under the disquise of gun control safety. Using the media to drive people in emotion over fear politicians seek to control and get access to federal money. Politicians that exhibit the greatest desire to create a control bill have agenda driven by the need for more money to supplement shortages in their state. Money is power. A gun control bill would provide for huge law enforcement funds. Building state and city armies are power. A flood of studies and other related funding is money to anyone supporting the bill. These gun-grabbers are money-grabbers.
Gun owners are so focused on our loss of interest or potential loss that the core reason is ignored. Everyone on the other side of the gun control issue have been divided by fear and emotion. Divide and conquer...a typical battle plan.

Everyone from both sides can be brought together by exposing the true intent of gun control legislators. These politicians waited for a significant tragic event and are using it to creating a way to get money. Imagine the cold excitement that they had the media tool they needed. We should all be disgusted by the actions and intent of gun control legislators. Not necessarily that they threating our interests and rights but also that they used tragic events to get media emotion they needed to divide people of the United States against each other simply to get money for their failing state economic goals, lacking agenda and strive for power.

We can discuss the statistics of gun violence until we find ourselves over our heads in a bill. We can lament the tearing away of a natural and Constitutional right. Or, we can expose the true goals of these politicians and stop them.  The politicians may own several venues of media but it is becoming old. We have more ability to pass information on an individual level than ever before.
 
Pass the word, expose the true goals of these politicians and their dispicable methods of playing citizens against each other in the name of money and power. People hate being cheated. There is an opportunity to turn that into anger and resolve. In this time of excess government spending we should not be forced to pay for the issues of big city financial issues and crime problems.  Our interests and rights should not be stripped simply as a smoke screen for an agenda. Our leadership should not be using propaganda against it's people for their power.

Offline Dan W

  • NFOA Co-Founder
  • *****
  • Join Date: Oct 2007
  • Location: Lincoln NE
  • Posts: 8143
Re: What the 2nd Amendment didn't say
« Reply #14 on: March 10, 2013, 01:25:06 PM »
Now, Colorado has passed their solution, which increases the number of gun free zones

Whoa! what has passed?
Dan W    NFOA Co Founder
Today, we need a nation of Minutemen, citizens who are not only prepared to take arms, but citizens who regard the preservation of freedom as the basic purpose of their daily life and who are willing to consciously work and sacrifice for that freedom.   J. F. K.

Offline Hank

  • Lead Benefactor
  • **
  • Join Date: Mar 2013
  • Posts: 186
Re: What the 2nd Amendment didn't say
« Reply #15 on: March 10, 2013, 02:15:04 PM »
I have offered up numerous times that the entire gun control debate is not about the control of firearms.  Although some individuals would enjoy the control they imposed on citizens they are not really interested in limiting a few firearms. The true goal is everything that can be hidden under the disquise of gun control safety. Using the media to drive people in emotion over fear politicians seek to control and get access to federal money. Politicians that exhibit the greatest desire to create a control bill have agenda driven by the need for more money to supplement shortages in their state. Money is power. A gun control bill would provide for huge law enforcement funds. Building state and city armies are power. A flood of studies and other related funding is money to anyone supporting the bill. These gun-grabbers are money-grabbers.
Gun owners are so focused on our loss of interest or potential loss that the core reason is ignored. Everyone on the other side of the gun control issue have been divided by fear and emotion. Divide and conquer...a typical battle plan.

Everyone from both sides can be brought together by exposing the true intent of gun control legislators. These politicians waited for a significant tragic event and are using it to creating a way to get money. Imagine the cold excitement that they had the media tool they needed. We should all be disgusted by the actions and intent of gun control legislators. Not necessarily that they threating our interests and rights but also that they used tragic events to get media emotion they needed to divide people of the United States against each other simply to get money for their failing state economic goals, lacking agenda and strive for power.

We can discuss the statistics of gun violence until we find ourselves over our heads in a bill. We can lament the tearing away of a natural and Constitutional right. Or, we can expose the true goals of these politicians and stop them.  The politicians may own several venues of media but it is becoming old. We have more ability to pass information on an individual level than ever before.
 
Pass the word, expose the true goals of these politicians and their dispicable methods of playing citizens against each other in the name of money and power. People hate being cheated. There is an opportunity to turn that into anger and resolve. In this time of excess government spending we should not be forced to pay for the issues of big city financial issues and crime problems.  Our interests and rights should not be stripped simply as a smoke screen for an agenda. Our leadership should not be using propaganda against it's people for their power.
This realy shed some light on what has been a burning question to me. I apreciate you sharing this.
I shared the wikipedia link, not because I believe everything wiki/or the internet to be `gospel`, but only because that part which I refered to is what I remember both the men who taught history and government/economics back in HS put an emphasis on the importance. What a couple of `cool old conservatives` them guys must be today..(class of `86 Thunderbird HS, Phx. AZ) :)