38 for the 27.

Rune said:
Obama ordering an invasion of Vermont is far fetched...even you should be able to see that.
Click to expand...
half the people on this board are resorting to hyperbole regarding new gun laws, but I should not? Besides, Obama ordering an invasion of Vermont is as likely as the gov using bombers, fighters, and nukes on us.
 
Dungheap said:
No, the Constitution forbids it absent consent of the Congress, which Congress granted in the militia acts.
Click to expand...
of which, the unorganized militia, we the people, have the right to keep and bear arms which shall not be infringed. Also, it only allows the consent of congress in times of war, not peace.

No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any Duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.
 
SmarterthanYou said:
of which, the unorganized militia, we the people, have the right to keep and bear arms which shall not be infringed. Also, it only allows the consent of congress in times of war, not peace.
Click to expand...

There was no "unorganized militia" at the time of the drafting of the Constitution. The "unorganized militia" is a statutory construct of the 20th century.

And you're reading of that passage is completely fucked. Congress can allow the states to keep troops in times of peace. In times of war, there is nothing in the Constitution to prohibit the States from keeping troops or ships of war.
 
SmarterthanYou said:
of which, the unorganized militia, we the people, have the right to keep and bear arms which shall not be infringed. Also, it only allows the consent of congress in times of war, not peace.

No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any Duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.
Click to expand...

And that includes you bunch of wannabe GI Joes. All 2200 unarmed of you weenies.
 
Dungheap said:
There was no "unorganized militia" at the time of the drafting of the Constitution. The "unorganized militia" is a statutory construct of the 20th century.
Click to expand...
at the drafting of the constitution, WE were the militia. It wasn't until 1903 that the statutory construct was created, but organized and unorganized had to be defined because congress KNEW they couldn't abolish the militia altogether.

Dungheap said:
And you're reading of that passage is completely fucked. Congress can allow the states to keep troops in times of peace. In times of war, there is nothing in the Constitution to prohibit the States from keeping troops or ships of war.
Click to expand...
you are wrong. I hate it for you.
 
People read the 2nd amendment the way they want to read it, to justify whatever agenda they have.

But to me, the "well-regulated militia" qualifier is pretty clear, and serves to make the intent of that amendment out-dated.

It's kind of like Congress putting in language when they created ther post office that the government must maintain an adequate stable of horses to ensure delivery. Times change.
 
Jarod said:
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.

It appears that the NRA and the Gun Lobby have been able to manipulate the plain meaning of this Amendment to remove the first part.

It is also clear that the very nature of "Arms" is vastly different today than it was in 1791.

I belive it is now necessary to amend the Constitution once again.

28th Amendment -

"The right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall be abolished but regulated and limited as perscribed by the Congress of the United States and the Various States."


Poetic that 27 people were killed and it would be the 28th Amendment.
Click to expand...

That's it; keep dragging the bodies of those dead children, through the streets.
 
Superfreak said:
Not to mention the simple fact that it assumes the military would side with the government political regime. How many of our military would support attacking the US populace? How many would support cleaning house in DC?
Click to expand...

Look at China.
When they send in troops, to put down the populace, they use troops that aren't from that area; because the troops they send have no connection to the citizens that they may have to kill.
I still believe that the majority of Americans think that we are all part of the same family and that if they send troops from Colorado into West Virginia, to quell protests; that the troops would think no less of them, then they do their own families.
 
Thing1 said:
People read the 2nd amendment the way they want to read it, to justify whatever agenda they have.

But to me, the "well-regulated militia" qualifier is pretty clear, and serves to make the intent of that amendment out-dated.

It's kind of like Congress putting in language when they created ther post office that the government must maintain an adequate stable of horses to ensure delivery. Times change.
Click to expand...
does it say anywhere in there 'rights void after such and such a date?
 
When the Southern States decided to abandon the Constitution and succede from the Union, the troops of the Northern States followed orders and attacked citizens of the Southern States, killing many and burning most of the means of production.

The troops of the Southern States took up arms against the United States and were defeated.
 
Jarod said:
When the Southern States decided to abandon the Constitution and succede from the Union, the troops of the Northern States followed orders and attacked citizens of the Southern States, killing many and burning most of the means of production.

The troops of the Southern States took up arms against the United States and were defeated.
Click to expand...
you have a few facts wrong here, but you know that. good story, bro.
 
Jarod said:
When the Southern States decided to abandon the Constitution and succede from the Union, the troops of the Northern States followed orders and attacked citizens of the Southern States, killing many and burning most of the means of production.

The troops of the Southern States took up arms against the United States and were defeated.
Click to expand...

Are you saying that once a State accepts membership into The United States of America they are Constitutionally bound to stay in it forever like the Cosa Nostra? If you want out you get whacked?

Now that's freedom. Funny thing is that Linclon was more concerned about keeping the union in tact than he was about the negro
 
I Love America said:
Are you saying that once a State accepts membership into The United States of America they are Constitutionally bound to stay in it forever like the Cosa Nostra? If you want out you get whacked?

Now that's freedom. Funny thing is that Linclon was more concerned about keeping the union in tact than he was about the negro
Click to expand...

not to mention that lincoln violated the constitution many times over keeping that union intact, but that doesn't matter. the ends justify the means i guess.
 
I Love America said:
Are you saying that once a State accepts membership into The United States of America they are Constitutionally bound to stay in it forever like the Cosa Nostra? If you want out you get whacked?

Now that's freedom. Funny thing is that Linclon was more concerned about keeping the union in tact than he was about the negro
Click to expand...

I did not say that. I know a bit about what Linclon wanted, he was a Republican after all.
 
So nobody can explain why the founders used the word "Regulated" in the first clause of the 2nd Amendment?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top