How Do YOU Define The 2nd Amendment?

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Ah, how cute. He doesn't know that the Constitution is a FEDERAL document. So yes, it FEDERALLY says we must regulate gun ownership. Because with regulation, we will always have the right to bear arms. Without regulation, what we have been seeing lately since Bush and the NRA have corrupted the system, we see very dangerous tools in the hands of the wrong people.

No regulation is the only threat to gun ownership.

Now you are sounding even more retarded than before, and that is some feat! What the hell does "FEDERAL" have to do with this? "Federal" simply means the federation of states which comprise the federation. NOWHERE does the Constitution state that we "must regulate gun ownership." That is simply not IN the Constitution. Bush and the NRA didn't corrupt the system, it's the same system it has always been, since the states ratified the 2nd Amendment and Constitution.

As for your "tools in the hands of the wrong people" nonsense, we've already determined that passing more gun control laws only keeps guns out of the hands of the law-abiding citizen, and doesn't prevent criminals from obtaining guns. Therefore, it is the idiotic prohibitions and regulations on law-abiding gun owners, which is actually keeping guns out of hands of the right people. By basic logic, this puts more guns in the hands of the wrong people.

Retarded people such as yourself, should refrain from using words like "tool" to describe firearms. It's not that, contextually speaking, this is an incorrect terminology, it's just that you lack the basic skill set to comprehend context. When we use words like "tool" to describe something, we have to comprehend the "tool" is given relevance and validity in accordance with the "job" the tool is required for. Certainly, we can all agree, it is terrible to have guns be the "tool" of someone mentally unstable who wants to use the "tool" to kill other human beings. And since we can all generally agree this is not a preferential use for this "tool" we can more easily see why the "tool" should be outlawed. Such a retarded knee-jerk reaction to such things, would lead me to believe, if we had a spree of maniacs killing children with staple guns, you'd want to outlaw those as well! Should we sell sharp-ended scissors? Maybe all scissors should be like the ones we used as a kid, or the kind they still let you use in the retard ward, which barely work to cut paper? After all, this "tool" in the wrong hands can be very violent and bloody! So retards like you should avoid using the word "tool" to describe firearms, let's just call them firearms.

 

[Anti-Party]

If the anti-slavery folks in the North had figured out a way to disband - or even move out of the state - those southern militias, the police state of the South would collapse. And, similarly, if the North were to invite into military service the slaves of the South, then they could be emancipated, which would collapse the institution of slavery, and the southern economic and social systems, altogether.

These two possibilities worried southerners like James Monroe, George Mason (who owned over 300 slaves) and the southern Christian evangelical, Patrick Henry (who opposed slavery on principle, but also opposed freeing slaves).

Their main concern was that Article 1, Section 8 of the newly-proposed Constitution, which gave the federal government the power to raise and supervise a militia, could also allow that federal militia to subsume their state militias and change them from slavery-enforcing institutions into something that could even, one day, free the slaves.

This was not an imagined threat. Famously, 12 years earlier, during the lead-up to the Revolutionary War, Lord Dunsmore offered freedom to slaves who could escape and join his forces. "Liberty to Slaves" was stitched onto their jacket pocket flaps. During the War, British General Henry Clinton extended the practice in 1779. And numerous freed slaves served in General Washington's army...

So Madison, who had (at Jefferson's insistence) already begun to prepare proposed amendments to the Constitution, changed his first draft of one that addressed the militia issue to make sure it was unambiguous that the southern states could maintain their slave patrol militias.

His first draft for what became the Second Amendment had said: "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed, and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country [emphasis mine]: but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms, shall be compelled to render military service in person."

But Henry, Mason and others wanted southern states to preserve their slave-patrol militias independent of the federal government. So Madison changed the word "country" to the word "state," and redrafted the Second Amendment into today's form:

"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."


Little did Madison realize that one day in the future weapons-manufacturing corporations, newly defined as "persons" by a Supreme Court some have called dysfunctional, would use his slave patrol militia amendment to protect their "right" to manufacture and sell assault weapons used to murder schoolchildren.

http://truth-out.org/news/item/13890-the-second-amendment-was-ratified-to-preserve-slavery

Fantasy? Fantasy is believing right wing corporate propaganda.

Very interesting perspective, thanks for sharing.

 

[Anti-Party]

Now you are sounding even more retarded than before, and that is some feat! What the hell does "FEDERAL" have to do with this? "Federal" simply means the federation of states which comprise the federation. NOWHERE does the Constitution state that we "must regulate gun ownership." That is simply not IN the Constitution. Bush and the NRA didn't corrupt the system, it's the same system it has always been, since the states ratified the 2nd Amendment and Constitution.

As for your "tools in the hands of the wrong people" nonsense, we've already determined that passing more gun control laws only keeps guns out of the hands of the law-abiding citizen, and doesn't prevent criminals from obtaining guns. Therefore, it is the idiotic prohibitions and regulations on law-abiding gun owners, which is actually keeping guns out of hands of the right people. By basic logic, this puts more guns in the hands of the wrong people.

Retarded people such as yourself, should refrain from using words like "tool" to describe firearms. It's not that, contextually speaking, this is an incorrect terminology, it's just that you lack the basic skill set to comprehend context. When we use words like "tool" to describe something, we have to comprehend the "tool" is given relevance and validity in accordance with the "job" the tool is required for. Certainly, we can all agree, it is terrible to have guns be the "tool" of someone mentally unstable who wants to use the "tool" to kill other human beings. And since we can all generally agree this is not a preferential use for this "tool" we can more easily see why the "tool" should be outlawed. Such a retarded knee-jerk reaction to such things, would lead me to believe, if we had a spree of maniacs killing children with staple guns, you'd want to outlaw those as well! Should we sell sharp-ended scissors? Maybe all scissors should be like the ones we used as a kid, or the kind they still let you use in the retard ward, which barely work to cut paper? After all, this "tool" in the wrong hands can be very violent and bloody! So retards like you should avoid using the word "tool" to describe firearms, let's just call them firearms.

I got the word "tool" from the Right Wing that has been working so hard to view the gun as a tool. Once someone that doesn't agree with their perspective calls it a tool, they all of a sudden are the idiots? lol. Hook, line and sinker.

What the hell does "FEDERAL" have to do with this? You stated that the Federal Government has no right to regulate guns. But the 2nd Amendment is a Federal Document saying we need to regulate the militia. It's that simple.

Twisting the meanings of words won't make you right. Taking the Federal out of a Federal Document doesn't make you right either.

 

[Anti-Party]

Parties will use certain things in history to argue their perspective is the correct one. Some are brainy, some are just trash. But when you simply read it for what it says it becomes a lot less complicated.

Regulated means exactly that, regulated. Militia means the armed citizens. And State means state of being.

It's that simple. No long story needed to explain why the words don't mean exactly what they say. The words simply mean exactly what they say.

 

[Lowaicue]

How do you define the 2nd amendment?
Old. Outdated. Irrelevant. Dangerous. A comfort blanket for the mentally challenged.
Why not amend it?

 

[007]

How do you define the 2nd amendment?
Old. Outdated. Irrelevant. Dangerous. A comfort blanket for the mentally challenged.
Why not amend it?

Just remind us again, where do you live?

Not the USA?

Ok!

Your opinion has no bearing!

 

[007]

Parties will use certain things in history to argue their perspective is the correct one. Some are brainy, some are just trash. But when you simply read it for what it says it becomes a lot less complicated.

Regulated means exactly that, regulated. Militia means the armed citizens. And State means state of being.

It's that simple. No long story needed to explain why the words don't mean exactly what they say. The words simply mean exactly what they say.

Which says a WELL REGULATED MILITIA is nessesary for the security of a free state,(see that comma) the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed!!

Two points, separated by a comma.

The latter part of the sentence says it all.

Gun control is an infringment.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

I got the word "tool" from the Right Wing that has been working so hard to view the gun as a tool. Once someone that doesn't agree with their perspective calls it a tool, they all of a sudden are the idiots? lol. Hook, line and sinker.

Again, retarded people should avoid using the word to describe guns. It leads to far too much confusion.

What the hell does "FEDERAL" have to do with this? You stated that the Federal Government has no right to regulate guns. But the 2nd Amendment is a Federal Document saying we need to regulate the militia. It's that simple.

Twisting the meanings of words won't make you right. Taking the Federal out of a Federal Document doesn't make you right either.

The document simply doesn't say what you claim. It says NOTHING about the need to regulate the militia. It says a well regulated militia is necessary, and the term "well regulated" means "well outfitted" or "well equipped." But being that you are retarded, you assume they meant something the founding fathers tell us in the Federalist Papers, they certainly didn't mean, or intend to mean, in ANY way.

"Federal" is of NO consequence here, the "Federal" government is granted limited powers by the Constitution, and those limited enumerated powers do not include taking our fundamental inalienable rights. It doesn't how much "twisting" you do!

 

[apple0154]

Then why the fuck did you say "Provide for the general welfare?" No, Apple, the court has never upheld YOUR definition of the Constitution. There is no mention of a "goal" and there is no "hope it will achieve" language either. The Constitution lays out the structure for our government, and it delegates specific authorities to that government, which are needed in order to form a more perfect union of states. It explicitly says that the federal government does NOT have unlimited power, or that it has ANY power over the people and states, other than the specific enumerations in the Constitution.

The rest of what you posted, (and you can post it over and over again), is blather. Mind you, it's not as offensive and ignorant as what Crashk posted, but it's still blather. The 2nd Amendment had NOTHING to do with slavery or "slave militias" or anything of the like, it's more hyped up left wing RHETORIC thrown out there like red meat to the gullible and stupid masses, who are too fucking ignorant to comprehend things like the Constitution. What these miscreants have discovered is, you can repeat ANY NONSENSE enough, and certain people will go to the grave believing it as TRUTH!

Promote: to help or encourage to exist or flourish

That was the Founding Fathers intentions. It's absurd to believe the Founding Fathers deliberately planned a government that would be unable to help the people.

As for, "There is no mention of a "goal" and there is no "hope it will achieve" language either" it states in general terms, and courts have referred to it as reliable evidence of, the Founding Fathers' intentions regarding the Constitution's meaning and what they hoped the Constitution would achieve.

What they hoped the Constitution would achieve.

Why use the word "promote" if they didn't want the government to be able to do anything? The Founding Fathers could only write about things they knew but the Preamble tells us what their overall intentions were. It's the same thing with ObamaCare. How could the Founding Fathers have mentioned anything about health care when there wasn't any such thing circa 1776? Would they have supported it if they knew? Well, figure it out. They wanted to promote the general welfare and for peoole to secure the blessings of liberty. Would the government be doing that if it passively sat back while thousands were needlessly dying every year?

One doesn't abandon common sense when interpreting the Constitution.

 

[The Dude]

The military is our militia!
Not you skinhead klansman

 

[SmarterthanYou]

The military is our militia!
Not you skinhead klansman

wrong, you GED reject

 

[Anti-Party]

Which says a WELL REGULATED MILITIA is nessesary for the security of a free state,(see that comma) the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed!!

Two points, separated by a comma.

The latter part of the sentence says it all.

Gun control is an infringment.

It's all one point. It's not two points. heh

 

[Anti-Party]

Again, retarded people should avoid using the word to describe guns. It leads to far too much confusion.



The document simply doesn't say what you claim. It says NOTHING about the need to regulate the militia. It says a well regulated militia is necessary, and the term "well regulated" means "well outfitted" or "well equipped." But being that you are retarded, you assume they meant something the founding fathers tell us in the Federalist Papers, they certainly didn't mean, or intend to mean, in ANY way.

"Federal" is of NO consequence here, the "Federal" government is granted limited powers by the Constitution, and those limited enumerated powers do not include taking our fundamental inalienable rights. It doesn't how much "twisting" you do!

You should have known you were being brainwashed when they told you well regulated didn't mean exactly that, but well equipped. *smiles and smacks forhead*

 

[chris7375]

The Bill of rights was not meant to be redefined by government. The amendments were created with a majority voting for those amendment how they were. Changes to them were not meant to be issued.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Promote: to help or encourage to exist or flourish

That was the Founding Fathers intentions. It's absurd to believe the Founding Fathers deliberately planned a government that would be unable to help the people.

What's absurd is how you can post the definition of a word, proving you to be absolutely wrong, yet you continue to insist you are right! There is nothing in the definition of "promote" to indicate an obligation or responsibility to provide for. That was your initial statement, highlighted in red from my last post. To "help" the people is an ambiguous term, it means a variety of things to various people, and we may sharply disagree on how to effectively "help" someone. So, no, the government was never set up or designed to "help" anyone. Promote...encourage to exist and flourish... sure, government is supposed to be committed to that. To do things we can all universally agree are helpful, sure... government can do that. But the founding fathers certainly had no intention of the federal government "providing" things for anyone.

As for, "There is no mention of a "goal" and there is no "hope it will achieve" language either" it states in general terms, and courts have referred to it as reliable evidence of, the Founding Fathers' intentions regarding the Constitution's meaning and what they hoped the Constitution would achieve.

You keep repeating your mindless posts from before, as if we can't read the previous posts you made. It does not matter what courts have found to be reliable evidence, it matters what the constitution says and means, according to the authors of the constitution. The only "achievement" they hoped for, was a unification of the states under one federation, for the SOLE benefit of the states themselves, and the people who reside in them.

What they hoped the Constitution would achieve.
Why use the word "promote" if they didn't want the government to be able to do anything?

Where did I state they didn't want the government to "do anything?" Why would the founding fathers use the word "promote" if they meant the government should "provide?" These were smart men who doted over every word they penned, it's impossible to believe such a striking contradiction would have slipped by them like this.

The Founding Fathers could only write about things they knew but the Preamble tells us what their overall intentions were. It's the same thing with ObamaCare. How could the Founding Fathers have mentioned anything about health care when there wasn't any such thing circa 1776? Would they have supported it if they knew? Well, figure it out. They wanted to promote the general welfare and for peoole to secure the blessings of liberty. Would the government be doing that if it passively sat back while thousands were needlessly dying every year?

You completely pervert and misconstrue the Preamble, we've been through this already. The Founding Fathers, who wrote the Preamble, can also explain to us exactly what they had in mind, if we are intellectual enough to read and comprehend the Federalist Papers. Now speaking of the Federalist Papers, the person who was the Founding Father who was responsible for printing, publishing and distributing said Papers, was one, Benjamin Franklin. Aside from his notoriety as a Founding Father, author, printer and inventor, an ambassador and diplomat for the US, he is also credited with starting the first public hospital in America. I suppose this would have been quite difficult, what with the 'lack of medicine or doctors' in the day, but he still managed to do this, so we know for a fact the founding fathers were aware of health care.

One doesn't abandon common sense when interpreting the Constitution.

One doesn't assume their own meanings for terms used in the constitution, and then claim it is common sense. Not unless One wants to appear to be a total moron. One has to read what the Founding Fathers explained regarding their words, in the Federalist Papers, and comprehend the context of what they penned in the Constitution. Unless One is able to do that, and has the intelligent wattage to understand the written language of the colonial era, One can never fully comprehend with logic or common sense, what the Founding Fathers intended. One can speculate, One can pontificate on what they falsely BELIEVE the Founding Fathers meant, or what they WISH the Founding Fathers had said, but One can't really ever know, because One is a Moron.

 

[Anti-Party]

What's absurd is how you can post the definition of a word, proving you to be absolutely wrong, yet you continue to insist you are right! There is nothing in the definition of "promote" to indicate an obligation or responsibility to provide for. That was your initial statement, highlighted in red from my last post. To "help" the people is an ambiguous term, it means a variety of things to various people, and we may sharply disagree on how to effectively "help" someone. So, no, the government was never set up or designed to "help" anyone. Promote...encourage to exist and flourish... sure, government is supposed to be committed to that. To do things we can all universally agree are helpful, sure... government can do that. But the founding fathers certainly had no intention of the federal government "providing" things for anyone.



You keep repeating your mindless posts from before, as if we can't read the previous posts you made. It does not matter what courts have found to be reliable evidence, it matters what the constitution says and means, according to the authors of the constitution. The only "achievement" they hoped for, was a unification of the states under one federation, for the SOLE benefit of the states themselves, and the people who reside in them.



Where did I state they didn't want the government to "do anything?" Why would the founding fathers use the word "promote" if they meant the government should "provide?" These were smart men who doted over every word they penned, it's impossible to believe such a striking contradiction would have slipped by them like this.



You completely pervert and misconstrue the Preamble, we've been through this already. The Founding Fathers, who wrote the Preamble, can also explain to us exactly what they had in mind, if we are intellectual enough to read and comprehend the Federalist Papers. Now speaking of the Federalist Papers, the person who was the Founding Father who was responsible for printing, publishing and distributing said Papers, was one, Benjamin Franklin. Aside from his notoriety as a Founding Father, author, printer and inventor, an ambassador and diplomat for the US, he is also credited with starting the first public hospital in America. I suppose this would have been quite difficult, what with the 'lack of medicine or doctors' in the day, but he still managed to do this, so we know for a fact the founding fathers were aware of health care.



One doesn't assume their own meanings for terms used in the constitution, and then claim it is common sense. Not unless One wants to appear to be a total moron. One has to read what the Founding Fathers explained regarding their words, in the Federalist Papers, and comprehend the context of what they penned in the Constitution. Unless One is able to do that, and has the intelligent wattage to understand the written language of the colonial era, One can never fully comprehend with logic or common sense, what the Founding Fathers intended. One can speculate, One can pontificate on what they falsely BELIEVE the Founding Fathers meant, or what they WISH the Founding Fathers had said, but One can't really ever know, because One is a Moron.

This moron had one fact in this heap of trash but I won't get his back on it. What a tool.

For some reason I was kind of proud of him. Almost like seeing a dog crap outside for the first time. But since there is a floor full of crap inside, I'm not gonna pet the animal.

 

[Anti-Party]

What's absurd is how you can post the definition of a word, proving you to be absolutely wrong, yet you continue to insist you are right! There is nothing in the definition of "promote" to indicate an obligation or responsibility to provide for. That was your initial statement, highlighted in red from my last post. To "help" the people is an ambiguous term, it means a variety of things to various people, and we may sharply disagree on how to effectively "help" someone. So, no, the government was never set up or designed to "help" anyone. Promote...encourage to exist and flourish... sure, government is supposed to be committed to that. To do things we can all universally agree are helpful, sure... government can do that. But the founding fathers certainly had no intention of the federal government "providing" things for anyone.



You keep repeating your mindless posts from before, as if we can't read the previous posts you made. It does not matter what courts have found to be reliable evidence, it matters what the constitution says and means, according to the authors of the constitution. The only "achievement" they hoped for, was a unification of the states under one federation, for the SOLE benefit of the states themselves, and the people who reside in them.



Where did I state they didn't want the government to "do anything?" Why would the founding fathers use the word "promote" if they meant the government should "provide?" These were smart men who doted over every word they penned, it's impossible to believe such a striking contradiction would have slipped by them like this.



You completely pervert and misconstrue the Preamble, we've been through this already. The Founding Fathers, who wrote the Preamble, can also explain to us exactly what they had in mind, if we are intellectual enough to read and comprehend the Federalist Papers. Now speaking of the Federalist Papers, the person who was the Founding Father who was responsible for printing, publishing and distributing said Papers, was one, Benjamin Franklin. Aside from his notoriety as a Founding Father, author, printer and inventor, an ambassador and diplomat for the US, he is also credited with starting the first public hospital in America. I suppose this would have been quite difficult, what with the 'lack of medicine or doctors' in the day, but he still managed to do this, so we know for a fact the founding fathers were aware of health care.



One doesn't assume their own meanings for terms used in the constitution, and then claim it is common sense. Not unless One wants to appear to be a total moron. One has to read what the Founding Fathers explained regarding their words, in the Federalist Papers, and comprehend the context of what they penned in the Constitution. Unless One is able to do that, and has the intelligent wattage to understand the written language of the colonial era, One can never fully comprehend with logic or common sense, what the Founding Fathers intended. One can speculate, One can pontificate on what they falsely BELIEVE the Founding Fathers meant, or what they WISH the Founding Fathers had said, but One can't really ever know, because One is a Moron.

This moron had one fact in this heap of trash but I won't get his back on it. What a tool.

For some reason I was kind of proud of him. Almost like seeing a dog crap outside for the first time. But since there is a floor full of crap inside, I'm not gonna pet the animal.

 

[Anti-Party]

The Bill of rights was not meant to be redefined by government. The amendments were created with a majority voting for those amendment how they were. Changes to them were not meant to be issued.

No one is trying to redefine the Bill of Rights. No one. Everyone believes their interpretation is the one the founders had in mind. Some even have a long elaborate story to back their interpretation up. But the fact is there are at least 5 or more interpretations. The words people stumble on are; Regulated, militia, state, arms. All multiple meaning words.

My interpretation is regulated means regulated. Militia means armed citizens, because if it meant military it wouldn't protect our gun rights at all. State means state of being, it's a reach to think it meant anything else. Arms clearly means the limbs that come off shoulders..................(joke)

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

You should have known you were being brainwashed when they told you well regulated didn't mean exactly that, but well equipped. *smiles and smacks forhead*

"Regulated" can mean all kinds of things, it's a VERB. In order to "comprehend" what meaning applies to the Constitution, we have to read Madison's explanation in Federalist 46. Damo has made the point, I have made the point, and Madison made the point in Federalist 46, that federal government simply can't "regulate" something they have no power over. You are applying the verb "regulated" to the inalienable right we have to bear arms, which can't be infringed. This is totally incorrect semantics, because the verb should apply to the 'militia' (noun) in question, which is not a part of the federal government. The militia is what is to be "well regulated," in the actual text. The people and the state are responsible for the militia, and any "regulation" of it. In context, it means the state has an obligation to maintain a well-equipped and sufficient militia, and the people have an inalienable right to bear arms which can not be infringed. The Federal government is granted NO power or control over this right, and that is stipulated with the words "shall not be infringed!"

 

[Lowaicue]

"Regulated" can mean all kinds of things, it's a VERB. In order to "comprehend" what meaning applies to the Constitution, we have to read Madison's explanation in Federalist 46. Damo has made the point, I have made the point, and Madison made the point in Federalist 46, that federal government simply can't "regulate" something they have no power over. You are applying the verb "regulated" to the inalienable right we have to bear arms, which can't be infringed. This is totally incorrect semantics, because the verb should apply to the 'militia' (noun) in question, which is not a part of the federal government. The militia is what is to be "well regulated," in the actual text. The people and the state are responsible for the militia, and any "regulation" of it. In context, it means the state has an obligation to maintain a well-equipped and sufficient militia, and the people have an inalienable right to bear arms which can not be infringed. The Federal government is granted NO power or control over this right, and that is stipulated with the words "shall not be infringed!"

In the contextunder discussion 'regulated' is NOT a verb, it is an adjective. Thought you understood English?