Time To Dump The Second Amendment?

[PoliTalker]

"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."

Now, a lot of people think the purpose of the 2nd is so that the government will fear the people who are armed and capable of revolt.

They think it is sort of a check and balance to prevent the government from getting too powerful, that if the people are armed and might decide to take up arms against the government if the government gets out of hand, that government will be limited.

And that would be totally wrong. That is not the purpose of the 2nd at all.

The purpose of the 2nd was to defend the USA.

America was very fearful of a standing army that the government could use against the people (because that is exactly what Britain did.) The reasoning was that America would have no standing army. The Constitution says so:

Article I, Section 8, Clause 12:

"[The Congress shall have Power . . . ] To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years; ..."

The 2nd amendment would allow people to be armed so that if the country needed to raise an army for defense it could quickly do so. That's why it says:

"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."

There is nothing about armed people standing up to government. It is about the security of the nation, the free State.

We live in a different world than when this was written. We definitely need a standing army. We figured that out in WWII. That means the 2nd Amendment is obsolete. There is no well-regulated militia ensuring the security of the Free State. Our military powers do that.

It is time to replace the second with a more modern establishment of gun ownership. And yes, we do need to infringe on the right to own a gun. Because too many people are getting killed.

What the language of a new amendment might be, I don't know. But I wonder if it is so popular with the public that something be done about the mass shootings, and Congress is not acting, that a well worded amendment abolishing the 2nd and replacing it with something more appropriate might pass in enough States to ratify it?

 

[Dutch Uncle]

Time To Dump The Second Amendment

Do you believe the Federal government grants all Americans their rights or do you believe we all have rights and use government to protect those rights?

It's a fundamental question regarding the government We, the People seek to have. I believe government serves We, the People, not us serving them.

 

[T. A. Gardner]

The US doesn't need a massive standing army. There is no nation on the planet that could successfully invade the US and there are none on the horizon. The only reason the US would need a large standing army is to go fuck in other nation's business, and 98% of the time we shouldn't have to be the ones doing that.

As far as a "Well regulated militia" goes, there are actually two in terms of law:

The organized militia that exists today as the National Guard, and the unorganized militia that exists as the people and in wartime as the Army of the United States. That is different from the United States Army.

The Army of the United States is the citizenry-at-large. In modern history, the way they are called to service is through the draft. But at least through the Spanish-American war, the AUSA also called up units by subscription. That is, someone with money and or political clout would raise a private unit of volunteers for service as part of the military. Teddy Roosevelt's Rough Riders was such a unit. In the Civil War, a unit like that was Wilder's Lightning Brigade.

So, it is at least theoretically possible that in a future major war a rich and powerful personality could fund and outfit a unit for US military service with volunteers paid in part from that person's pocket. That is the unorganized militia.

 

[LurchAddams]

"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."

Now, a lot of people think the purpose of the 2nd is so that the government will fear the people who are armed and capable of revolt.

They think it is sort of a check and balance to prevent the government from getting too powerful, that if the people are armed and might decide to take up arms against the government if the government gets out of hand, that government will be limited.

And that would be totally wrong. That is not the purpose of the 2nd at all.

The purpose of the 2nd was to defend the USA.

America was very fearful of a standing army that the government could use against the people (because that is exactly what Britain did.) The reasoning was that America would have no standing army. The Constitution says so:

Article I, Section 8, Clause 12:

"[The Congress shall have Power . . . ] To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years; ..."

The 2nd amendment would allow people to be armed so that if the country needed to raise an army for defense it could quickly do so. That's why it says:

"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."

There is nothing about armed people standing up to government. It is about the security of the nation, the free State.

We live in a different world than when this was written. We definitely need a standing army. We figured that out in WWII. That means the 2nd Amendment is obsolete. There is no well-regulated militia ensuring the security of the Free State. Our military powers do that.

It is time to replace the second with a more modern establishment of gun ownership. And yes, we do need to infringe on the right to own a gun. Because too many people are getting killed.

What the language of a new amendment might be, I don't know. But I wonder if it is so popular with the public that something be done about the mass shootings, and Congress is not acting, that a well worded amendment abolishing the 2nd and replacing it with something more appropriate might pass in enough States to ratify it?

Simple answer: 2A was written before the time of ARs and Nukes. I'm thinking I should have a nuke.. just for protection and to pose with on Michigan Capitol steps.

 

[Hawkeye10]

Hell No.

 

[Hawkeye10]

We must be able to defend ourselves against our government of ill repute.

 

[Hawkeye10]

I have been forced by the treason of the Failed Elite Class to completely change my mind about gun restrictions.

 

[Truck Fump / h1b]

Do you believe the Federal government grants all Americans their rights or do you believe we all have rights and use government to protect those rights?

It's a fundamental question regarding the government We, the People seek to have. I believe government serves We, the People, not us serving them.

so why are you nearly always on the wrong fucking side of freedom issues, deep state taint-face?

you've chosen poorly in life.

please have the courage to admit it.

"Hi, I'm dutch uncle, i pretend to support freedom, but really I'm a totalitarian fascist globalist sellout."

 

[Truck Fump / h1b]

"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."

Now, a lot of people think the purpose of the 2nd is so that the government will fear the people who are armed and capable of revolt.

They think it is sort of a check and balance to prevent the government from getting too powerful, that if the people are armed and might decide to take up arms against the government if the government gets out of hand, that government will be limited.

And that would be totally wrong. That is not the purpose of the 2nd at all.

The purpose of the 2nd was to defend the USA.

America was very fearful of a standing army that the government could use against the people (because that is exactly what Britain did.) The reasoning was that America would have no standing army. The Constitution says so:

Article I, Section 8, Clause 12:

"[The Congress shall have Power . . . ] To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years; ..."

The 2nd amendment would allow people to be armed so that if the country needed to raise an army for defense it could quickly do so. That's why it says:

"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."

There is nothing about armed people standing up to government. It is about the security of the nation, the free State.

We live in a different world than when this was written. We definitely need a standing army. We figured that out in WWII. That means the 2nd Amendment is obsolete. There is no well-regulated militia ensuring the security of the Free State. Our military powers do that.

It is time to replace the second with a more modern establishment of gun ownership. And yes, we do need to infringe on the right to own a gun. Because too many people are getting killed.

What the language of a new amendment might be, I don't know. But I wonder if it is so popular with the public that something be done about the mass shootings, and Congress is not acting, that a well worded amendment abolishing the 2nd and replacing it with something more appropriate might pass in enough States to ratify it?

No. let's keep it.

thanks for asking tho, nazi gun grabber.

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

how is this confusing to you?

 

[PostmodernProphet]

wouldn't it be easier to punish hundreds of criminals than to punish millions of innocent people?......especially when punishing the innocent isn't going to keep criminals from committing crimes?......

 

[Dutch Uncle]

wouldn't it be easier to punish hundreds of criminals than to punish millions of innocent people?......especially when punishing the innocent isn't going to keep criminals from committing crimes?......

Agreed. Just like illegal immigration: punish those who hire, harbor or otherwise support illegal immigration. Without jobs and a place to live they will self-deport.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

so why are you nearly always on the wrong fucking side of freedom issues, deep state taint-face?

you've chosen poorly in life.

please have the courage to admit it.

"Hi, I'm dutch uncle, i pretend to support freedom, but really I'm a totalitarian fascist globalist sellout."

^^^ Hates Jews and African-Americans.

It's not even close to a zero sum game. The truth is jews hate white christians, and they simultaneously convince us to destroy our own nations, while dying to institute their Jewish Supremacist homeland. They're laughing they're asses off.

A plan for jewish world theocracy.
Also see noahide

so niggers can take the day off from pretending they can read.

niggers on bottom.

Fredo's end game:

 

[Matt Dillon]

"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."

Now, a lot of people think the purpose of the 2nd is so that the government will fear the people who are armed and capable of revolt.

They think it is sort of a check and balance to prevent the government from getting too powerful, that if the people are armed and might decide to take up arms against the government if the government gets out of hand, that government will be limited.

And that would be totally wrong. That is not the purpose of the 2nd at all.

The purpose of the 2nd was to defend the USA.

America was very fearful of a standing army that the government could use against the people (because that is exactly what Britain did.) The reasoning was that America would have no standing army. The Constitution says so:

Article I, Section 8, Clause 12:

"[The Congress shall have Power . . . ] To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years; ..."

The 2nd amendment would allow people to be armed so that if the country needed to raise an army for defense it could quickly do so. That's why it says:

"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."

There is nothing about armed people standing up to government. It is about the security of the nation, the free State.

We live in a different world than when this was written. We definitely need a standing army. We figured that out in WWII. That means the 2nd Amendment is obsolete. There is no well-regulated militia ensuring the security of the Free State. Our military powers do that.

It is time to replace the second with a more modern establishment of gun ownership. And yes, we do need to infringe on the right to own a gun. Because too many people are getting killed.

What the language of a new amendment might be, I don't know. But I wonder if it is so popular with the public that something be done about the mass shootings, and Congress is not acting, that a well worded amendment abolishing the 2nd and replacing it with something more appropriate might pass in enough States to ratify it?

Time to dump unAmerican commie pieces of shit like you into the ocean.

"The great object is that every man can be armed" -Patrick Henry

https://www.azquotes.com/quotes/topics/tyranny-founding-fathers.html

^Everything the Founding Fathers ever said goes against PoliTalker's OP. Things at that link prove the 2nd was to defend against tyranny.

OP is a filthy Commie LIAR!

 

[PostmodernProphet]

Agreed. Just like illegal immigration: punish those who hire, harbor or otherwise support illegal immigration. Without jobs and a place to live they will self-deport.

???.....sending illegals back IS punishing those who are breaking the law.......

 

[Dutch Uncle]

???.....sending illegals back IS punishing those who are breaking the law.......

Which is easier: round up a rotating door of millions of illegals or arresting those who hire, harbor or otherwise entice illegals to the US?

Only going after illegals is like ending prostitution by only arresting the prostitutes, never the pimps or the Johns. Start arresting the pimps and Johns and the prostitutes themselves will have to find other work.

 

[PoliTalker]

Hello Dutch,

Do you believe the Federal government grants all Americans their rights or do you believe we all have rights and use government to protect those rights?

It's a fundamental question regarding the government We, the People seek to have. I believe government serves We, the People, not us serving them.

I think government is the difference between anarchy and civil society. We must decide as a country what rights are appropriate for the people. The 2nd is clearly outdated. It's purpose has been made moot. It represents unfinished business for our country. And now it is hurting us, making us unsafe. We have to do something.

 

[PoliTalker]

Hello Lurch,

Simple answer: 2A was written before the time of ARs and Nukes. I'm thinking I should have a nuke.. just for protection and to pose with on Michigan Capitol steps.

The 2nd says nothing about guns. It says arms. Nukes are arms. You would be in compliance with the second to do that. That is because the 2nd is outdated.

 

[LurchAddams]

Hello Lurch,



The 2nd says nothing about guns. It says arms. Nukes are arms. You would be in compliance with the second to do that. That is because the 2nd is outdated.

Once nukes are sold to the public in TX, Greg Abbott will remove the waiting period and drop the legal age to purchase to 18.

 

[Truck Fump / h1b]

^^^ Hates Jews and African-Americans.




Fredo's end game:

there's no evidence of these claims.

but thanks for being stupid.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

Hello Dutch,

I think government is the difference between anarchy and civil society. We must decide as a country what rights are appropriate for the people. The 2nd is clearly outdated. It's purpose has been made moot. It represents unfinished business for our country. And now it is hurting us, making us unsafe. We have to do something.

Agreed on government. It's stated very eloquently in the Declaration of Independence and the Preamble of our Constitution.

Your idea of deciding what rights people should have is going backwards, ma'am, not forward. That's the same logic used to ban abortion and gay marriage.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
----------

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America