1911Forum banner
1 - 16 of 16 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
242 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
Well, it occured to me there can be no argument as to the meaning of the second ammendment. All states have provisions recognizing the right to own and carry a firearm. All states allow it! Yes, some have restrictions, but, all allow ownership and CARRYING of firearms! This is proof of the meaning of the ammendment. How can any thinking person argue otherwise. By having provisions for non militia individuals to own and carry they ( the states ) are affirming the individual right to own and carry. Sorry, Hillary, it'a not a collective right, and, your state even recognises individual rights!!!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
450 Posts
Any Restriction of the Second Amendment Is Infringement. The Term "I Support the 2nd but we have to have Restrictions", is the Most Gut-Wrenching Term any AMERICAN can use. It WAS NOT Written to Tell US What we May or May not do, It was written to Tell the Government What THEY May Not Do to US.
Font Wood Rectangle Writing Paper

Font Paper Event Paper product Document
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
14,128 Posts
Another infuriating part of the leftist’s misunderstanding— or, more likely, intentional disregard — is that the militia is The People.

Of course it includes the “organized” and “unorganized“ subgroups, as defined in the Code of Federal Regulation, but the bigger picture is that it’s inclusive of all able and/or willing to defend our Country. Exactly as was true during the Revolutionary War.

And that’s The People…and that was the crystal clear and well-documented Constitutional meaning of militia.
____

Equally clear is that — contrary to lies spewed by leftists — the military branches reporting to the central Commander in Chief are defined separately from the militia, not part of the militia, in the same Code of Federal Regulations.

There is absolutely no question, for honest people, that the Constitution considers the American citizens as an available fighting force, one that should be armed.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Jocko1911 and ether

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
15,980 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
10,225 Posts
Since the War between the States.
That was the overreach. Sadly the victors have never stopped punishing the defeated and continue to push for more and more power for the federal government that was never intended.
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
15,980 Posts
That was the overreach. Sadly the victors have never stopped punishing the defeated and continue to push for more and more power for the federal government that was never intended.
The original overreach was the Alien and Sedition Act of 1792, which took several years to get repealed. The aftermath of the civil war was, unfortunately, the institutional validation of that overreach which has led us to where we are today - in incremental steps of course.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,032 Posts
Actually, I didn't mean the Never-Ending-Overreach. I simply meant from the point the feds got involved in redefining the BOR and 2nd. We already know some states had busily been infringing for years.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
450 Posts
They even tried the current Political Trick of Ad Hominum Attacks back then:
"The passage of the Alien and Sedition Acts made John Adams a generally unpopular president, especially in areas dominated by the opposition party. When he ran for reelection in 1800, one opposition journalist called him a “hideous hermaphroditical character which has neither the force and firmness of a man, not the gentleness and sensibility of a woman.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,131 Posts
It boils down to a long-term effort to deliberately misinterpret, reinterpret, redefine, marginalize and authoritarian over-reach. We've been allowing this **** since the 30's.
What really sucks is, the government rammed the 1934 act through during a period when most of The People

1) Had virtually no access to information on what was going on (compared to today)

and

2) Worried more about their next meal than about their rights.

Shame!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
16,312 Posts
And the NRA pushed it hard and told everyone that our police would be safer - and the politicians just ate it up.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
173 Posts
Another infuriating part of the leftist’s misunderstanding— or, more likely, intentional disregard — is that the militia is The People.
Antonin Scalia really hit a home run with writing of the majority opinion of the Heller case. He is sorely missed...

I love to throw the following in the faces of leftists who claim that we are not the militia.

(1) The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2–53.

(a) The Amendment's prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause's text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms. Pp. 2–22.

(b) The prefatory clause comports with the Court's interpretation of the operative clause. The "militia" comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. The Antifederalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to disable this citizens' militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, so that the ideal of a citizens' militia would be preserved. Pp. 22–28.
 
  • Like
Reactions: dldarrow
1 - 16 of 16 Posts
Top