The 2nd Amendment
5782 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
37 / In Limbo in Silen...
Offline
Posted 8/29/09
The 2nd Amendment, for the purpose of this entry, is separated in further segments for clear definitions per-section.

* From Blacks Law Dictionary
It is the most widely-used law dictionary in the United States. It was founded by Henry Campbell Black. It is the reference of choice for definitions in legal briefs and court opinions and has been cited as a secondary legal authority in many U.S. Supreme Court cases.

US Constitution
Article 1 Section 8
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

Bill of Rights
Amendment 2
"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."

A Well Regulated Militia. "What does this mean?"
*Well, n.
A well, as the term is used in a conveyance, is an artificial excavation and erection in and upon land, which necessarily, from its nature and the mode of its use, includes and comprehends enjoyment of the whole premises on which it is situated.

*Regulated
The power to regulate commerce, vested in congress, is the power to precribe the rules by which it shall be governed, that is, the conditions upon which it shall be conducted, to determine when it shall be free, and when subject to duties or other exactions.
The power also embraces within its control all the instrumentalities by which that commerce may be carried on, and the means by which it may be aided and encouraged.

*Militia.
The body of soldiers in a state enrolled for discipline, but not engaged in actual service except in emergencies, as distinguished from regular troops or a standing army.

"The typical hysteria over these first few words, comes to the agreement that it means the National Guard.
Hog-wash. The Bill of Rights was ratified in 1791, the National Guard was activated in 1903. So either our founding fathers saw into the future and said...
[We're going to have a National Guard in about a 100 years from now so well write this in and let 'them' figure it out]
Or, for over 100 years the 2nd Amendment meant nothing.

Up until 1838 when the first city police services were established in Boston, cities and towns didn't really have a standing army police force as we know it today. It was usually a Sheriff, and maybe a few deputies.
I must acknowledge that this may depend in the size of the town or its uhhh- (ahem) Nightly Games. (insert jokes here)

So what did people do when confronted by these types of men? Well I imagine, armed with the available weapons of the times, they shot back.

So Who regulated the Militia? People did. Congress does have the power to raise an Army and Navy but they're funded through congress. Their Food, water, shelter, weapons, training, ammunition, clothing is all paid through congress.
Take a wild guess where the National Guard gets it's money. Through federal funding from congress. Therefore they're Federally Regulated.

So where do people get their money? Working the 9 to 5 shift. We buy our food, water, shelter, weapons, ammunition, clothing, and go on Sunday afternoons to the range. (or whenever it is when you go.)
We ourselves are well regulated.

And now, who or what are the Militia?
The word "militia" is a Latin abstract noun, meaning "military service", not an "armed group" (with the connotation of plurality), and that is the way the Latin-literate Founders used it. The collective term, meaning "army" or "soldiery" was "volgus militum". Since for the Romans "military service" included law enforcement and disaster response, it might be more meaningfully translated today as "defense service", associated with a "defense duty", which attaches to individuals as much as to groups of them, organized or otherwise.

When we are alone, we are all militia units of one. When together with others in a situation requiring a defensive response, we have the duty to act together in concert to meet the challenge. Those two component duties, of individuals to defend the community, and to act together in concert with others present, when
combined with a third component duty to prepare to do one's duty and not just wait until the danger is clear and present, comprises the militia duty.

Militia Quotes:
"I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
— George Mason

"Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man against his own bosom? Congress shall have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birth-right of an American ... The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the People."
— Tench Coxe, 1788.

This is "A Well Regulated Militia."

~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~* ~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~* ~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~

Being Necessary to the Security of a free State

*Security.
Protection; assurance; indemnification. The term is usually applied to an obligation, pledge mortgage, deposit, lien, etc., given by a debtor in order to make sure the payment or performance of his debt, by furnishing the creditor with a resource to be used in case of failure in the principal obligation. The name is also sometimes
given to one who becomes surety or guarantor for another.
*Personal Security.
A person's legal and uninterrupted enjoyment of his life, his limbs, his body, his health, and his reputation.

*Free
(1) Unconstrained; having power to follow the dictates of his own will. Not subject to the domination of another. Not compelled to involuntary servitude. Used in the sense as opposed to "slave"
(2) Not bound to service for a fixed term of years; in distinction to being bound as an apprentice.
(3) Enjoying full civic rights.
(4) Available to all citizens alike without charge: as a free school.
(5) Available for public use without charge or toll: as a free bridge.
(6) Not despotic; assuring liberty; defending individual rights against encroachment by any person or class; instituted by a free people; said of governments, institutios, etc Webster.
(7) Certain, and also consistent with an honorable degree in life; as free services, in the feudal law.
(8) Confined to the person possessing, instead of being shared with others; as a free fishery
(9) Not engaged in a war as belligerent or ally; neutral; as in the maxim. "Free ships make free goods."

*State, n.
A body politic, or society of men, united together for the purpose of promoting their mutual safety and advantage, by the joint efforts of their combined strength.
One of the components commonwealths or states of the United States of America.
The people of a state, in their collective capacity, considered as the party wronged by a criminal deed; as in the title of a cause.

"This section of the 2nd Amendment, make no mention of any Executive, Judge, or Legislator being necessary to a free state, but rather the whole armed people is what is necessary for a free state.

Our founding forefathers were paranoid of a few things.
First a Lazy Government:
A government neglectful of its duties would seem as easy prey to foreign governments wishing to capture lands for its own.
So then it would be the duty of the whole people, the Militia, to rise up with their arms and repel the invading army and protect their own liberties and secondly their government.
I say "secondly" because if government survived the foreign invasion, I doubt it would survive the whole people against themselves. Either in a civil manner by vote, or flatout executions.

Then there's Tyrannical Government.
A government so abusive against its own people, it would be up to the people to defend themselves against the abuses from them.

This is what "Being necessary to the security of a free state." is

~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~* ~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~* ~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~

The Right of the People.

*Right
As a noun, and taken in a concrete sense, a right signifies a power, privilege, faculty, or demand, inherent in one person and incident upon another. "Rights" are defined generally as "powers of free action." And the primal rights pertaining to men are undoubtedly enjoyed by human beings purely as such, being grounded in personality, and existing antecedently to their recognition by positive law.

*People
A State: as the people of the state of New York. A nation in its collective and political capacity.

"Where do rights come from?"
The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America, (i.e) The Declaration of Independence, says this...

"When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation."

God, our creator, entitles us directly, rights. Their is no higher authority to obtain these rights from. These rights are as natural as the air we breath, and the water we drink. Human life was created on the 6th day of creation, so here again, God endows us the right of life.

The Declaration of Independence states...
"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"

The very fact these things have been written down is truthful-evidence in of itself.
*Unalienable, is defined in Blacks Law Dictionary as, Incapable of being aliened, that is, sold and transferred.
So Unalienable Rights must also mean, Non-transferable-powers-of-free-will.

This small section of the 2nd Amendment is repeated in the 1st, 4th, 9th, and 10th Amendment. So it is also, non-contradictory language

This is the Right of the People.

~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~* ~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~* ~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~

To Keep and Bear Arms.

*Keep, v.
To retain in one's power or possession; not to lose or part with; to preserve or retain.

*Bear arms.
To carry arms as weapons and with reference to their military use, not to wear them about the person as part of the dress.
As applied to fire-arms, includes the right to load and shoot them, and to use them as such things are generally used.

*Arms.
Anything that a man wears for his defense, or takes in his hands, or uses in his anger, to cast at or strike at another.
This term, as it is used in the constitution, relative to the right of citizens to bear arms, refers to the arms of a militiaman or soldier, and the word is used in it's military sense.
The arms of the infantary soldier are the musket & bayonet; of the cavalry & dragoons, the saber, holster pistols, and carbine; of the artillery, the field-piece, siege-gun, & mortar, with side arms.

When was the last time you tuned on CNN and saw your military half a world away useing weapons, approved by the BATFE?
Me personally.... never.

Any arm I justly acquire is mine to keep. Such as the shotgun given to me as a gift. It's mine now, and its only limitation is I can't murder, steal, destroy, enslave, or force others with it.
A rifle I buy at the store, provided the store owner is willing to sell it to me, it is justly acquired, and like before, my only limitation is I can't murder, steal, destroy, enslave, or force others with it.
A pistol I find on an empty boat in the middle of the sea is mine, because there's no one to ask for its possession.

And to bear an arm, its limit is what can you carry, to have with you at your convenience. Lord only knows why you need what you have, but it is your right to do so.

~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~* ~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~* ~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~

Shall not be infringed
(If you don't know what this already means, drop out of school and start learning something for real.)

*Shall.
As against the government, the word "shall," when used in statutes, is to be construed as "may," unless a contrary intention is manifest.

*Infringed (taken from) Infringement.
A breaking into; a trespass or encroachment upon; a violation of a law, regulation, contract, or right. Used especially of invasions of the rights secured by patents, copyrights, and trademarks.

Article 6 Sec 2 of the US Constitution declares...
"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be-
THE SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND;
-and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding."

So can any law made afterwards, (ie) any inferior law, override the Supreme law of the land?
No. If that were true, then the system of government we have now would be worthless!
A similar comparison would be a child dictating his parents what to do because he was born 30 years after his parents were.

It is also note worthy to bring up the word "The".
This often overlooked, small three letter word conveys a statement of natural law. Such as...
"The world is round."
Their is no elected Legislator or born King that can vote or declare the world is any other shape except round, because they don't have that power to change the matter of fact.
A king may say the world is flat, but neither his word, nor his entire army can make the world be shaped otherwise.

My government should be giving us guns! Not trying to reinstate the Assault weapons ban!

In closing, this government has no authority to limit the possession and civil use of arms, so the 1934 National Firearms Act, 1968 Gun Control Act, Huges Amendment, NICS check, Brady background check, and the other 23,000 state gun control laws are all unconstitutional and ought to be removed.
Posted 8/29/09
That's a very well written idealization of anti-firearm control. However ideal that it is, it's subjective to public dispute at the moment of its publication, thanks to the 1st Amendment of the Constitution.

And although a pen is mightier than a sword, you can silence anyone with just a gun. Therefore do you honestly think that although individually you display a great deal of self-discipline, on a collective level all people have the same quality of discipline to be just as responsible as you are with a firearm? That's the reality you have to face, when it's a fact that men get a significant spike of testosterone by 100 times more than usual, just by them holding a gun in their hand(http://www.webmd.com/news/20060728/guns-up-testosterone-male-aggression?printing=true). While testosterone is known for making males more aggressive.
18663 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
36 / M / Small Wooded town...
Offline
Posted 8/29/09
'well yes the Government does not have the right to remove Guns from the people. There are some stipulations that was meant to stop are government from getting to big, and taking over are lives. But then If you take a look at are government it is already to late, they have already stepped over there power limits, and so they will keep doing so and Americans in the most part, will sit there and take it in the ass. You know they will, because they really do not know anything about freedom, they been locked up in the cage, known as the big Government now for way to long.
18663 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
36 / M / Small Wooded town...
Offline
Posted 8/29/09
'As for my opinion on the Guns, we be better off without them. Being as a people we do not need them.
Posted 8/29/09

Darkphoenix3450 wrote:

'well yes the Government does not have the right to remove Guns from the people. There are some stipulations that was meant to stop are government from getting to big, and taking over are lives. But then If you take a look at are government it is already to late, they have already stepped over there power limits, and so they will keep doing so and Americans in the most part, will sit there and take it in the ass. You know they will, because they really do not know anything about freedom, they been locked up in the cage, known as the big Government now for way to long.
So can a government that you criticized so negatively trust you with a gun in your hand, when you're blaming the same government for restricting you from doing whatever that you want to do with a gun in your hand?

The same rights and freedoms that you're asking in a legislation are the same for everyone. But while I was thinking about how everyone else relating with me, you're only thinking about yourself as the same as everyone else, aka entitlement.
18663 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
36 / M / Small Wooded town...
Offline
Posted 8/29/09

DomFortress wrote:


Darkphoenix3450 wrote:

'well yes the Government does not have the right to remove Guns from the people. There are some stipulations that was meant to stop are government from getting to big, and taking over are lives. But then If you take a look at are government it is already to late, they have already stepped over there power limits, and so they will keep doing so and Americans in the most part, will sit there and take it in the ass. You know they will, because they really do not know anything about freedom, they been locked up in the cage, known as the big Government now for way to long.
So can a government that you criticized so negatively trust you with a gun in your hand, when you're blaming the same government for restricting you from doing whatever that you want to do with a gun in your hand?

The same rights and freedoms that you're asking in a legislation are the same for everyone. But while I was thinking about how everyone else relating with me, you're only thinking about yourself as the same as everyone else, aka entitlement.


Look at my other post..

I posted two times, I agree that we are entitle to have guns, but in the same time I do not think we need them.

Guns create a hole lot of crime. Hell I don't even think cops should have the right to have guns.
'In the end ether we ban guns for everyone in the country cops, and all. Or we do not mess at all with are rights.
Every one or no one, that is my stance.
Posted 8/29/09

Darkphoenix3450 wrote:Look at my other post..

I posted two times, I agree that we are entitle to have guns, but in the same time I do not think we need them.

Guns create a hole lot of crime. Hell I don't even think cops should have the right to have guns.
'In the end ether we ban guns for everyone in the country cops, and all. Or we do not mess at all with are rights.
Every one or no one, that is my stance.
I did, which it led me to think that you're someone who lacks authenticity. When you're acting too extreme, while at the same time you're only blaming the system for your own lack of self-control.
18663 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
36 / M / Small Wooded town...
Offline
Posted 8/29/09

DomFortress wrote:


Darkphoenix3450 wrote:Look at my other post..

I posted two times, I agree that we are entitle to have guns, but in the same time I do not think we need them.

Guns create a hole lot of crime. Hell I don't even think cops should have the right to have guns.
'In the end ether we ban guns for everyone in the country cops, and all. Or we do not mess at all with are rights.
Every one or no one, that is my stance.
I did, which it led me to think that you're someone who lacks authenticity. When you're acting too extreme, while at the same time you're only blaming the system for your own lack of self-control.


'I have great self-control, I do not kill yet I own a few guns.' Nor do I get off on having weapons. '
On the same note I believe most people can handle guns and do no harm.
This is where I blame people and a little bit of the government.
One Government needs to put more money into the education system, hell we spend more on are military than the hole rest of the world put together, that money could be used to better are people in the country. It do to the level of immaturity and lack of education from the people that makes me feel that life be better off if All guns was banned inside of America.

Posted 8/29/09

Darkphoenix3450 wrote:'I have great self-control, I do not kill yet I own a few guns.' Nor do I get off on having weapons. '
On the same note I believe most people can handle guns and do no harm.
This is where I blame people and a little bit of the government.
One Government needs to put more money into the education system, hell we spend more on are military than the hole rest of the world put together, that money could be used to better are people in the country. It do to the level of immaturity and lack of education from the people that makes me feel that life be better off if All guns was banned inside of America.
But a militia system is also an institution at one point, when military academies are training normal citizens into various "specialists"; soldiers who are trained to take orders, so they can perform numerous tasks that involve in operations beyond mere survivals.

There are also various religious groups from different ethnic beliefs, who would subdued their followers to perform ritual sacrifices, in what they claimed as "holy wars".

So once again, is an educational system supported by various states of governments the one to blame? When people around the world are constantly being taught into believing whatever that's not originated from themselves, while there are those who don't even care to think on their owns?

I don't think so, for even a soldier was once a person first and foremost. Therefore it's when we stop being responsible for ourselves as a people, that's when no system based on people's ideas will ever work.
20924 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / M / Singapore
Offline
Posted 8/29/09
I dont think the US Government give a very damn about the Constitution.
10652 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
20 / F / Indonesia Raya
Offline
Posted 8/29/09
All of the men within a country are Militia, while the women are for supporting the Militia. Take example of South Korea, all young teenager are compulsory to have military education in purpose something happened to their neighbor. Once it happens, it'll be full-scale war against North Korea, all healthy men must go to war as they've received some military education to win this cold war. All has to participate, no exception.
http://www.nationsencyclopedia.com/United-Nations/Arms-Regulation-and-Disarmament.html

While for guns sold in public place, it's all about business from Arms Industry and government.
Contracts to supply a given country's military are awarded by the government, making arms contracts of substantial political importance. The link between politics and the arms trade can result in the development of what US President Dwight D. Eisenhower described as a military-industrial complex, where the armed forces, commerce, and politics become closely linked. Various corporations, some publicly held, others private, bid for these contracts, which are often worth many billions of dollars..

Also F. A. Hayek mentions in his 1944 book 'The Road to Serfdom' the danger of a support of monopolistic organization of industry from WWII political remnants:

"Another element which after this war is likely to strengthen the tendencies in this direction will be some of the men who during the war have tasted the powers if coercive control and will find it difficult to reconcile themselves with the humbler roles they will then have to play [in peaceful times]."
3229 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M / USA
Offline
Posted 8/30/09 , edited 8/30/09
This is my very easily understood, and customary belief, that I share, empathetically, with more than a few people; It is my belief that any individual with a substantial police record, a multitude of arrests and/or felonies or has been a diligently scrutinized by a psyciatrist or anyone trained in the field of psychiatry. If the gun owner or applicant is under the presumption, or has a pre-existing mental illness such as; sociopathic tendancies, psychopathic outbursts, or have been diagnosed with any other of the numerous brain ailments that suggest they should most likely be disqualified to purchase, own, carry or register any currently non-registered weapons for the time being. (unless already on a stabilizing medication. Or the patient agrees to outpatient mental health treatment and medication if needed). The felons, thieves, gangbangers and archetypical, criminal low lives are going to have to have a plethora of un-registered guns, that they will use chiefly for illicit ordeals and unlawful transaction(robbery).

Out of what I have typed, I can deduce, that in all rational thought and earnestness, it would be, one of our many preeminent interests to re-direct, half of the funds (conservatively) that we are utilizing on the persecution of registered gun owners. Regarding the concern at hand, keeping un-registered firearms off the streets and out of the hand of criminals, crazies and the horrifying unity of the sociopathic/psychopathic; murders and thieves, should be the primary concern of gun control and the Brady act. Utilizing our capitalist economy to make purchases and pump life into our dying market should be one of the very most primal and vital desires of the government and the individuals that are governed by it. Sell the guns to responsible adults who have been screened through the police and mental health centers or hospitals that offer general practitioners whom have studied in psychological medicine. At least yearly or bi-yearly psychological screenings and annual background checks.
HOW DO I GAUGE MYSELF WHEN IT COMES TO A CRIMINAL OWNING A GUN? (criminal meaning a higher level felon that has done time in prison and/or other institutions)


Let’s use this as a hypothetical: The person, whom, at one point in time was a felon, has made the required restitution to the individuals he had affronted in the recent past, and/or the society he had left in discontent. It is possible to become one of the few respectable, model parolees’ that recieves amnesty, which is an indication of a new found virtuousness and repentance for their transgressions and also, his new found resolve, will most likely not allow his egotistical attempts to even be near anything as legally risky as the crimes that befell them in his memorable past. After that is said and done, the judge, the doctor (psychiatrist) and board of individuals that oversee the recipients’ criteria for gun ownership will then look over the, ex-cons’ background information. If the information deliberated on shows that the sensible action would be to okay his second amendment right to buy, own and carry a gun, he could go purchase a weapon, and have it under his inclusive utilization in a little more than a seven days time.

I hope that sum of short paragraphs made pertinent, just a couple ideas: The correlation between people who live in states that adamantly enforce the “BRADY LAW” and do allow guns to be carried outside of homes, for personal safety, demonstrates almost no substantiation at all. In complete contrast, if you were to glance at the statistics of a city with very tight gun control, (Chicago, IL) and one with fairly modest view on gun control. (San Antonio, TX). That is only one of a multitude of instances that validates my point. Guns in the wrong hands are precarious instruments of pain. In the right hands, they may be able to save more lives and hassle than they will inevitably take.
Pertinent idea number 2: The low lives, criminals and killers will always have firearms, amongst various other weapons. It is better to be prepared when it comes down to a life and death scenario between yourself and 1 of the afore mentioned characters.
Alright. Sorry If I sounded out of it. I woke up really early today and I’m, running on fumes from bouts with insomnia. I guess I'll just have to wear my shades to hide my bloody eyes.
10694 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25 / M / USA
Offline
Posted 9/1/09 , edited 9/1/09
yeah i want to actually be able to effectively defend myself. when a guy invades your home with a gun and you only have a kitchen knife, what will you do? call the cops? you might be dead before they arrive. also who will always have guns no matter what the laws says? criminals.
Posted 9/1/09

Darkphoenix3450 wrote:

'As for my opinion on the Guns, we be better off without them. Being as a people we do not need them.


the only thing about guns when it comes to me is, repete or sex offender should not be allowed to own guns at all
You must be logged in to post.