Know your second amendment rights

[Dave44]

I think the question was just people, not we the people. From the standpoint of the original constitution "we the people" as all constitution rights referred to Caucasian landowning males. Thank goodness that has been "amended" over the years. But it's still debated today, right. Look at the debate about illegal aliens and wether they deserve rights or not. So one can not even say "citizens of the United States". But this is completely open forum so would love to see what constitutional laws you have dug up on the topic. This is free exchange of facts. Best.

Factually since it was amended, The question is who does the bill of rights refer to? As this is your thread I will let you debate yourself on the subject of human rights, but that is a simple avoidance of the question.

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

Cry Of The Eagle: History And Legends Of The Cherokee Indians And Their Buried Treasure - Grab it through Amazon!

[0121stockpicker]

Factually since it was amended, The question is who does the bill of rights refer to? As this is your thread I will let you debate yourself on the subject of human rights, but that is a simple avoidance of the question.

Actually goes beyond the BoR given it was further amendment that granted freedoms and right to vote to large parts of our population - correct. Nevermind a ton of com law such as the american with disabilities act - correct.

My multiple personalities are under control at this point so I'm finding it difficult to debate myself!! Just joking. Thanks for your input. Im sure everyone would like to hear whatever information you have. I started the thread but this is an open forum for everyone to participate.

 

[Dave44]

Are you sure you are not a lawyer? The Bill of Rights does indeed allow for "most of the population" in the US of A to Vote. But that still does not answer the question. So I will rephrase it.
What sector of the worlds population is allowed to vote because of it, guaranteed the rights outlined by it, and how often does it allow the UN to amend it?

 

[0121stockpicker]

Are you sure you are not a lawyer? The Bill of Rights does indeed allow for "most of the population" in the US of A to Vote. But that still does not answer the question. So I will rephrase it.
What sector of the worlds population is allowed to vote because of it, guaranteed the rights outlined by it, and how often does it allow the UN to amend it?

Ok, here is the history if voting and everyone who can vote and pertains nice amendments in law to voting. Right from the Wikipedia so if not clear probably best for you to do your own research on your topic and come back to us. Best.

The issue of voting rights in the United States has been contentious throughout the country's history. Eligibility to vote in the U.S. is determined by both federal and state law. Currently, only citizens can vote in U.S. elections (although this has not always been the case). Who is (or who can become) a citizen is governed on a national basis by federal law. In the absence of a federal law or constitutional amendment, each state is given considerable discretion to establish qualifications for suffrage and candidacy within its own jurisdiction.

When the country was founded, in most states, only white men with real property (land) or sufficient wealth for taxation were permitted to vote. Freed slaves could vote in four states. Unpropertied white men, women, and all other people of color were denied the franchise. At the time of the American Civil War, most white men were allowed to vote, whether or not they owned property. Literacy tests, poll taxes, and even religious tests were used in various places, and most white women, people of color, and Native Americans still could not vote.[1]

The United States Constitution, in Article VI, section 3, states that "no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States." The Constitution, however, leaves the determination of voting qualifications to the individual states. Over time, the federal role in elections has increased through amendments to the Constitution and enacted legislation, such as the Voting Rights Act of 1965.[2] At least four of the fifteen post-Civil War constitutional amendments were ratified specifically to extend voting rights to different groups of citizens. These extensions state that voting rights cannot be denied or abridged based on the following:

Birth - "All persons born or naturalized" "are citizens" of the U.S. and the U.S. State where they reside (14th Amendment, 1868)
"Race, color, or previous condition of servitude" - (15th Amendment, 1870)
"On account of sex" - (19th Amendment, 1920)
In Washington, D.C., presidential elections after 164 year suspension by U.S. Congress (23rd Amendment, 1961)
(For federal elections) "By reason of failure to pay any poll tax or other tax" - (24th Amendment, 1964)
(For state elections) Taxes - (Harper v. Virginia Board of Elections, 383 U.S. 663 (1966))
"Who are eighteen years of age or older, to vote, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of age" (26th Amendment, 1971).
In addition, the 17th Amendment provided for the direct election of United States Senators.

The "right to vote" is not explicitly stated in the U.S. Constitution except in the above referenced amendments, and only in reference to the fact that the franchise cannot be denied or abridged based solely on the aforementioned qualifications. In other words, the "right to vote" is perhaps better understood, in layman's terms, as only prohibiting certain forms of legal discrimination in establishing qualifications for suffrage. States may deny the "right to vote" for other reasons.

For example, many states require eligible citizens to register to vote a set number of days prior to the election in order to vote. More controversial restrictions include those laws that prohibit convicted felons from voting or, as seen in Bush v. Gore, disputes as to what rules should apply in counting or recounting ballots [3]

A state may choose to fill an office by means other than an election. For example, upon death or resignation of a legislator, the state may allow the affiliated political party to choose a replacement to hold office until the next scheduled election. Such an appointment is often affirmed by the governor.[4]

HideMilestones of national franchise extension

Abolition of property qualifications for white men, 1812-1860 — see: Jacksonian democracy
Citizenship in both the U.S. and U.S. States by birth or naturalization, 1868 — see: Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution
Non-white men, 1870 — see: Fifteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution
Direct election of senators, 1913 — see: Seventeenth Amendment to the United States Constitution gave voters rather than state legislatures the right to elect senators[5]
Women, 1920 — see: Nineteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution
Native Americans, 1924 — see:[6]
Residents of the District of Columbia for U.S. Presidential Elections, 1961 — see: Twenty-third Amendment to the United States Constitution
Poor, 1964 — see: Twenty-fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution, prohibiting imposition of poll tax in federal elections
Racial minorities in certain states, 1965 — see Voting Rights Act
Poor, 1966 — see: Harper v. Virginia Board of Elections, 383 U.S. 663 (1966), prohibiting imposition of poll tax or property requirements in all US elections.
Adults between 18 and 21, 1971 — see: Twenty-sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution,[7] were granted the vote in response to Vietnam War protests which argued that soldiers who are old enough to fight for their country should be old enough to vote.[5]
Washington, D.C., for restoring local elections such as Mayor and Councilmen, after 100 year gap in Georgetown, and 190 gap in the wider city, ending Congress's policy of local election disenfranchisement started in 1801 in this former portion of Maryland, 1973, — see: D.C. Home rule
United States Military and Uniformed Services, Merchant Marine, other Citizens overseas, living on bases in the U.S., abroad, or aboard ship, 1986 — see: Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act[8]

Worlds people and UN I have no idea what that has to do with voting rights in the us but please educate us if it does. This forum is for everyone to post factual information pertaining to the second amendment.

 

[302guy]

Molon Labe. Yeah, I'm a knuckle dragger. And I'm not alone. The Constitution stay as is. That's what my money is on.
In order to have peace you propose taking peoples rights by force? Let me know how it works out.

 

[0121stockpicker]

I agree - force is usually not how it happens. Most tyrants are carried into power high on people shoulders to cheering crowds!! That's why we all need to know our constitutional system and how it works or it will be used against you. Dont let yourself be deceived or manipulated by people out for yheir own gains. People on both "sides". Best of luck.

 

[Dave44]

Just trying to Ascertain your views of the Constitution, It is not always easy to debate with someone. Sometimes a debate is not really honest.

For instance, when asked about "the people" in this same context you said "Human Beings"? The fact is, American Citizens was the correct answer. You also brought up "illegal immigrants" by definition they have already broken the law and are felons at large, and not eligible to vote in the US.

There is a big push to say that our constitution is old, outdated and should be thrown out( By the elites), and one way they are pushing for this is for non citizens to have a say. Nevermind we will not have a say in any other countries laws.

 

[0121stockpicker]

Just trying to Ascertain your views of the Constitution, It is not always easy to debate with someone. Sometimes a debate is not really honest.

For instance, when asked about "the people" in this same context you said "Human Beings"? The fact is, American Citizens was the correct answer. You also brought up "illegal immigrants" by definition they have already broken the law and are felons at large, and not eligible to vote in the US.

There is a big push to say that our constitution is old, outdated and should be thrown out( By the elites), and one way they are pushing for this is for non citizens to have a say. Nevermind we will not have a say in any other countries laws.

This forum is about the facts of the constitution and constitutional process not views. I'm not sure if you missed that. No one taking any sides here. And actually you are completely incorrect about your history. For a better part of the life of this country many "American citizens" did not have the right to vote?? Woman, the poor, the uneducated, non-Caucasians were denied the right to vote. So I think you need to amend your "correct answer". And please feel free to post any constitution language if you wish to make a point. That's the goal is to get the facts out there and not people opinions of what the facts are.

 

[Treasure_Hunter]

The only political topic currently allowed is 2nd amendment, put thread back on that topic or it will be locked. Race has nothing to do with 2nd amendment nor do the illegal aliens.

 

[Dave44]

Fist off, I never said anything about race but I did think about nationalities. (I don't think that post made it out of the cutting room, That may be a bit oversensitive.)
Secondly, My History was off? Did I say history? Did you not start off with the fact the constitution has been amended, Picker?

I will tell you the second amendment is a part of a larger bill of rights that are the foundation of American independent sovereignty, despite the political hand-wringing and mangling of its intent. Any AMERICAN that does not like it's intent can work on it, but do it openly. Most hide their intent on this subject.

 

[0121stockpicker]

Just trying to Ascertain your views of the Constitution, It is not always easy to debate with someone. Sometimes a debate is not really honest.

For instance, when asked about "the people" in this same context you said "Human Beings"? The fact is, American Citizens was the correct answer. You also brought up "illegal immigrants" by definition they have already broken the law and are felons at large, and not eligible to vote in the US.

There is a big push to say that our constitution is old, outdated and should be thrown out( By the elites), and one way they are pushing for this is for non citizens to have a say. Nevermind we will not have a say in any other countries laws.

One can always just go join the Taliban if they are looking for a legal system that doesn't change and evolve. Live under never changing sharia law dating back. Some folks are very happy and comfortable in a system like that. Luckily we have patriots in this country that will try and prevent anyone from doing the same with the constitution.

 

[0121stockpicker]

Fist off, I never said anything about race but I did think about nationalities. (I don't think that post made it out of the cutting room, That may be a bit oversensitive.)
Secondly, My History was off? Did I say history? Did you not start off with the fact the constitution has been amended, Picker?

I will tell you the second amendment is a part of a larger bill of rights that are the foundation of American independent sovereignty, despite the political hand-wringing and mangling of its intent. Any AMERICAN that does not like it's intent can work on it, but do it openly. Most hide their intent on this subject.

I completely agree about hidden intent. The good news is that to actually create change it must start making its way through the legal / constitutional process. That's why our FFs in their wisdom created our system of checks and balances. I completely agree that both left and right always have hidden intent.

This is why it is important that citizens understand the process so they can be vigilant - wouldn't you agree?

 

[Dave44]

One can always just go join the Taliban if they are looking for a legal system that doesn't change and evolve. Live under never changing sharia law dating back. Some folks are very happy and comfortable in a system like that. Luckily we have patriots in this country that will try and prevent anyone from doing the same with the constitution.

Yes, I kind of agree with that. But it appears most use the evolving argument to try and bring change when change is not needed. Oh sure, A fast reaction may be wanted because when an event becomes history people may look at and decide that a knee jerk was not the correct course of action after all.
Our Constitution should not be amended easily or rapidly. It was set up that way so that honest debate of the facts will determine the correct course of action.

By the way, "the patriots" you spoke of sound like you are making a statement of change and progression?

 

[Dave44]

Yes Sir Picker. I agree with your post #52!

 

[dejapooh]

REAL Americans do not imply that those who disagree with them are less REAL AMERICAN.

The FACT is,I believe there are enough Real Americans that would stand their ground,PERIOD! GodBless Chris

 

[russdaddy]

And that's an interesting interpretation that you have. We would all love to see any constitutional laws or ruling to back up your interpretation. Thanks in advance. This is the type of information we are looking for to convert opinion/belief into fact. And be armed with the proper facts for all to see.

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.

Is that sufficient for you?

The Court reasoned that the Amendment's prefatory clause, i.e., "[a] well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State," announced the Amendment's purpose, but did not limit or expand the scope of the operative clause, i.e., "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." Moreover, the prefatory clause's history comported with the Court's interpretation, because the prefatory clause stemmed from the Anti-Federalists' concern that the federal government would disarm the people in order to disable the citizens' militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule.

http://constitution.findlaw.com/amendment2/amendment.html

 

[worldtalker]

REAL Americans do not imply that those who disagree with them are less REAL AMERICAN.

Who's implying?

 

[russdaddy]

"I was going to give a snarky comment, but I will save it. Tyranny is any government you do not agree with." dejapooh

saying you have a snarky comment and not using it is alot like saying "i am really smart but too humble to prove it. ".
the 2nd is about as plainly written as it gets and this was done by no accident. Their were colonist that did not want the Revolution, and alot of them took a nice little boat ride back home. If and when the time comes we will all have a choice to make and we'll see what side we all line up on.

and in a way you are right. tyrany is: [B]injustice in the exercise of power or authority over others [/B] & no i do not agree w/ that type of leadership so yes tyrany is any govt that I do not agree w/, if the reason i do not agree with them is in itself the definition of tyrany.

 

[0121stockpicker]

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.

Is that sufficient for you?

The Court reasoned that the Amendment's prefatory clause, i.e., "[a] well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State," announced the Amendment's purpose, but did not limit or expand the scope of the operative clause, i.e., "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." Moreover, the prefatory clause's history comported with the Court's interpretation, because the prefatory clause stemmed from the Anti-Federalists' concern that the federal government would disarm the people in order to disable the citizens' militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule.

http://constitution.findlaw.com/amendment2/amendment.html

Excellent that's right - excellent post and backs up exactly what many of us have been saying - the second WILL NOT be repealed. And you know what that was decided in 2008 so for all those - lets change nothing - you basically got your right in 2008. This this why the second will not be repealed but.... They will come after specific weapons etc - see below. This is why for those who state that "arms" means you can own any gun that is incorrect.

The Court distinguished United States v.Miller,4 in which the Court upheld a statute requiring registration under the National Firearms Act of sawed-off shotguns, on the ground that Miller limited the type of weapon to which the Second Amendment right applied to those in common use for lawful purposes.

 

[russdaddy]

not sure i would quote from Wikepedia...anyone can edit that info at any time.....

Ok, here is the history if voting and everyone who can vote and pertains nice amendments in law to voting. Right from the Wikipedia so if not clear probably best for you to do your own research on your topic and come back to us. Best.

The issue of voting rights in the United States has been contentious throughout the country's history. Eligibility to vote in the U.S. is determined by both federal and state law. Currently, only citizens can vote in U.S. elections (although this has not always been the case). Who is (or who can become) a citizen is governed on a national basis by federal law. In the absence of a federal law or constitutional amendment, each state is given considerable discretion to establish qualifications for suffrage and candidacy within its own jurisdiction.

When the country was founded, in most states, only white men with real property (land) or sufficient wealth for taxation were permitted to vote. Freed slaves could vote in four states. Unpropertied white men, women, and all other people of color were denied the franchise. At the time of the American Civil War, most white men were allowed to vote, whether or not they owned property. Literacy tests, poll taxes, and even religious tests were used in various places, and most white women, people of color, and Native Americans still could not vote.[1]

The United States Constitution, in Article VI, section 3, states that "no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States." The Constitution, however, leaves the determination of voting qualifications to the individual states. Over time, the federal role in elections has increased through amendments to the Constitution and enacted legislation, such as the Voting Rights Act of 1965.[2] At least four of the fifteen post-Civil War constitutional amendments were ratified specifically to extend voting rights to different groups of citizens. These extensions state that voting rights cannot be denied or abridged based on the following:

Birth - "All persons born or naturalized" "are citizens" of the U.S. and the U.S. State where they reside (14th Amendment, 1868)
"Race, color, or previous condition of servitude" - (15th Amendment, 1870)
"On account of sex" - (19th Amendment, 1920)
In Washington, D.C., presidential elections after 164 year suspension by U.S. Congress (23rd Amendment, 1961)
(For federal elections) "By reason of failure to pay any poll tax or other tax" - (24th Amendment, 1964)
(For state elections) Taxes - (Harper v. Virginia Board of Elections, 383 U.S. 663 (1966))
"Who are eighteen years of age or older, to vote, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of age" (26th Amendment, 1971).
In addition, the 17th Amendment provided for the direct election of United States Senators.

The "right to vote" is not explicitly stated in the U.S. Constitution except in the above referenced amendments, and only in reference to the fact that the franchise cannot be denied or abridged based solely on the aforementioned qualifications. In other words, the "right to vote" is perhaps better understood, in layman's terms, as only prohibiting certain forms of legal discrimination in establishing qualifications for suffrage. States may deny the "right to vote" for other reasons.

For example, many states require eligible citizens to register to vote a set number of days prior to the election in order to vote. More controversial restrictions include those laws that prohibit convicted felons from voting or, as seen in Bush v. Gore, disputes as to what rules should apply in counting or recounting ballots [3]

A state may choose to fill an office by means other than an election. For example, upon death or resignation of a legislator, the state may allow the affiliated political party to choose a replacement to hold office until the next scheduled election. Such an appointment is often affirmed by the governor.[4]

HideMilestones of national franchise extension

Abolition of property qualifications for white men, 1812-1860 — see: Jacksonian democracy
Citizenship in both the U.S. and U.S. States by birth or naturalization, 1868 — see: Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution
Non-white men, 1870 — see: Fifteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution
Direct election of senators, 1913 — see: Seventeenth Amendment to the United States Constitution gave voters rather than state legislatures the right to elect senators[5]
Women, 1920 — see: Nineteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution
Native Americans, 1924 — see:[6]
Residents of the District of Columbia for U.S. Presidential Elections, 1961 — see: Twenty-third Amendment to the United States Constitution
Poor, 1964 — see: Twenty-fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution, prohibiting imposition of poll tax in federal elections
Racial minorities in certain states, 1965 — see Voting Rights Act
Poor, 1966 — see: Harper v. Virginia Board of Elections, 383 U.S. 663 (1966), prohibiting imposition of poll tax or property requirements in all US elections.
Adults between 18 and 21, 1971 — see: Twenty-sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution,[7] were granted the vote in response to Vietnam War protests which argued that soldiers who are old enough to fight for their country should be old enough to vote.[5]
Washington, D.C., for restoring local elections such as Mayor and Councilmen, after 100 year gap in Georgetown, and 190 gap in the wider city, ending Congress's policy of local election disenfranchisement started in 1801 in this former portion of Maryland, 1973, — see: D.C. Home rule
United States Military and Uniformed Services, Merchant Marine, other Citizens overseas, living on bases in the U.S., abroad, or aboard ship, 1986 — see: Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act[8]

Worlds people and UN I have no idea what that has to do with voting rights in the us but please educate us if it does. This forum is for everyone to post factual information pertaining to the second amendment.