Know your second amendment rights

[0121stockpicker]

"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: injustice in the exercise of power or authority over others & 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.

Russ - if it was as plainly written as it gets why did it take until 2008 to figure out if the second meant individuals or a "militia".
If its so obvious then tell us all the LEGAL meaning of the word "arms". Keep reading ...

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

Agony and Death on a Gold Rush Steamer: The Disastrous Sinking of the Side-Wheeler Yankee Blade - Grab it through Amazon!

[russdaddy]

I understand your comment, but the problem is not in the clarity of its author, but in the reluctance of those who disagree with it to accept it. Those who disagree with this right keep it under constant seige in an attempt to push it aside. It is clearly written. It is also clearly despised by some, most unfortunately our Dictator & cheif Mr. Huessein Obama.

Russ - if it was as plainly written as it gets why did it take until 2008 to figure out if the second meant individuals or a "militia".
If its so obvious then tell us all the LEGAL meaning of the word "arms". Keep reading ...

 

[0121stockpicker]

Just as those who are pro gun read a lot into it. Again that's why we have libraries full of constitutional law to try and make sense of it. Best.

 

[Treasure_Hunter]

If it was just militia they would have just said the right of the militia to keep and bear arms instead of "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed".

The argument on 2nd didn't begin till 1960s. Our Fore fathers left plenty of writings on their thoughts on armed citizens and it was in favor of citizens having the right to keep and bear arms...

 

[worldtalker]

There is no averting what is to come,this surely is NOT the America I grew up in,all them guns and NO paper work,I recon there be quite a few of em around still. Numbers,who knows,but,it is enough to make the Establishment very nervous,the Second Amendment OUR FREEDOM TEETH. I ain't never had to gum my food,and,I ain't starting now! GodBless America once again, Chris

 

[0121stockpicker]

If it was just militia they would have just said the right of the militia to keep and bear arms instead of "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed".

The argument on 2nd didn't begin till 1960s. Our Fore fathers left plenty of writings on their thoughts on armed citizens and it was in favor of citizens having the right to keep and bear arms...

actually you are incorrect - read below ...

Prior to the Supreme Court's 2008 decision in District of Columbia v. Heller,1 the courts had yet to definitively state what right the Second Amendment protected. The opposing theories, perhaps oversimplified, were (1) an "individual rights" approach, whereby the Amendment protected individuals' rights to firearm ownership, possession, and transportation; and (2) a "states' rights" approach, under which the Amendment only protected the right to keep and bear arms in connection with organized state militia units.2 Moreover, it was generally believed that the Amendment was only a bar to federal action, not to state or municipal restraints.3

However, the Supreme Court has now definitively held that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that weapon for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Moreover, this right applies not just to the federal government, but to states and municipalities as well.

In Heller, the Court held that (1) the District of Columbia's total ban on handgun possession in the home amounted to a prohibition on an entire class of "arms" that Americans overwhelmingly chose for the lawful purpose of self-defense, and thus violated the Second Amendment; and (2) the District's requirement that any lawful firearm in the home be disassembled or bound by a trigger lock also violated the Second Amendment, because the law made it impossible for citizens to use arms for the core lawful purpose of self-defense.

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.

 

[releventchair]

If it was just militia they would have just said the right of the militia to keep and bear arms instead of "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed".

The argument on 2nd didn't begin till 1960s. Our Fore fathers left plenty of writings on their thoughts on armed citizens and it was in favor of citizens having the right to keep and bear arms...

To interpret people as meaning militia would mean...we the militia of the united states, in order to form a more perfect union.........

 

[0121stockpicker]

To interpret people as meaning militia would mean...we the militia of the united states, in order to form a more perfect union.........

just thinkit only took them until 2008 to finally settle that!!

 

[packerbacker]

QUOTE:"Just as those who are pro gun read a lot into it."
picker, I don't feel I "read a lot into it". I just don't try to disect it to see if I can possibly construe it to say something it doesn't or to deny it says something that it actually does say. I take it at face value. Reminds me of the Clinton sidestepping statement of "it depends on what your definition of is is".

 

[0121stockpicker]

QUOTE:"Just as those who are pro gun read a lot into it."
picker, I don't feel I "read a lot into it". I just don't try to disect it to see if I can possibly construe it to say something it doesn't or to deny it says something that it actually does say. Reminds me of the Clinton sidestepping statement of "it depends on what your definition of is is".

no one is accusing anyone on this thread. And you have the full right to disect or not disect anything you want. Purpose here is to cut through the opinions, accusations, emotions and just stick with the facts. You can view our constitutional laws however you want but that does not change the fact that the united states of american operates under the constitutional process - love it or hate it. Luckily we live in a country that you are entitled to disect as much or as little as you want. Thats why we will be trying to inform folks of how this system of ours works. Best

 

[bevo]

how about different states trying to make the 23 eo ineffective?

 

[Rebel - KGC]

no one is accusing anyone on this thread. And you have the full right to disect or not disect anything you want. Purpose here is to cut through the opinions, accusations, emotions and just stick with the facts. You can view our constitutional laws however you want but that does not change the fact that the united states of american operates under the constitutional process - love it or hate it. Luckily we live in a country that you are entitled to disect as much or as little as you want. Thats why we will be trying to inform folks of how this system of ours works. Best

Will SOMEONE "Post" the PREAMBLE to the US CONSTITUTION...? It is short & sweet, I knew it complete...
when I was just a young "Giggle; OH!".

 

[0121stockpicker]

how about different states trying to make the 23 eo ineffective?

I dont think that is possible, but I could be mistaken. You might want to do some digging and post what you find. These are not amendments, etc and do not need to be ratified by the states. EO generally are pigging backing an existing law and not creating a "new" law which of course the president can not do. I believe this point is also often misunderstood as plenty of people talk about using EOs to "circumvent". As you can see below that ability ended with truman. Again, anyother great example of why our constitutional law needs to constantly evole. It is didnt, BO would be able to circulvent the const!! Best and let us know what you find.

All presidents beginning with George Washington in 1789 have issued orders which in general terms can be described as executive orders. During the early period of the Republic there was no set form with which such orders were required to comply and consequently such orders varied widely as to form and substance. Until the early 1900s, executive orders went mostly unannounced and undocumented, seen only by the agencies to which they were directed. However, the Department of State instituted a numbering scheme for executive orders in 1907, starting retroactively with an order issued on October 20, 1862, by President Abraham Lincoln. The documents that later came to be known as "Executive Orders" probably gained their name from this document, captioned "Executive Order Establishing a Provisional Court in Louisiana." Until 1952, there were no rules or guidelines outlining what the president could or could not do through an executive order. However, the Supreme Court ruled in Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, 343 US 579 (1952) that Executive Order 10340 from President Harry S. Truman placing all steel mills in the country under federal control was invalid because it attempted to make law, rather than clarify or act to further a law put forth by the Congress or the Constitution. Presidents since this decision have generally been careful to cite which specific laws they are acting under when issuing new executive orders.

 

[packerbacker]

Here ya go reb
Congress of the United States
begun and held at the City of New-York, on
Wednesday the fourth of March, one thousand seven hundred and eighty nine.
THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution.
RESOLVED by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, two thirds of both Houses concurring, that the following Articles be proposed to the Legislatures of the several States, as amendments to the Constitution of the United States, all, or any of which Articles, when ratified by three fourths of the said Legislatures, to be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of the said Constitution; viz.
ARTICLES in addition to, and Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America, proposed by Congress, and ratified by the Legislatures of the several States, pursuant to the fifth Article of the original Constitution.

 

[packerbacker]

The preamble, imo, is showing proof that the Bill of Rights was NOT an afterthought. At the time of the original signing of the constitution it was understood that they hadn't covered everything but, to get it signed in its present state, they agreed that more would be added later. This isn't really just mho, it's what I believe to be one of the FACTS sought after in this thread.

 

[packerbacker]

woops reb, sorry. That is the preamble to the Bill of Rights. I'll look for the other.
Here we go
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

 

[0121stockpicker]

The preamble, imo, is showing proof that the Bill of Rights was NOT an afterthought. At the time of the original signing of the constitution it was understood that they hadn't covered everything but, to get it signed in its present state, they agreed that more would be added later. This isn't really just mho, it's what I believe to be one of the FACTS sought after in this thread.

I believe you are correct.

And hopefully truth is sought on every thread and not just this one - though i have read plenty to the contrary. I think it's one of the biggest problem in today's society. We lie to each other, we lie to ourselves, etc, etc. folks lie do much they no longer recognize truth. we say whatever we need to say to prove our point and/or get our way. Honor and integrality gone like the dodo bird!! Best.

 

[packerbacker]

Might as well throw in the preamble to the Declaration of Indepenence. Some say the preamble consists of only the first sentence but I like the entire section as written. The declaration itself is a bit longer read but worth taking the time to see what their real complaints were.
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. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.

 

[packerbacker]

True again picker but that is the "proper" court finding a law or action unconstitutional. To amend the constitution to restrict or take away what has been thought to be constitutional is saying the constitution is unconstitutional. What did I just say?

 

[0121stockpicker]

Was was a response to someone else, not one of your posts.