The Bastardization of the Second Amendment

[esmith]

The Framers wrote what they meant. They didn't include a right to possess guns for purposes of self-defense or to slaughter innocent animals. You need to put down your gun long enough to comprehend the plain language of the sentence.

Guess you can't or refuse to read or understand what I said.
Therefore I will make it simple for you since that seems the only thing you can understand

I will not agree with anything you say. I will only believe what the Framers meant from them directly. In other words since they are dead you are out of luck. Go peddle your junk elsewhere.

 

[Nous]

I will only believe what the Framers meant from them directly.

Then you'll need to learn to read and comprehend what they communicated directly to us.

 

[Falvlun]

Guess you can't or refuse to read or understand what I said.
Therefore I will make it simple for you since that seems the only thing you can understand

I will not agree with anything you say. I will only believe what the Framers meant from them directly. In other words since they are dead you are out of luck. Go peddle your junk elsewhere.

Well that's pretty unreasonable.

Especially seeing as you hold beliefs regarding the 2nd Ammendment that don't meet such a standard.

@Nous actually presented a rather fact-based argument. You can disagree with it, but not by labeling it mere opinion. It was based on the literal text of the Ammendment as well as contemporary sources.

 

[tytlyf]

Guess you can't or refuse to read or understand what I said.
Therefore I will make it simple for you since that seems the only thing you can understand

I will not agree with anything you say. I will only believe what the Framers meant from them directly. In other words since they are dead you are out of luck. Go peddle your junk elsewhere.

You think the NRA is an honest resource for 2A explanations? Nobody has to be in the presence of the framers to know what they meant, they wrote it down.
Just because you don't like something, doesn't mean you can re-write history.

 

[Skwim]

And the alt-left feeds off the rantings of the clueless anti-gun minions.

​

.

 

[esmith]

Then you'll need to learn to read and comprehend what they communicated directly to us.

Which medium are you going to?

 

[Mister Emu]

The founders had no concept of automatic weapons or even semi automatic pistols. They never had to deal with kids shooting up schools. They obviously framed it as, "because we need people armed for the militia, they have the right to own guns." Okay, but we have no regulated militia and the problems we face didn't even exist in their day.

If only the founders had included a method by which the supreme law of the land could be updated or clarified for modern usage...

The 2nd Amendment's prefatory and operative clauses apparently cause needless confusion. Some people operate on the assumption that there follows the "right of the people to keep and bear arms" an unsaid addendum "only for militia purposes" while others operate that the unwritten addendum is "for any lawful action". Some people are a bit mental and think the thing means we should have tanks and rockets (definitely the most fun interpretation).

We should fix it.

 

[esmith]

Well that's pretty unreasonable.

Especially seeing as you hold beliefs regarding the 2nd Ammendment that don't meet such a standard.

@Nous actually presented a rather fact-based argument. You can disagree with it, but not by labeling it mere opinion. It was based on the literal text of the Ammendment as well as contemporary sources.

I have never have been accused of being reasonable under certain circumstances, so why start now.

As far as the statement "based on the literal text of the Amendment(my correction) as well as contemporary sources" I find that to be invalid since other learned source disagree. Just who are these "contemporary" sources.? As if I didn't have a good idea.

I'll take the current SCOTUS ruling on the issue and with further appointments to possible vacancies on the Supreme Court I don't see any changes forthcoming. As you all well know a tide of firearm rights are sweeping across this country.

 

[Underhill]

If only the founders had included a method by which the supreme law of the land could be updated or clarified for modern usage...

The 2nd Amendment's prefatory and operative clauses apparently cause needless confusion. Some people operate on the assumption that there follows the "right of the people to keep and bear arms" an unsaid addendum "only for militia purposes" while others operate that the unwritten addendum is "for any lawful action". Some people are a bit mental and think the thing means we should have tanks and rockets (definitely the most fun interpretation).

We should fix it.

I would agree but it won't happen anytime soon. Everyone is too entrenched on the issue. We had multiple school shootings and the only response we heard from half of congress was essentially, "**** happens"...

It's a sad state of affairs.

 

[Underhill]

I have never have been accused of being reasonable under certain circumstances, so why start now.

As far as the statement "based on the literal text of the Amendment(my correction) as well as contemporary sources" I find that to be invalid since other learned source disagree. Just who are these "contemporary" sources.? As if I didn't have a good idea.

I'll take the current SCOTUS ruling on the issue and with further appointments to possible vacancies on the Supreme Court I don't see any changes forthcoming. As you all well know a tide of firearm rights are sweeping across this country.

They were thanks to fear mongering under Obama. I doubt that trend will continue until another democrat is in the white house and the propaganda can be ratcheted up again.

But you are right. Nothing is likely to change.

 

[esmith]

They were thanks to fear mongering under Obama. I doubt that trend will continue until another democrat is in the white house and the propaganda can be ratcheted up again.

Any new Federal firearm laws that restrict existing firearm laws will be challenged in the SCOTUS and as it stands now the SCOTUS leans toward those ideas expressed by those opposed to the anti-gun groups.

 

[Falvlun]

As far as the statement "based on the literal text of the Amendment(my correction) as well as contemporary sources" I find that to be invalid since other learned source disagree. Just who are these "contemporary" sources.? As if I didn't have a good idea.

Ah, so you didn't bother to read @Nous's post:

"The parallels between the Second Amendment and these state declarations, and the Second Amendment’s omission of any statement of purpose related to the right to use firearms for hunting or personal self-defense, is especiallystriking in light of the fact that the Declarations of Rights of Pennsylvania and Vermont did expressly protect such civilian uses at the time. Article XIII of Pennsylvania’s 1776 Declaration of Rights announced that “the people have a right to bear arms for the defence ofthemselves and the state,” 1 Schwartz 266 (emphasis added); §43 of the Declaration assured that “the inhabitants of this state shall have the liberty to fowl and hunt in seasonable times on thelands they hold, and on all other landstherein not inclosed,” id., at 274. AndArticle XV of the 1777 VermontDeclaration of Rights guaranteed “[t]hatthe people have a right to bear arms forthe defence of themselves and the State.”Id., at 324 (emphasis added). The contrastbetween those two declarations and theSecond Amendment reinforces the clearstatement of purpose announced in theAmendment’s preamble. It confirms that the Framers’ single-minded focus incrafting the constitutional guarantee “to keep and bear arms” was on military uses of firearms, which they viewed in thecontext of service in state militias."

The other state constitutions, written at the same time, explicitly stated the rights of hunting and defense using firearms. So why didn't the federal Constitution contain it? Why did they only talk about firearm rights in reference to a well-regulated militia? It's wasn't because they didnt have the foresight or didn't consider it, since after all, their contemporaries did include it.

I'll take the current SCOTUS ruling on the issue and with further appointments to possible vacancies on the Supreme Court I don't see any changes forthcoming.

Oh, and how many Framer's have the Supreme Court Justices spoken with?

 

[esmith]

.
Oh, and how many Framer's have the Supreme Court Justices spoken with?

As far as past Supreme Court Justices possibly, depending on whether you believe in an afterlife. As far as current Supreme Court Justices, you will have to ask them. However, as the Amendment is written and SCOTUS has given their decision there is no reason for them to do so. It stands as stated.

 

[Falvlun]

As far as past Supreme Court Justices possibly, depending on whether you believe in an afterlife. As far as current Supreme Court Justices, you will have to ask them. However, as the Amendment is written and SCOTUS has given their decision there is no reason for them to do so. It stands as stated.

In other words: our arguments must be backed by talking with dead people. But your arguments can be backed the normal way, with evidence, reason, opinion, etc. This may be the most glaring case of double standards I have ever seen.

 

[Underhill]

Any new Federal firearm laws that restrict existing firearm laws will be challenged in the SCOTUS and as it stands now the SCOTUS leans toward those ideas expressed by the anti-gun groups.

Sure, I was talking about the numbers of terrified morons out there arming themselves for the inevitable ban...

 

[Falvlun]

Sure, I was talking about the numbers of terrified morons out there arming themselves for the inevitable ban...

It's glorious: my fiancé is doing an AR build right now because prices are rock bottom. Everyone was frantically buying them during the Obama years because of a ban that never happened, and the prices went through the roof. Prices have since crashed to a third of what they were.

Though, honestly, he (my fiancé) is more worried about Trump going full out military law, hence why he wants guns now. I guess we all have our pet conspiracy theories.

 

[esmith]

Edited my post this AM, to read "SCOTUS leans toward those ideas expressed by those opposed to the anti-gun groups." vice "leans toward those ideas expressed by the anti-gun groups"
"

 

[esmith]

Sure, I was talking about the numbers of terrified morons out there arming themselves for the inevitable ban...

So you are lumping all firearm owners under the idea that they are all terrified morons or just those of us who have a collection of firearms?
Using your logic(?) I could say that those that support the ideas of the alt-left are terrified morons since I would be using the same logic(?) you do.

 

[esmith]

It's glorious: my fiancé is doing an AR build right now because prices are rock bottom. Everyone was frantically buying them during the Obama years because of a ban that never happened, and the prices went through the roof. Prices have since crashed to a third of what they were.

Though, honestly, he (my fiancé) is more worried about Trump going full out military law, hence why he wants guns now. I guess we all have our pet conspiracy theories.

Then there are those of us who see a glut in the firearm market and are taking advantage of good deals while they last.

 

[tytlyf]

Then there are those of us who see a glut in the firearm market and are taking advantage of good deals while they last.

Fear is a good selling tool. For 8 years the NRA scared people about Obama and his 'regime.' So what did they do? Raised the prices based on demand.

Now, the NRA can't really sell fear like they did with the Obama years. So they're working with ammo/weapon manufacturers to reduce prices. The price gouging years are over, but I'd expect the gun lobbyists to 'up the fear' if another democrat is in office. It's a good sales technique, although deceitful.