2nd Amendment pretty much dead in Cali

[p_rehbein]

People should educate themselves about the NRA....what it is, what it supports, and what it opposes.

EXCERPT:

The National Rifle Association of America (NRA) is an American nonprofit organizationwhich advocates for gun rights.[SUP][3][/SUP][SUP][5][/SUP][SUP][6][/SUP] Founded in 1871, the group has informed its members about firearm-related bills since 1934, and it has directly lobbied for and against legislation since 1975.[SUP][7][/SUP] It is also the oldest continuously operating civil rights organization in the United States.[SUP][8]


[/SUP]National Rifle Association - Wikipedia, the free...

 

[Bushido8000]

People should educate themselves about the NRA....what it is, what it supports, and what it opposes.

EXCERPT:

The National Rifle Association of America (NRA) is an American nonprofit organizationwhich advocates for gun rights.[SUP][3][/SUP][SUP][5][/SUP][SUP][6][/SUP] Founded in 1871, the group has informed its members about firearm-related bills since 1934, and it has directly lobbied for and against legislation since 1975.[SUP][7][/SUP] It is also the oldest continuously operating civil rights organization in the United States.[SUP][8]


[/SUP]National Rifle Association - Wikipedia, the free...

Yet it endorses Donald Trump who fully supports the confiscation of semi-automatic "assault weapons"

 

[hornetguy]

The 2nd Amendment does not say the right of the individual to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, but the rather the right of the state to keep and maintain well regulated militia shall not be infringed.

Since the Amendments are the supreme law of the land, Article V establishes the method by which the Constitution can be amended. Seems ironic that all those who claim their Constitutional right to bear arms have no problem with laws that prohibit other individuals from the same right they claim for themselves.

So if the right of individual to bear arms shall not be infringed then until the Constitution is amended then each and every citizen of the United States would be entitled under the Constitution to bear arms. Yet has the U.S. Constitution been amended? No, but all citizens are not allowed to bear firearms.

Since Congress has enacted legislation by the powers granted under Article 1, Section 8 to prohibit certain citizens from owning firearms then regardless of the intent of the legislation, it should be of little consequence to those who claim that the Constitution guarantees the right of gun ownership to the individual unless they can show where the Constitution has been amended in accordance with Article V to prevent certain individuals from owning firearms?

Then if you can't, then if you affirm that certain citizens are not entitled to the Constitution right of gun ownership then it should be of little consequence that if one person can be denied the right then all people can be denied the right by the same legislative process.

You are absolutely wrong about who the 2nd is talking about, but I don't have time right now to show you your error... going to see the grandkid. I'll straighten you out when I get back...

 

[p_rehbein]

The 2nd Amendment does not say the right of the individual to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, but the rather the right of the state to keep and maintain well regulated militia shall not be infringed.

Not sure where you get your information, but the 2nd Amendment says:

Amendment II

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.


The Second Amendment (Amendment II) to the United States Constitution protects the right of the people to keep and bear arms and was adopted on December 15, 1791, as part of the first ten amendments contained in the Bill of Rights.[SUP][1][/SUP][SUP][2][/SUP][SUP][3][/SUP][SUP][4][/SUP] The Supreme Court of the United States has ruled that the right belongs to individuals,[SUP][5][/SUP][SUP][6][/SUP] while also ruling that the right is not unlimited and does not prohibit all regulation of either firearms or similar devices.[SUP][7][/SUP] State and local governments are limited to the same extent as the federal government from infringing this right per the incorporation of the Bill of Rights.
The Second Amendment was based partially on the right to keep and bear arms in English common law and was influenced by the English Bill of Rights of 1689. Sir William Blackstone described this right as an auxiliary right, supporting the natural rights of self-defense, resistance to oppression, and the civic duty to act in concert in defense of the state.[SUP][8]

Second Amendment to the United States Constitution...[/SUP]

 

[hornetguy]

The 2nd Amendment does not say the right of the individual to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, but the rather the right of the state to keep and maintain well regulated militia shall not be infringed.

p_rehb is on the correct track.... even highlighted the pertinent part.

If you read all of the amendments, most, if not all, specify the "right of THE PEOPLE...."... this is speaking directly about individual citizens.

If that were not so, then the 1st article could be "interpreted" to say that the only people that have free speech are the press.

These articles were written using VERY specific language, after they were written, then re-written, and re-written again, with the express purpose of getting it EXACTLY the way they intended.

The language used is specific, and precise, and is referencing ALL citizens.

I recommend (again) that you read the Federalist Papers that pertain to the 2nd.... it will open your eyes as to the INTENT of the founders, and when the 2nd is read with that knowledge, there is no way anyone could mistake what it says.

The way I read it is..... since a well regulated militia is necessary to ensure that our "state" remains free, and we all remain in a free state of being, the right for all citizens to keep and bear the arms necessary to fight a war shall not be infringed in any way.

"Here endeth the lesson"

 

[Utah]

The 2nd Amendment does not say the right of the individual to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, but the rather the right of the state to keep and maintain well regulated militia shall not be infringed.

Since the Amendments are the supreme law of the land, Article V establishes the method by which the Constitution can be amended. Seems ironic that all those who claim their Constitutional right to bear arms have no problem with laws that prohibit other individuals from the same right they claim for themselves.

So if the right of individual to bear arms shall not be infringed then until the Constitution is amended then each and every citizen of the United States would be entitled under the Constitution to bear arms. Yet has the U.S. Constitution been amended? No, but all citizens are not allowed to bear firearms.

Since Congress has enacted legislation by the powers granted under Article 1, Section 8 to prohibit certain citizens from owning firearms then regardless of the intent of the legislation, it should be of little consequence to those who claim that the Constitution guarantees the right of gun ownership to the individual unless they can show where the Constitution has been amended in accordance with Article V to prevent certain individuals from owning firearms?

Then if you can't, then if you affirm that certain citizens are not entitled to the Constitution right of gun ownership then it should be of little consequence that if one person can be denied the right then all people can be denied the right by the same legislative process.

Wrong answer on the right of the people to bear arms.

Try again, Moonbeam.

 

[Sirk]

Wrong answer on the right of the people to bear arms.

Try again, Moonbeam.

Case and point that civics classes are no longer taught in school and have been replaced by graduations where everyone gets to be valedictorian.

 

[peacenik]

Thomas Jefferson demanded that there be no standing army and that the nation be protected by armed militias. Therefore, if you are going with the original intent, you need to say that the Pentagon be dissolved. If you are a true conservative, that is one who is conservative in principle and in practice this is what you would demand.



[FONT=&quot]"Standing armies [are] inconsistent with [a people's] freedom and subversive of their quiet."

[/FONT][FONT=&quot]"The spirit of this country is totally adverse to a large military force."

[/FONT][FONT=&quot]"A distinction between the civil and military [is one] which it would be for the good of the whole to obliterate as soon as possible."


[/FONT][FONT=&quot]"None but an armed nation can dispense with a standing army. To keep ours armed and disciplined is therefore at all times important, but especially so at a moment when rights the most essential to our welfare have been violated."




[/FONT]"When governments fear the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government."[FONT=&quot]

[/FONT]

 

[p_rehbein]

That's fine, but Jefferson was not the ONLY FOUNDING FATHER, nor the LAST WORD. And, if one reads about Jefferson's Presidency, see what he thought about a powerful Military then.

The 2nd Amendment had ONE reason for being added to the Constitution, and that was to ensure that THE PEOPLE had the ability to defend themselves against an overbearing, tyrannical Central Government.

The 2nd Amendment was ALWAYS intended to assure the RIGHTS of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms.

 

[peacenik]

The 2nd Amendment was ALWAYS intended to assure the RIGHTS of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms.

Actually, that is the point I was trying to make.

 

[hornetguy]

Actually, that is the point I was trying to make.

Then, we are all in agreement, except zmouth.... correct?

Any infringement on "the people's" right to keep and bear arms is un-constitutional.... correct?

 

[Desdichado]

I'll drop this here.

[video=youtube;MW_noXjj6w8]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MW_noXjj6w8[/video]

 

[p_rehbein]

Pick up your droppings, thanks.

 

[peacenik]

Then, we are all in agreement, except zmouth.... correct?

Any infringement on "the people's" right to keep and bear arms is un-constitutional.... correct?

That is correct.


The 2d Amendment CLEARLY states, '' "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."


While this Amendment was primarily designed to limit the Federal government's limitations upon people, the 13-15th Amendments strengthen restrictions against the state authority over individuals. This was the original intent of Congressman Bingham of Ohio who was the principle drafter of those Amendments.