Derailing? Is that a French term? I can recommend some books on the constitution if you don’t know where to look.
I’ll give you a hint - there are three prominent Virginians who were anti-Federalist who insisted on a Bill of Rights in order to ratify.
Good night, sir.
Actually it is different.
it's not even close.
Nope.
Yes it is.
What looks "close" to you?
The Second Amendment reads as follows: 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.From these words it should be clear that the original intent of the Second Amendment was to ensure that no State passed a law to prohibit the people from owning guns, because that would impede the ability of states to form and maintain militias for the purpose of defending the new country that the Constitution was creating. Because the United States didn’t have, and didn’t want at the time, a standing army (or navy) , militias - that is, well regulated militias, were needed to provide a defense against attack, invasion, and civil unrest.
You’ll recall that President George Washington requested and led the militias sent by several states to put down the Whiskey Rebellion in western Pennsylvania.
The 2A was never about an individual right to own firearms for self defense or to defend against a tyrannical federal government. That idea was created out of thin air by the Supreme Court in the 2008 DC v. Heller decision. This decision was very ironic coming from the strict constructionist and textualist wing of the court.
The 2A as written is firmly obsolete, much like the third amendment prohibiting the quartering of troops in peoples’ houses. The reason of course is that we don’t have well regulated militias anymore.
We have standing armies (and a Navy and Air Force) that makes militias a thing of the past. To make matters worse, guns have become a scourge in America with their numbers exceeding the number of citizens, and were used in the death of nearly 50,000 Americans annually.
That is according to the most recent data from the Center for Disease Control, which tracks the number of gun related deaths including suicides, which accounts for approximately half of all gun deaths in the country.
Perhaps even worse than the number of gun deaths in this country is the fact that guns are the leading cause of death for children in this country. More than car accidents, or drownings, illness or disease. That is a pretty high price to pay for a right that fundamentally doesn’t exist or offer much of a benefit to society. The ownership of weapons of war makes no sense even in the context of the recently invented right to self defense from the Heller decision.
Nobody needs an assault weapon with a 30 round magazine to defend themselves or their homes.
But the proliferation of these kinds of firearms has resulted in mass shootings becoming a common event in the United States in this century and resulting in the deaths of hundreds of people each year in completely random acts of violence.
The 2A needs to be amended, spelling out exactly what should be allowed and for what purpose.
Bad guys will always get guns.
More than that, in order to form a militia for the very purpose history proved effective, citizens needed to be in possession of their own arms.
More than that, in order to form a militia for the very purpose history proved effective, citizens needed to be in possession of their own arms.Been looking for this... Can you please point to me where in the constitution, the federalist papers, or anywhere else the framers discussed this?
It guarantees rights, not grants rights where the BOR are concerned.No LCpl, if that where true, where did the rights come from that the BOR guarantees? There is no real distinction between granting and guaranteeing when it comes to the BOR.
Weird considering how Article II Section 2 of the Constitution says this: “The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States.” If they didn’t want a standing army, they would’ve written it in the Constitution.
Which he had the right to do. To declare war and raise a federal army, Congressional approval was needed. Which sounds easier to you? This action has no reflection on the 2nd Amendment
This is demonstrably false. For example the PA Declaration of Rights in 1776 states this: “That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the state; and as standing armies in the time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; And that the military should be kept under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.
Ok, not knowing how the Founders and Framers felt about standing armies in that period of time is like not knowing that they drew their S like an F in those times.
Because the United States didn’t have, and didn’t want at the time, a standing army (or navy) , militias - that is, well regulated militias, were needed to provide a defense against attack, invasion, and civil unrest. You’ll recall that President George Washington requested and led the militias sent by several states to put down the Whiskey Rebellion in western Pennsylvania.
If you’re denying militias don’t exist, you’re wrong.
A large portion of which were because of suicide, which is a mental health problem.
Washington leading several state militias against the Whiskey Rebellion shows how the state militias were controlled by the Federal government. That was my point and why I included that historical fact.
The 2A is part of the Federal Constitution. How is the PA Declaration of Rights relevant? However, your quote from the PA Constitution does offer support that the Founders didn’t want a standing army in Peace time which you seemed skeptical of in an earlier comment.
Oh really? You mean like the Proud Boys and the 3 Percenters? Those idiots are not a Well Regulated Militia.
Yes, that’s what I wrote earlier. But to not ban assault weapons because it won’t do much to prevent suicides is not the kind of thing reasonable adults do.
And the only time Republicans say they care about mental health is when they are using it to deflect away the need for sensible gun laws.
Suicides aren’t a gun problem, they’re a mental health problem. Fix the depression issues, not guns.
That’s also incorrect. Suicide is often an impulse that will pass if given enough time. An hour, a day, a bad night. If the person in crisis could get past that brief period of extreme sadness or loss of hope or will to live, without accessing a gun, they would likely go on to live - with the right support. But having guns around just reduces the time and opportunity a person has to get the treatment or support they desperately need.
Car accidents account for most deaths of teenagers. Should cars be banned? As I stated, there is historical pretext for Heller.
Maybe. Maybe not. But they definitely need it in case of governmental tyranny. If the founders didn’t own guns themselves, you think they would’ve been able to fight the British?
It takes longer to go buy a gun than it takes to overdose, hang yourself, slit your wrists, etc. Either way, a gun is a tool, not inherently good or bad. The user is responsible. It’s just like Tylenol. It can be good, but it can also be bad.
It's called commonsense. One simply cannot gather the town's citizens and ask them to join the militia if they have no weapons to fight with.The government doesn't have a mass stockpile of 100, 200 or even 300 million weapons to just give to citizens they call to serve in the militia, now does it!
Sure. He also had the option of asking Congress to raise an army for him, which you conveniently omitted. Whether they would’ve agreed or not is a different question.
they could’ve said that, yet they purposefully wrote the ability of the government to maintain a standing army for 2 years at a time. There’s a reason why the government is forced to pass a National Defense Authorization Act every fiscal year. They are constitutionally required to replenish funds every 2 years.
Irrelevant and frankly a misinterpretation of well-regulated. Well-regulated during colonial American meant well-maintained. I digress though. There are various lawful militias.
If you cared about gun deaths, you’d advocate for the banning of handguns since they form a vast majority of gun deaths. From my perspective it’s an emotional argument, not an argument grounded in facts. If your goal was to protect lives you’d be arguing to ban all or guns or at the very least handguns, not the relatively minor problem of “assault weapons” (which don’t even have a definition lol).
That’s a red herring. Society has become soft. If our ancestors that found in WWI and WWII looked at us right now they’d laugh because of all the pronouns and deterioration of nuclear families.
My citation of the PA DoR was in response to your notion that the concept of firearms for the use of self defense was made out of thin air in DC v Heller. It clearly was not. The sentiment was found in colonial America as well. Funny enough, the same representatives that wrote the PA DoR negotiated and voted on the Federsl constitution
We need cars for our society to function. We definitely do not need assault weapons and as I said there is nothing in the 2A that guarantees an individual right to own assault weapons.
It’s idiotic and it’s definitely not what the Founders intended as I have shown before.
Well they don’t have to go buy a gun because there is likely one lying around nearby, either it’s their own gun or a family member or a friend.
All those other things you mentioned are less likely to result in the suicidal person being successful in taking their own life.
But my argument is to ban assault weapons because they are so deadly in mass shootings and there is no good reason for an ordinary citizen to own one.
Preventing suicides in America is another battle for another day. If we don’t have the common sense to ban assault weapons then we deserve what we get. A society where crazy people, of all ages take a weapon of war and indiscriminately gun down a bunch of innocent people, including children. All for what, so some loser can feel like a man with a big dick because the rest of his life is so pathetic.
I omitted it because it is a ridiculous idea. How long would it take to raise an army, train and equip it? How long should these enlistments be for to put down the rebellion? And why do you think this is a valid point worth making here?
This is nonsense. Do you think the “National Defense Authorization Act” was a law made by the Constitution in 1787? That really doesn’t sound like language from the Constitution.
They form a vast majority? Is that right? Assault weapons are a minor problem? Is that right?
You should tell that to the parents of all those children.
You probably thought Covid was a minor problem too. Lol You’re so funny, like the village idiot speaking at the town council.
Tell me what makes you so much tougher than the rest of Society.
They’d definitely laugh at the idiots who voted for Trump. Guys like you.
Didn’t Trump dodge the draft for the Viet Nam war by pretending to have a bone spur and getting a phony doctors note from one of his Dad’s tenants?
What a real man he is. Right? You are so wise to support him. He was going to make America white again!
Not the concept, but the constitutional right was made out of thin air. It simply isn’t there in the words of the Second Amendment the way it appears to be in the PA version.
Did the Supreme Court cite the PA DOR in the Heller decision? I’m guessing no and I’m pretty sure you have no idea.
Did you also know that justice Scalia wrote in Heller the Federal Government absolutely has the right to restrict which type of guns citizens can own and the places they can be carried?
