User avatar
By Stinky Pete
#493589
Why do you think they put the "well regulated militia" phrase into that amendment? Does it add anything? Doesn't the amendment mean the same without it?

I think it was put there for a reason, to put a limit around gun access.


Ryan wrote:
Phaedrus wrote:When we work to create a culture that does not honor guns and violence, we will be sending a resonating message. That is the point of laws, not the mechanics. The 2nd Amendment should be repealed.


With the American Revolution fresh in their minds, the founders inserted the 2nd amendment into the Constitution to prevent the government for infringing on our God - given right to defend ourselves. And here we are sum 230 years later, with some idiot taking the position that we should demand that the government remove that right. This folks is the single best example of backwards liberal thinking, on full display, compliments of our resident idiot, Phaedrus

He adds that the point of our laws is to "send a resonating message". Maybe we should just send a strongly worded letter to the shooter's parents encouraging them to take away his cell phone privileges for an entire year. Now that would send a message to potential (high school) shooters all over the nation. "You shoot up your high school, you might loose your phone for a year!"
User avatar
By eriknben10
#493590
Here is the opinion I think explains my position on that small part of the 2nd amendment. Easier than explaining it myself.

https://www.lectlaw.com/files/gun01.htm
User avatar
By Stinky Pete
#493591
That article doesn't really address it at all. Why did they put that phrase in there at all ? Why qualify the amendment? Why not just say "people can have guns. End of story."
User avatar
By eriknben10
#493593
Stinky Pete wrote:That article doesn't really address it at all. Why did they put that phrase in there at all ? Why qualify the amendment? Why not just say "people can have guns. End of story."


I don't know why people don't all do things or say things the way you think they should. I do know that if any outside body comes into my neighborhood, we have a well regulated militia that will protect our dirt. Thanks to the 2nd amendment.

It is an absolute truism that law-abiding, armed citizens pose no threat to other law-abiding citizens. The Framers' writings show they also believed this. As we have seen, the Framers understood that "well regulated" militias, that is, armed citizens, ready to form militias that would be well trained, self-regulated and disciplined, would pose no threat to their fellow citizens, but would, indeed, help to "insure domestic Tranquility" and "provide for the common defense."

On another note. Living in a county that is directly next to one of the deadliest counties in the state, that helps me sleep better at night as well.
User avatar
By Phaedrus
#493597
The 2nd Amendment exists to perpetuate the Southern practice of using militias to suppress slaves. It has nothing to do with maintaining a standing army.
User avatar
By Phaedrus
#493598
Boro Friend wrote:
Phaedrus wrote:Why not? You just consider those kids to be collateral damage.


Don't hide behind those kids. You talk like a fool.


It's always about the victims.
User avatar
By eriknben10
#493602
Phaedrus wrote:The 2nd Amendment exists to perpetuate the Southern practice of using militias to suppress slaves. It has nothing to do with maintaining a standing army.


I think you've solved the problem. To stop these slaves from killing you must take away their right to bear arms. Good luck with that theory. :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

Just exactly how did those states in the south get over on the north and sneak that amendment in anywho?

You know our 2nd amendment was modeled after the Bill of Rights 1689 where the clowns who wrote it came from and had nothing to do with slavery. It's time to move on from your race baiting and catch up with the rest of the world.

You race baiters never quit.
Last edited by eriknben10 on Thu Feb 22, 2018 8:44 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
By Ryan
#493604
So we can safely repeal the 2nd amendment because it was only there to ensure our right to shoot our slaves of we chose to. Is that about right, Phae? You are sick. or brainwashed, I'm not sure which.

for SP
the "well regulated militia". In this context the militia is the army. The reference to regulation is the right of the people to "keep and bear" (store and use) to regulate the army. So they acknowledge that an army is necessary, but fear that the army could use force to one day usurp our god-given rights to freedom. So they explicitly state in an amendment, we agree to allow the government to establish an army, but with one caveat, the people must retain the right the own arms and use them if necessary. Note, they did not say "guns", they said arms, meaning weapons in general. So if an american soldier approaches your home and attempts to confiscate your gun, you can legally defend yourself.

Your 2nd amendment right ensures your right to defend yourself from any threat to your life or liberty, not just any threat to your life.
User avatar
By eriknben10
#493605
You know her silly theory about our 2nd amendment is really out there when you look at history and find the First American guarantee of our right to bear arms was the Pa. Declaration of Rights, Art. XIII (1776) 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.
  • 1
  • 144
  • 145
  • 146
  • 147
  • 148