Posted on 05/28/2022 9:06:56 PM PDT by MinorityRepublican
Leftists want to remove our right and means to defend ourselves.
At best, that would leave us at the mercy of their allies, murderous criminal thugs whose rights and liberties they support far more enthusiastically at ours by removing as much enforcement of law as they can. Murderous criminal thugs may not care much about ideology, but they know which side their bread is buttered on, and who butters it. And it isn’t people who believe in self-defense and the rule of law.
At worst, it would leave us at the mercy of Leftists LIKE THEM who wish to muzzle us and remove our right to defend ourselves...they, who are the ideologic spawn of Communists and Fascists, the most bloodthirsty, evil, and violent mass murderers in all of history, would have us behind barbed wire having our organs harvested one at a time hooked up to ECMO machines, when they aren’t simply lining us up to put bullets in the backs of our heads...just like their heroes, the Communist Chinese.
That is what the Second Amendment is for. Not for hunting. Not for target shooting.
It is to allow citizens to protect themselves from the likes of THEM.
Molon labe.
No court has the power to unilaterally repeal an amendment to the constitution. It would have to be ratified by two/thirds of the states. So 36 state legislatures (voted by the people) would need to repeal the amendment. The collapse of the USA will happen much sooner.
To Mr. Frommer.
No.
I. Will. Not. Comply.
What about the private schools?
Even the Supremes don’t get it: The Bill of Rights does not grant any rights.
In the infamous case of Kelo v. City of New London, the Supreme Court allowed the city of New London, Connecticut to take Susette Kelo’s little pink house (also the name of a very good movie about the case) via eminent domain for the “public use” of furthering economic development in the town’s Fort Trumbull neighborhood. The fight in that case was over the meaning of the words “public use” in the Fifth Amendment’s Takings Clause, and whether the words provide essentially any limit on what a municipality or legislature says is “public use.” In Kelo, one of the major beneficiaries of the Fort Trumbull redevelopment plan was Pfizer, which received tax breaks from the city to build in the neighborhood. Pfizer never actually built anything, and in 2009 it closed its New London facilities. The land is still vacant, with some residents using it for gardening. A community center is now planned for the land.
Stevens' opinions on law and the 2nd Amendment is as useless as Bidet's cerebral cortex.
And why was it important for our Founding Fathers to write the 2nd?
It wasn’t hunting or self defense......................
An armed society is the biggest obstacle to a complete dictatorship and before such a total dictatorship is implemented, the first step is to find ways and means to disarm the public. This process has been implemented time and time again, so it is nothing new. In US this may be somewhat difficult, as the general public is well armed and most people would find ways and means to keep and conceal their firearms. The only way for such a law to succeed would be to find ways to turn the public against firearms, in other words ways would have to be found to rile up the public enough for them to demand restriction of guns or abolish the second amendment altogether.
What better way to do it than to find ways an means to either instigate or promote mass shootings in a roundabout ways, and I do believe that there are enough liberals-socialists including many so called RINOS who are not beyond such a train of thought to do whatever it takes to take guns out of the hands of the general population as the initial step towards a total dictatorship.
For this reason it should not come as a surprise if we would see some more, quite possible and sad to say manufactured mass shootings in the future. On a larger scale for preventing the subjugation of a country by another, similar to imposing a dictatorship is the possession of nuclear weapons in other words if you attack me, we will retaliate and so far this concept pretty well kept a more powerful nation from taking over another less powerful if it was in possession of nuclear arms. I certainly hope our society will never resort to such drastic means of engaging in the exchange of nuclear arms, but unfortunately we have enough crazed war mongering lunatics on either side who would be ready to do so given chance, just like we have enough lunatics who wouldn’t give it a second thought to use incidents of mass shootings as a pretext to remove or restrict the second amendment.
They think these rights are man-made. that is their first mistake. How about we just eliminate the liberals instead?
Phew. Now his opinions mean nothing. Idgit say what?
The last defense against tyranny is an armed citizenry. Molon Labe.
Don’t pack it, get rid of it.
Not correct and not what I imply, just the opposite. The militia to be regulated is the Federal militia. The constitution as written called for a standing Army but still termed as a militia. The states just defeated a standing British Army. The states wanted a way to regulate the Federal militia. The best way to regulate the need for a standing army is to have all the citizens armed, wether or not they are part of a state militia was not the point. When all citizens are armed than you contain and control and regulate a standing federal army from ever subjugating the people.
The states just defeated a standing British Army. The states wanted a way to regulate the Federal militia. The best way to regulate the need for a standing army is to have all the citizens armed, wether or not they are part of a state militia was not the point. When all citizens are armed than you contain and control and regulate a standing federal army from ever subjugating the people.
“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.”
I understand all the commentary in the Federalist Papers and other sources. But I have always given the Framers of the Constitution credit for choosing the language of the final document carefully.
Thus the first clause uses the term Militia, the third uses the term “the People” they could have written “the right of the Militia to keep and bear arms” but used the term People instead. Thus the amendment identifies two distinct and separate entities/groups the Militia and the People.
Also they used the term “not be infringed” not something like “only reasonably regulated” or some other qualifier.
No, the militia were always meant to be a state-level organized body of people with arms who could be pressed into federal service during an emergency. While in federal service, they would still be under the officers appointed by the states, except for the Commander-in-Chief.
Why does the second amendment begin with "...being necessary to a free state..." and not a "free nation?"
It's because the states were the sovereign governments that delegated limited powers to the federal government, one of them being a standing army that was funded for only two years at a time to prevent a despot from abusing it. The states kept the militia to themselves to as a second check on the federal standing army in order to keep the states free.
-PJ
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.