Skip to comments.
Debate is Over Concerning This Part of the Second Amendment?
townhall.com ^
| 2/28/2020
| Matt Vespa
Posted on 02/28/2020 6:36:52 PM PST by rktman
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-33 next last
1. Debate about what?
2. See number 1.
The "right" is supposed to be protected from 'infringements' in any manner. Not hard. Of course I didn't attend Hahvahd or Yuhale.
1
posted on
02/28/2020 6:36:52 PM PST
by
rktman
To: rktman
A militia is a civilian army. There can be no “well-regulated militias” if civilians can’t bear arms.
To: rktman
In states like New York,Massachusetts,Kalifornia and now even Virginia you basically have to know a politician to be allowed to have a firearm.When is SCOTUS gonna make clear that “shall not be infringed” applies not only to Federal officials but to state,county and municipal officials as well?
3
posted on
02/28/2020 6:47:40 PM PST
by
Gay State Conservative
(The Rats Can't Get Over The Fact That They Lost A Rigged Election)
To: Telepathic Intruder
militia is ie armed “WE THE PEOPLE”.
4
posted on
02/28/2020 6:50:33 PM PST
by
Secret Agent Man
(Gone Galt; Not Averse to Going Bronson.)
To: rktman
I have always marveled at the notion that the 2nd amendment, part of the Bill of Rights, would be the only one that guarantees a right of the government (militia armaments).
5
posted on
02/28/2020 6:50:36 PM PST
by
cartoonistx
( the feeling of fainting!)
To: rktman
What the Left fails to realize is that “militia” is not the organized forces of the state but the armed civilians. The purpose of the Second Amendment is to guarantee the right of the civilians to keep and bear arms against the tyranny of the armed forces of the state. Do we really have to remind anyone of the actions of the armed civilians against the King’s troops at Concord and Lexington?
6
posted on
02/28/2020 6:53:32 PM PST
by
Petrosius
To: rktman
From Stephen Gutkowski in the article: It’s almost as though the Second Amendment protects people’s rights to have and use guns in part because the founders believed a well-armed populace could form into a military force capable of protecting a free society
This has been my understanding since being a small school boy...How can an ordinary raggamuffin citizen have this understanding, but the leading minds of the left can’t come to the same conclusion...
7
posted on
02/28/2020 6:53:51 PM PST
by
abigkahuna
(How can you be at two places at once when you are nowhere at all?)
To: cartoonistx
To: Gay State Conservative
9
posted on
02/28/2020 6:56:23 PM PST
by
rktman
( #My2ndAmend! ----- Enlisted in the Navy in '67 to protect folks rights to strip my rights. WTH?)
To: rktman
The Second Amendment grants the individual right to keep and bear arms.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
WRONG!
It recognizes a right that pre-existed the Constitution.
10
posted on
02/28/2020 6:57:29 PM PST
by
Lurkinanloomin
(Natural Born Citizens Are Born Here of Citizen Parents_Know Islam, No Peace-No Islam, Know Peace)
To: rktman
The Second Amendment grants the individual right to keep and bear arms.
11
posted on
02/28/2020 6:58:39 PM PST
by
wastedyears
(The left would kill every single one of us and our families if they knew they could get away with it)
To: Lurkinanloomin
Did I accidentally say that? I know better. The government is supposed to guarantee that NO ONE infringes on my rights in this case. Rights are NOT granted.
12
posted on
02/28/2020 6:59:51 PM PST
by
rktman
( #My2ndAmend! ----- Enlisted in the Navy in '67 to protect folks rights to strip my rights. WTH?)
To: wastedyears
Give matt vespa a call then. I know better.
13
posted on
02/28/2020 7:01:03 PM PST
by
rktman
( #My2ndAmend! ----- Enlisted in the Navy in '67 to protect folks rights to strip my rights. WTH?)
To: wastedyears
You are correct, sir!
It states the existence of the right as an established fact, and forbids ALL (I say again ALL, not just governmental) infringements!
The signage on my local mall prohibiting firearms is an unconstitutional infringement.
14
posted on
02/28/2020 7:02:28 PM PST
by
ExGeeEye
(For dark is the suede that mows like a harvest.)
To: rktman
To: ExGeeEye
§ 1890. The importance of this article will scarcely be doubted by any persons, who have duly reflected upon the subject. The militia is the natural defence of a free country against sudden foreign invasions, domestic insurrections, and domestic usurpations of power by rulers. It is against sound policy for a free people to keep up large military establishments and standing armies in time of peace, both from the enormous expenses, with which they are attended, and the facile means, which they afford to ambitious and unprincipled rulers, to subvert the government, or trample upon the rights of the people. -Supreme Court Justice, Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution
16
posted on
02/28/2020 7:20:40 PM PST
by
lizma2
To: rktman
I know that you know better, but obviously Matt Vespa does not.
17
posted on
02/28/2020 7:28:17 PM PST
by
Lurkinanloomin
(Natural Born Citizens Are Born Here of Citizen Parents_Know Islam, No Peace-No Islam, Know Peace)
To: Gay State Conservative
When Trump gets to replace even one of the Gang of Four....which is what has Leftists so worried.
18
posted on
02/28/2020 7:32:17 PM PST
by
FLT-bird
To: rktman
The Second Amendment grants the individual right to keep and bear arms. Sorry Matt. Your ignorance is showing.
2A does NOT "grant" us any right. It tells the government that it cannot abridge our natural, God given right to self protection and bearing arms.
It really, really pisses me off when people who ought to know better claim we derive our right to arms and self protection from a document. A document whose purpose is to put the government on notice that it cannot restrict a natural right of man. Saying that implies that were the document changed (repealed) we would no longer possess that right. Absolutely not!
19
posted on
02/28/2020 7:54:29 PM PST
by
ChildOfThe60s
(If you can remember the 60s........you weren't really there)
To: Gay State Conservative
They already did in McDonald which incorporated the 2nd Amendment. The problem is they refuse to clarify the different interpretations in applying that incorporation. By taking in new cases they wade into the legal thickets of reasonable vs allowable restrictions, strict vs. ordinary review, public necessity vs emergency. They havent hesitated as much in 1st and 4th Amendment cases. It is a hot potato that they do want to touch, i.e. they are cowards.
No different than all Dems and Repubs in Congress that could freely legislate because of the incorporation. But then you also have Trump promoting more gun control than Obama with his illegal bump stop ban and support for red-flag laws with the NRA hiding these facts.
Because we have only cowards at the national level, incorporation advances has to come at the state level. There gun rights wins some (i.e. states with Constitutional Carry) and lose alot ( i.e. the Virginias, New Yorks and Californias, etc.).
As a result millions of gun owners have their rights infringed and there is nothing being done. This will continue with only civil disobedience an option. Gun owners avoid open disobedience as they do not want the risk of felony convictions.
You really dont have a right if you allow it to be infringed.
20
posted on
02/28/2020 8:19:53 PM PST
by
Badboo
(Why it is important)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-33 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson