They can debate all they want...the meaning (intent) in this particular case is quite clear and unequivocal.

They can debate all they want...the meaning (intent) in this particular case is quite clear and unequivocal.

according to what source?

any fair and reasonable man who understands the intent behind it.

more circular logic,,,


its 'reasonable' to me that weapons have some regulations,, its also reasonable to millions of others


that is not so 'unequivocal'

more circular logic,,,

its 'reasonable' to me that weapons have some regulations,, its also reasonable to millions of others

That's OK…We understand.



Some pretty strange things can seem reasonable to people who live in an asylum. Strangely enough, you could probably get majority votes on all kinds of insane things, so what is reasonable to you leaves open the question of how reasoning your mind is and whether or not you feel millions of others might share what might be irrational reasoning on your part is not necessarily an indication that they are either rational or irrational, but that point is meaningless anyway. You live in a republic, not a democracy.

If you favour mob rule, you are quite entitled to your opinion, but it doesn't change the reality that you live in a republic that is SUPPOSED to respect the Rule of Law.

If you re-read the second amendment, you will see that it is the militia that should be well-regulated, NOT their weaponry.

That is the simple truth, and it is quite "unequivocal" to spite your irrational belief that it is not.

and how do you 'regulate' a militia exactly

this should be interesting


would regulating said militia EXCLUDE the ability to regulate what weaponry they should use?

The militia is the people themselves, and they stand OVER their "government" because it is the people that properly ARE the government. Therefore, the militia REGULATES ITSELF. Consequently, it is that militia (the people) that determines what weaponry it needs to be competent.

wow

so the people are regulating their own weapons to decide which weapons they need to combat against the people?


,,ok,, thats logical,,,

this phrase

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


is implying that there is an AUTHORITY which may try to infringe upon rights

if the right is granted to the PEOPLE, how much sense does it make that the authority in question is also the people?


how can one infringe upon oneself?


makes no sense

10th amendment


The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.



clearly, the UNITED STATES, its STATES, and its PEOPLE

are considered THREE SEPERATE issues throughout the constitution...

As some of you may know, Senator Feinstein has proposed some rather draconian anti-gun legislation clearly at odds with the Second Amendment.

http://theintelhub.com/2012/12/28/alert-legislation-details-senate-to-ban-hundreds-of-semiautomatic-rifles-handguns-shotguns-magazines/


There is now a petition up to have her Tried for treason:

http://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/try-senator-dianne-feinstein-federal-court-treason-constitution/TVq4dXPg

This may be the chance for the people to get redress for their grievances.

The constitution, like most legal documents, is not sacrosanct. It is not written in stone like the "Ten Commandments". The law is a living thing, not a dead language like Latin. It was meant to be amended.

And to have amendments rescinded by the will of the people. Look at the bill of rights, which was added later, and the nineteenth amendment banning the sale of alcohol which was passed and later taken off, and the amendment giving women the right to vote.
To suggest that a legislator is committing treason for trying to change gun rights is beyond ludicrous.

I think the people in a lot of "other countries" are saying that the US government should mind its own backyard & stay out of theirs. (or haven't you noticed that it has 800 manned military bases and several wars of aggression going all over the world?)

Actually, a very poor case can be made the the militia is what you say. The intent from many writings from that era by the framers of the Constitution make it clear that the purpose was to keep all the population armed to protect against the government reaching for power.

The Bill of Rights is intentionally NOT vague to prevent the government from stripping the powers given to the citizens and was added for specifically for that purpose. The basic rights of the people given in the bill of rights was everything but flexible and organic.

I'm upset because you have a constitution that any nation would give its eyeteeth for, and you have let your government turn it into toilet paper before your eyes. The second amendment is all that stands between you and a complete gestapo state that a Hitler or Stalin could only dream of.

Obama also needs to be tried for treason for being on the un board which is very clealy stated in law that no american office holder can be an active member of such a group, and there is nothing vague about the second amendment wake up people we lose our guns then we are slaves.

I saw an interview with Feinstien last week where she raved about the assault weapon used in the recent slayings and how assault weapons had no "hunting" purpose. (hunting was not the purpose of the second amendment)

It doesn't matter what they were talking about in 1775. This is what they are talking about now.

http://www.awrm.org/Gear.htm

I saw an interview with Feinstien last week where she raved about the assault weapon used in the recent slayings and how assault weapons had no "hunting" purpose. (hunting was not the purpose of the second amendment)

Below is the verbatim text of the proposed action against Feinstein.

We petition the Obama Administration to:

Try Senator Dianne Feinstein in a Federal Court For Treason To The Constitution


The Constitution was written to restrain the government. No amendment is more important for this purpose than the 2nd amendment. The 2nd amendment was written so the power could be kept with the citizenry in the face of a tyrannical government. It was well understood the Constitution acknowledged certain rights that could not be limited by government.

Senator Dianne Feinstein has made it clear she does not believe in the Constitution or the inalienable rights of Americans to keep and bear arms. She is actively working to destroy the 2nd amendment with her 2013 assault weapons ban. For this reason we the people of the United States petition for her to be tried in Federal Court for treason to the Constitution. …

Wow, it is amazing that so many of our citizens do not know the difference between a law and the Constitution and how the Constitution can only be changed by Amendment, not a law. Federal laws are passed by the house and senate and with or without the signature of the President.

look REGULATE is right in the text of the consitution,,,lol

congressional version: 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.

And what was meant by the term "militia"?

I agree, the bill that Senator Feinstein intends is to stop the sale, transfer, importation and manufacturing of military-style assault weapons and high-capacity ammunition feeding devices.

How could that possibly be conceived as treason?

what makes anyone think that privately owned hand guns and rifles of American citizens would be a match for the largest, most technically advanced military complex in the world?

It wouldn’t take much for any insurrection in the private sector to be declared terrorist acts – how foolish does one have to be to think that such an ‘insurrection’ would stand a chance against the (American) military turned against them. ????

What purpose did the ‘State’s privately armed Militias’ serve in the Whiskey Rebellion?

You are wrong, a variety of handguns and rifles, which include antiques and those that are non-functional, (even at 300 million) with a limited private supply of bullets, would NEVER be called into a single minded force. If that were the case, then this constitution “that any nation would give its eyeteeth for” would not be in any danger as we have many pathways to change or prevent legislation in a peaceful manner.

Any attempt to become violent would be crushed by our professionally trained military.

And the second amendment is vague because the terms and conditions under which it was enacted are different today. That means we must relate to that amendment differently but in order to do that we have to apply the current terms and conditions that have changed since the inception of the amendment.

how many types of guns were there in the late 1780’s

The first sentence of this petition is blatant misinformation.

What is really amazing is how many people buy totally distorted views of history only to become easily led by propaganda.

We currently have many pathways to change what we don’t like and they require a huge presence of the population in order to sway opinion and change laws.

"Reread that pesky first clause of the Second Amendment. It doesn't say what any of us thought it said. What it says is that infringing the right of the people to keep and bear arms is treason. What else do you call an act that endangers "the security of a free state"? And if it's treason, then it's punishable by death.
I suggest due process, speedy trials, and public hangings."
-L. Neil Smith

____________________

December 29, 2012
Sam Colt and the Law of Self-Preservation
By Glenn Fairman

"God made man but Sam Colt made them equal."

It is said that the 2nd Amendment follows hard upon the 1st so as to serve as its bodyguard -- providing the added incentive of coercive force by a wary citizenry to guarantee that those initial cherished liberties, expounded by our Founders, did not go the way of the 10th Amendment. The 2nd Amendment, interpreted as the right to bear arms by a free people, has not escaped that yawning chasm that has opened up between the political Right and Left, and the rationale behind this stratification falls along the same familiar tensions of individual vs. collective. The nature of men, having proved insufficient in wisdom for the eradication of evil, must then paradoxically utilize the equalization of deadly force to not only suppress the jaundiced glint in our neighbor's eye but the tyranny that arises when men esteem the chimera of ordered equality over liberty.

Of all laws that are deemed to have their origin in nature, the Law of Self-Preservation is indeed the most fundamental. Each person, ceteris paribus, has been deemed to have an a priori right to guard the sanctity and value of their life through any means necessary, assuming their attitude is one of general peace with men and not of the character of brigands. The friction arises with the inherent inequality of humanity, evidenced in their disparate size, strength, and stature. Now, while defensively brandishing a knife or cudgel poses a strong inducement in mounting one's stout defense of life or property, the use of a firearm has irrevocably changed the dynamic relationship between both predator and victim. Since criminals, from the dullest to the most sophisticated, are deeply concerned with maintaining both their own freedom and their "skin," more than a passing thoughtful consideration is generally weighed within a criminal's nefarious equation when deciding whom he shall next fall upon.

Assuming that the above statement is true, it would seem logical that municipalities or states whose concealed and open carry gun laws were the most relaxed would be the same areas which would have the lowest rates per capita of crimes either committed with force, or through the threat of deadly force. Therefore, should we be surprised that national statistics bear this position out? Conversely, regions that have severely forbidden either the sale of handguns or the lawful concealment thereof should reflect elevated levels of crimes against both property and life. And generally, we find that this premise, especially true in the major urban centers, to be consistently affirmed.

Accordingly, the current murder and violent crime rates in the Washington DC, Chicago, Detroit, Los Angeles, New York, Boston, and Philadelphia areas are astronomical, despite having hardened laws against concealed carry. These misdirected laws have indeed the net effect of proscribing their citizenry from effectively protecting themselves from criminals--miscreants who care not a whit for the asphyxiating legal technicalities that burden and condemn honest citizens. And as governments have increasingly sought to regulate the sale, transportation, and use of handguns and "assault rifles," they have increasingly begotten a nation of sheep by laying bare their population's throats to packs of increasingly dangerous and feral werewolves. Can it be any longer doubted that the same misplaced compassion that would outlaw firearms has willed these darkened hearts through government's calculated legislation of filial destruction and subsequent moral anarchy?

In the concrete jungles of our urban cities or in our seemingly tranquil suburbias with their flaccid social disintegration, many Progressive-minded levels of government have made the considered decision that in lieu of a debauched and malicious portion of its citizenry, it is far better to effectively disarm their constituent fiefdoms in order to show them that superficially they have their best interests at heart. All the while, and with their fingers testing the winds, those same politicos are deftly side-stepping the fact that those cretins with pernicious intent will handily acquire guns elsewhere, or commit their menacing acts with a baseball bat or a lawnmower blade if necessary.

We now see in Great Britain, a country that has elevated to the status of fetish the disarmament of its society, a towering crescendo in property and violent crimes, as men and women even possessing rifles and shotguns are fearful of using them for fear of being charged for killing or maiming thugs in self-defense. Within the milieu of such a nation of rabbits, the fabric of trust and safety erodes and sends a subliminal message to society that emboldens the brazen and terrifies the weak and defenseless.

America's 2nd Amendment, once thought to be the most secure of our organic rights, has come under assault by forces that believe that the monopoly on significant coercive force should be limited to the agents of the State; and as Dennis Prager has wisely said: "As the State grows larger, the individual in fact grows smaller." Our government exists to guarantee our lives, liberties, and our properties. Not only has it proven itself insufficient to this foundational task, but it has actively conspired to disrespect our personal sovereignty and safety, having wandered far afield of its fundamental mandate. Meanwhile, tireless energy is spent attempting to instead equalize and homogenize us---mandates that had never once entered into the minds of the Founders.

Perhaps the best indicator of where the 2nd Amendment is the booming sale of handguns; this barometer is rooted in the anxiety and trepidation that Americans feel for both the safety of their families in perilous economic time, while it is a hedge against the predations of a regime that has forgotten its minimalist confines and spilled over into the imperial, the unilateral, and the arbitrary. Gun manufacturers have mockingly named Barack Obama as their Man of the Year for his contribution to a veritable tsunami of firearm sales. This, in itself, might evoke a good belly laugh if the stark implications of it weren't so damn depressing.
http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/12/sam_colt_and_the_law_of_self-preservation.html

Cpl. Joshua Boston, United States Marine Corps sends letter to Feinstein.

http://ireport.cnn.com/docs/DOC-902515

how long do you think that will stay up in today's Witch-hunt on Firearms?
And moreover that he is right on point!