100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Previous
| Topic: Gun Control | |
|---|---|
|
|
|
2. The Arms of the militia should be effective for protecting the free state. Our militia, the police, keep and bear advanced weaponry to protect the free state. This advanced weaponry is needed because the threat to the free state uses advanced weaponry also. Since we are also the militia, we need to have access to the same or better weaponry than those who threaten our free state. Not just in times of threat but as a preparation to threat as well. No militia is going to be effective by throwing rocks at a threat that carries and uses RPGs. However, a properly used hunting rifle can take out someone using an RPG. In this sense, advanced weaponry is not the same as effective weaponry. If the police force is over-run by an adversary and our citizens are only armed with a few hunting rifles against as platoon of threats armed with automatic weapons, our militia is not effective to its intended purpose. However, if all our citizens are armed with hunting rifles our effectiveness at protecting the free state increases dramatically. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
thank you WELL REGULATED to regulate: control or supervise (something, especially a company or business activity) by means of rules and regulation KEEP - have or retain possession of. BEAR-(of a person) carry. we can HAVE possession of and CARRY the weapons, nothing there that states every type of conceivable weapon must be made available or sold ... Except you are equating "Regulated" meaning to todays meaning, regulated back then meant 'trained " or "discipline" the problem regarding the second amendment was the founding fathers ( madison ) proposed this as a compromise between the federalists and the anti federalists One camp wanted to arm citizens to fight off the British and the other camp to arm citizens to fight off a tyrannical federal government as they witnessed going on in Europe. This is one reason why we are divided. collectivists like yourself interprets the 2nd amendment as only the military should have guns to fight off foreign invaders and domestic terrorists and criminals. Individualists like myself interprets the 2nd amendment as our rights to bear arms so we can protect ourselves, hence the Militia clause. Except we know what the meaning of Militia meant back then meant. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
4. An assessment of the readiness of the militia should be periodically assessed for effectiveness against possible threats to the free state. Since the arms are being kept or born by our militia with the intent to protect the free state, a periodic assessment of the militia's readiness should be assessed. So, not only do we need to know who is armed, we need to know what types of arms and whether those possessing the arms can effectively use them. A gun that you don't know how to load is nothing more than a club. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Why not just set aside a special day all the gun nuts? When that day comes around, you keep your kids home from school, and every time you see someone with a gun, you can wish them a Happy Mass Shooter Day!  I dont think we can lump most gun holders into one barrel, it could be happy sporting day, or happy eating day, or happy hunting day, or happy protection day. it frustrates me too that we keep hiding behind the constitution to avoid taking some common sense actions for keeping unstable citizens and mass shooter weapons as far from each other as possible but it doesnt help if we turn the discussion to personal attacks upon either side. Glad you said that. I've almost completed construction of the silo in my backyard for my cruise missile. And I just ordered 10 cases of fragmentation grenades and five cases of high phosphorus grenades from Amazon. All that's left to complete my collection, is the M1 Abrams tank I want in my driveway. After all, the second amendment says I have a right to all those things. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
thank you WELL REGULATED to regulate: control or supervise (something, especially a company or business activity) by means of rules and regulation KEEP - have or retain possession of. BEAR-(of a person) carry. we can HAVE possession of and CARRY the weapons, nothing there that states every type of conceivable weapon must be made available or sold ... Except you are equating "Regulated" meaning to todays meaning, regulated back then meant 'trained " or "discipline" the problem regarding the second amendment was the founding fathers ( madison ) proposed this as a compromise between the federalists and the anti federalists One camp wanted to arm citizens to fight off the British and the other camp to arm citizens to fight off a tyrannical federal government as they witnessed going on in Europe. This is one reason why we are divided. collectivists like yourself interprets the 2nd amendment as only the military should have guns to fight off foreign invaders and domestic terrorists and criminals. Individualists like myself interprets the 2nd amendment as our rights to bear arms so we can protect ourselves, hence the Militia clause. Except we know what the meaning of Militia meant back then meant. I think I have been somehow misunderstood if anyone believes I only think military should have weapons I interpret it to mean (of the weapons available), the citizens have the right to possess protective weapons (if they have been given or purchased them, because they are still a marketed product) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
thank you WELL REGULATED to regulate: control or supervise (something, especially a company or business activity) by means of rules and regulation KEEP - have or retain possession of. BEAR-(of a person) carry. we can HAVE possession of and CARRY the weapons, nothing there that states every type of conceivable weapon must be made available or sold ... Except you are equating "Regulated" meaning to todays meaning, regulated back then meant 'trained " or "discipline" the problem regarding the second amendment was the founding fathers ( madison ) proposed this as a compromise between the federalists and the anti federalists One camp wanted to arm citizens to fight off the British and the other camp to arm citizens to fight off a tyrannical federal government as they witnessed going on in Europe. This is one reason why we are divided. collectivists like yourself interprets the 2nd amendment as only the military should have guns to fight off foreign invaders and domestic terrorists and criminals. Individualists like myself interprets the 2nd amendment as our rights to bear arms so we can protect ourselves, hence the Militia clause. Except we know what the meaning of Militia meant back then meant. I think I have been somehow misunderstood if anyone believes I only think military should have weapons I interpret it to mean (of the weapons available), the citizens have the right to possess protective weapons (if they have been given or purchased them, because they are still a marketed product) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
5. The militia should have access to arms during times of low threat as a preparation to protect the free state. 6. The militia should be trained to use such arms as a preparation for when they are called upon to protect the free state. Each community should have an armory where unarmed citizens can obtain weapons in case they need to protect the free state. Not only should there be a cache of weapons, there should be supporting ammo and people there to train the citizens on their use. Since the 2nd amendment is part of the government, the government should provide these things equally and freely to all citizens. So, like a library, when was the last time you visited a free government run armory to learn about and practice shooting automatic weapons? The police have to qualify with their weapons. They have access to armory and shooting ranges. They get trained on weapons handling. They practice. The intent of the 2nd amendment is for our citizens to be ready to protect our free state. This is not being done on many levels and gun restrictions are merely one part of a bigger problem. Right now, with needing a license and a permit to keep and bear arms our 2nd amendment rights are being removed. If only those who can afford a gun and pass a test and buy a license can be armed, it goes against the intent of the amendment of PEOPLE having the RIGHT to KEEP and BEAR arms. The requirements are in themselves an infringement. 1. the action of breaking the terms of a law, agreement, etc.; violation. 2. the action of limiting or undermining something. WELL-REGULATED refers to the militia not the arms. 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. Without free access to arms, the training to use them and the ability to practice using them, the militia is not being well-regulated. People implies all citizens. Not just citizens that have money to buy the arms or pay the fees to gain a license. All citizens. If we deem someone unfit to own a firearm or use a fire arm are those people still citizens? Are we not taking away their rights? Should we? The amendment also assumes a well-regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state. Is it? Is there a way to guarantee the security of a free state without a militia? The whole idea of the right to bear arms hinges on the citizens being the militia needed to protect the free state. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
msharmony
on
Tue 05/22/18 12:04 PM
|
|
5. The militia should have access to arms during times of low threat as a preparation to protect the free state. 6. The militia should be trained to use such arms as a preparation for when they are called upon to protect the free state. Each community should have an armory where unarmed citizens can obtain weapons in case they need to protect the free state. Not only should there be a cache of weapons, there should be supporting ammo and people there to train the citizens on their use. Since the 2nd amendment is part of the government, the government should provide these things equally and freely to all citizens. So, like a library, when was the last time you visited a free government run armory to learn about and practice shooting automatic weapons? The police have to qualify with their weapons. They have access to armory and shooting ranges. They get trained on weapons handling. They practice. The intent of the 2nd amendment is for our citizens to be ready to protect our free state. This is not being done on many levels and gun restrictions are merely one part of a bigger problem. Right now, with needing a license and a permit to keep and bear arms our 2nd amendment rights are being removed. If only those who can afford a gun and pass a test and buy a license can be armed, it goes against the intent of the amendment of PEOPLE having the RIGHT to KEEP and BEAR arms. The requirements are in themselves an infringement. 1. the action of breaking the terms of a law, agreement, etc.; violation. 2. the action of limiting or undermining something. WELL-REGULATED refers to the militia not the arms. 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. Without free access to arms, the training to use them and the ability to practice using them, the militia is not being well-regulated. People implies all citizens. Not just citizens that have money to buy the arms or pay the fees to gain a license. All citizens. If we deem someone unfit to own a firearm or use a fire arm are those people still citizens? Are we not taking away their rights? Should we? The amendment also assumes a well-regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state. Is it? Is there a way to guarantee the security of a free state without a militia? The whole idea of the right to bear arms hinges on the citizens being the militia needed to protect the free state. and I would be fine if every gun holder had to go through militia like TRAINING and other militia like 'regulation'(dont militias regulate their members based on many factors?), unfortunately as it stands we let too many joe and jill schmos carry them 'just because' they can afford to buy them. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
5. The militia should have access to arms during times of low threat as a preparation to protect the free state. 6. The militia should be trained to use such arms as a preparation for when they are called upon to protect the free state. Each community should have an armory where unarmed citizens can obtain weapons in case they need to protect the free state. Not only should there be a cache of weapons, there should be supporting ammo and people there to train the citizens on their use. Since the 2nd amendment is part of the government, the government should provide these things equally and freely to all citizens. So, like a library, when was the last time you visited a free government run armory to learn about and practice shooting automatic weapons? The police have to qualify with their weapons. They have access to armory and shooting ranges. They get trained on weapons handling. They practice. The intent of the 2nd amendment is for our citizens to be ready to protect our free state. This is not being done on many levels and gun restrictions are merely one part of a bigger problem. Right now, with needing a license and a permit to keep and bear arms our 2nd amendment rights are being removed. If only those who can afford a gun and pass a test and buy a license can be armed, it goes against the intent of the amendment of PEOPLE having the RIGHT to KEEP and BEAR arms. The requirements are in themselves an infringement. 1. the action of breaking the terms of a law, agreement, etc.; violation. 2. the action of limiting or undermining something. WELL-REGULATED refers to the militia not the arms. 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. Without free access to arms, the training to use them and the ability to practice using them, the militia is not being well-regulated. People implies all citizens. Not just citizens that have money to buy the arms or pay the fees to gain a license. All citizens. If we deem someone unfit to own a firearm or use a fire arm are those people still citizens? Are we not taking away their rights? Should we? The amendment also assumes a well-regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state. Is it? Is there a way to guarantee the security of a free state without a militia? The whole idea of the right to bear arms hinges on the citizens being the militia needed to protect the free state. and I would be fine if every gun holder had to go through militia like TRAINING and other militia like 'regulation'(dont militias regulate their members based on many factors?), unfortunately as it stands we let too many joe and jill schmos carry them 'just because' they can afford to buy them. "too many joe and jill schmos" are citizens too and are part of the intended militia. You are part of the intended militia. Your neighbor is part of the intended militia. In the event of needing to protect the free state even convicts can be part of the intended militia if they still have citizen status. However, having your freedom revoked does imply that your citizen status is revoked. Once you serve your 'time', 'pay your penance' and are released from prison to once again be a free citizen, you have the same right as any other citizen to keep and bear arms as part of the militia. Or, are you saying that our rights are only valid for those you select? I agree every gun holder should be trained. I also think every non-gun holder should be trained. I also think non-gun holders should have ready access to the same types of weapons that attackers have. Meaning YOU and every other citizen should be able to walk into a community armory and learn about, shoot and practice with a machine gun, free of charge. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Does all this mean I CAN'T have my cruise missile?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Something a lot of people don't understand is that when one citizen or group of citizens try to deprive another citizen or group of citizens their contitutional rights they are in violation of the intent of the free state and are actually threatening the free state of all the citizens if the make laws to support their agendas.
Which is exactly why there is a need for a militia in the first place. To protect the free state. The amendment in the rights of all citizens says nothing at all about which citizens or any stipulations of how we are to keep and bear arms. The moment one citizen tries to restrict or regulate that right is the moment the free state is under attack, domestically. Waaay back in the old days when the mayor of a town made everyone give up their guns to be citizens of that town they violated the 2nd amendment. They put the well-being of the militia in jepordy and violated every single citizen's right to keep and bear arms. What I just can't figure out is why some people can't understand such a simple thing. Yes, there is a problem with gun violence in our streets. Would there be if every citizen were armed and knew how to use their weapons? If someone pulls a gun out in a crowd people get scared, run, hide. If everyone were armed and someone pulled out a gun, it would cause me to say, "How come your have your gun out?" and if he shoots me, in seconds anyone else will stop him. Knowing this, it would be few and far between for a gun to come out in a crowd. Because Everybody would Know if you pull a gun in a crowd and shoot someone, your dead rather quickly. Even dumb criminals would think twice before shooting off their guns. Especially when the entire nation is armed. There's not many mass shootings happening at gun shows... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Does all this mean I CAN'T have my cruise missile? Go For It... 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
5. The militia should have access to arms during times of low threat as a preparation to protect the free state. 6. The militia should be trained to use such arms as a preparation for when they are called upon to protect the free state. Each community should have an armory where unarmed citizens can obtain weapons in case they need to protect the free state. Not only should there be a cache of weapons, there should be supporting ammo and people there to train the citizens on their use. Since the 2nd amendment is part of the government, the government should provide these things equally and freely to all citizens. So, like a library, when was the last time you visited a free government run armory to learn about and practice shooting automatic weapons? The police have to qualify with their weapons. They have access to armory and shooting ranges. They get trained on weapons handling. They practice. The intent of the 2nd amendment is for our citizens to be ready to protect our free state. This is not being done on many levels and gun restrictions are merely one part of a bigger problem. Right now, with needing a license and a permit to keep and bear arms our 2nd amendment rights are being removed. If only those who can afford a gun and pass a test and buy a license can be armed, it goes against the intent of the amendment of PEOPLE having the RIGHT to KEEP and BEAR arms. The requirements are in themselves an infringement. 1. the action of breaking the terms of a law, agreement, etc.; violation. 2. the action of limiting or undermining something. WELL-REGULATED refers to the militia not the arms. 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. Without free access to arms, the training to use them and the ability to practice using them, the militia is not being well-regulated. People implies all citizens. Not just citizens that have money to buy the arms or pay the fees to gain a license. All citizens. If we deem someone unfit to own a firearm or use a fire arm are those people still citizens? Are we not taking away their rights? Should we? The amendment also assumes a well-regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state. Is it? Is there a way to guarantee the security of a free state without a militia? The whole idea of the right to bear arms hinges on the citizens being the militia needed to protect the free state. and I would be fine if every gun holder had to go through militia like TRAINING and other militia like 'regulation'(dont militias regulate their members based on many factors?), unfortunately as it stands we let too many joe and jill schmos carry them 'just because' they can afford to buy them. "too many joe and jill schmos" are citizens too and are part of the intended militia. You are part of the intended militia. Your neighbor is part of the intended militia. In the event of needing to protect the free state even convicts can be part of the intended militia if they still have citizen status. However, having your freedom revoked does imply that your citizen status is revoked. Once you serve your 'time', 'pay your penance' and are released from prison to once again be a free citizen, you have the same right as any other citizen to keep and bear arms as part of the militia. Or, are you saying that our rights are only valid for those you select? I agree every gun holder should be trained. I also think every non-gun holder should be trained. I also think non-gun holders should have ready access to the same types of weapons that attackers have. Meaning YOU and every other citizen should be able to walk into a community armory and learn about, shoot and practice with a machine gun, free of charge. except if its free I dont get to dictate it do I? If I am getting free water, I cant demand it be from the purest waterfall, those providing it decide that If I am getting guns free, those providing them decide which guns Nope, though we have the RIGHT to possess guns, they are still sold as PRODUCTS that go through regulations and have prices set as well as being subject to requirements. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
tom there is also a secondary reason for the second and the reason a well regulated militia was included there.
the constitution clearly stated the fed would not keep a standing army. and as evidenced by reading correspondences and meeting minutes of the time. the intent was for said militia to be called up armed and ready to become the fed army in times of war. which supports arms of a comparable level of the times. as for msharmony's last control of manufacture and sale of said arms i simply a blatant attempt to side step the second. i would suggest better results could be had by researching the events and causes of them and their increase. then try applying all this effort to changing the cause not the means |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
tom there is also a secondary reason for the second and the reason a well regulated militia was included there. the constitution clearly stated the fed would not keep a standing army. and as evidenced by reading correspondences and meeting minutes of the time. the intent was for said militia to be called up armed and ready to become the fed army in times of war. which supports arms of a comparable level of the times. as for msharmony's last control of manufacture and sale of said arms i simply a blatant attempt to side step the second. i would suggest better results could be had by researching the events and causes of them and their increase. then try applying all this effort to changing the cause not the means I didn't do any research, just thinking on the words of the 2nd amendment as written and what it seems to me to imply. I've heard about the standing army thing before. What seems to be plain but ignored my many is that the founding constitution cannot apply to our modern nation. While it worked in the past, its no longer working. Consider for a moment what it would take and how it would affect us all if the constitution were rewritten. The United States of America would cease to exist. Would all 50 states choose to continue allegiance to this new constitution? Right now, there are work-arounds for nearly every single concept in the constitution. Loop-holes everywhere. The power elite have control of the people. Free speech is censored. Religions dictate policy. Everything is whacked out because the implied values no longer apply. We don't have a militia, we have different forces, controlled by government. If a non-sanctioned group becomes a militia, the government puts them down by force. From this point of view, citizens right to keep and bear arms to become a militia are being violated. The idea was for the citizens to govern themmselves. Does anyone in this country think that is what is happening? Are we governing ourselves? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
eric22t
on
Tue 05/22/18 02:51 PM
|
|
not so much these days tom.
tho i didn't mean recent research as much as i would have figured you to have done the side bar reading in the past |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
not so much these days tom. tho i didn't mean recent research as much as i would have figured you to have done the side bar reading in the past Yeah, I see gun control as a lot of hoodoo over a simple concept. I was trying not to get too deep. My search for the amendment yielded other results from attorneys to pro/con gun rights websites. I was looking for the words of the amendment and looking to see exactly what it says and how it is implied from that wording. Being a citizen myself, I should be able to understand the words I am meant to follow. Otherwise, they are meaningless. The 2nd amendment is pretty simple. People make it complex. People don't see what it actually says or grasp what it actually implies. I, as a citizen, have the right to keep and bear arms to be used as a part of the militia force to protect the free state. Nothing, not one thing else. No description of the types of arms, no permits required, no limits of any kind. All that other stuff is a violation of my right. Is it practical in today's world? Not really. But that practicality is not worded in the right. Here is the words again: Amendment II 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. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Does all this mean I CAN'T have my cruise missile? Go For It... Well, at least I can still have my grenades and my tank. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Does all this mean I CAN'T have my cruise missile? Go For It... Well, at least I can still have my grenades and my tank. You should get yerself a field and invest in a good quality flame thrower too. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Even militia had its exceptions apparently not applying to ALL CITIZENS
in the words of George Washington (who actually served and was PRESIDENT of the constitutional convention) “It may be laid down, as a primary position, and the basis of our system, that every citizen who enjoys the protection of a free government, owes not only a proportion of his property, but even of his personal services to the defence of it, and consequently that the Citizens of America (with a few legal and official exceptions) from 18 to 50 Years of Age should be borne on the Militia Rolls, provided with uniform Arms, and so far accustomed to the use of them, that the Total strength of the Country might be called forth at Short Notice on any very interesting Emergency.” -Penned in a letter to Alexander Hamilton, 1783 the militia was never all inclusive for every person under every situation ... We can still make 'legal' exceptions based on some common sense. |
|
|
|
|
