Second Amendment (2A) true meaning

The #1 community for Gun Owners of the Northeast

Member Benefits:

  • No ad networks!
  • Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership
  • Discuss anti-gun legislation
  • Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section
  • Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses
  • Discover free outdoor shooting areas
  • View up to date on firearm-related events
  • Share photos & video with other members
  • ...and so much more!
  • Minuteman

    Member
    BANNED!!!
    Here are the Federalist Papers, all 85 essays:
    http://www.foundingfathers.info/federalistpapers/
    Interesting to read the Antifederalist Papers too: http://www.wepin.com/articles/afp/intro.html
    This one is particularly interesting: Antifederalist No. 74 THE PRESIDENT AS MILITARY KING

    -----
    For the less initiated, but still curious among us; I'll paste a portion of Federalist Paper #46, written by James Madison and published in 1788:

    The only refuge left for those who prophesy the downfall of the State governments is the visionary supposition that the federal government may previously accumulate a military force for the projects of ambition. The reasonings contained in these papers must have been employed to little purpose indeed, if it could be necessary now to disprove the reality of this danger. That the people and the States should, for a sufficient period of time, elect an uninterupted succession of men ready to betray both; that the traitors should, throughout this period, uniformly and systematically pursue some fixed plan for the extension of the military establishment; that the governments and the people of the States should silently and patiently behold the gathering storm, and continue to supply the materials, until it should be prepared to burst on their own heads, must appear to every one more like the incoherent dreams of a delirious jealousy, or the misjudged exaggerations of a counterfeit zeal, than like the sober apprehensions of genuine patriotism. Extravagant as the supposition is, let it however be made. Let a regular army, fully equal to the resources of the country, be formed; and let it be entirely at the devotion of the federal government; still it would not be going too far to say, that the State governments, with the people on their side, would be able to repel the danger. The highest number to which, according to the best computation, a standing army can be carried in any country, does not exceed one hundredth part of the whole number of souls; or one twenty-fifth part of the number able to bear arms. This proportion would not yield, in the United States, an army of more than twenty-five or thirty thousand men. To these would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands, officered by men chosen from among themselves, fighting for their common liberties, and united and conducted by governments possessing their affections and confidence. It may well be doubted, whether a militia thus circumstanced could ever be conquered by such a proportion of regular troops. Those who are best acquainted with the last successful resistance of this country against the British arms, will be most inclined to deny the possibility of it. Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of. Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms. And it is not certain, that with this aid alone they would not be able to shake off their yokes. But were the people to possess the additional advantages of local governments chosen by themselves, who could collect the national will and direct the national force, and of officers appointed out of the militia, by these governments, and attached both to them and to the militia, it may be affirmed with the greatest assurance, that the throne of every tyranny in Europe would be speedily overturned in spite of the legions which surround it. Let us not insult the free and gallant citizens of America with the suspicion, that they would be less able to defend the rights of which they would be in actual possession, than the debased subjects of arbitrary power would be to rescue theirs from the hands of their oppressors. Let us rather no longer insult them with the supposition that they can ever reduce themselves to the necessity of making the experiment, by a blind and tame submission to the long train of insidious measures which must precede and produce it.

     

    Minuteman

    Member
    BANNED!!!
    Why would this require research? Anybody proficient in sixth grade English (and the attendant rules for independent and dependent clauses) would know the 2A has nothing to do with militias. When people say the 2A is about the rights of militias they are simply being dishonest. They do not make that error for other sentences of similar construction. It is only the 2A where they suddenly forget the rules of English grammar.

    You make an excellent point. It says what it means right there in plain English; no 'reading into it' or 'research' required. I only do so to counter the argument (as dishonest and transparent as it may be) that the 2A means only the militia can bear arms. I want to also point out that even if this ridiculous assertion were true, it would be the only Ammendment that isn't an individual right.


    Just jump to about 8 minutes in this video for some good quotes from the Federalist Papers:



    For a more humorous view of this issue, check out this video on YouTube:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BtbvBgfI0o8&feature=youtube_gdata_player
     
    Last edited:

    RobMoore

    The Mad Scientist
    Feb 10, 2007
    4,765
    QA
    preacher_choir_3.jpg
     

    gsrcrxsi

    Active Member
    Jan 15, 2012
    176
    Baltimore, MD
    so i had a thought, and maybe it wont be too well recieved here, but here it goes.

    basically, we are saying that our 2A rights are (or are supposed to be) unalienable, meaning no law can take them away, for ANY reason. yet there many laws that many of us are "ok" with with regards to gun regulation. For instance, the laws that prohibit felons from ever owning guns again. This is a form of infringement on that persons 2A rights is it not?

    Is it hypocritical of us to ask lawmakers to not interpret or restrict the 2A in other areas, while we dont fight to change current laws that we may find "reasonable" even though they do technically violate the wording of the 2A?

    (let me be clear, i DO personally believe that felons and others convicted of violent crimes should lose their 2A rights. I'm just trying to play devil's advocate and be uber objective and pose this hypothetical question)
     

    rico903

    Ultimate Member
    May 2, 2011
    8,802
    I think a lot of people here need to buy and READ the following books: The Second Amendment Primer by Les Adams, The Bill Of Rights by Amar and for general reading, Bostons Gun Bible. But just as importantly, if not more so, all of those who belong to and support NO gun rights organization should be ashamed of themselves and quit bitching. You are a huge part of the problem. No organization is perfect but they all need our support. You can't run from the problem by moving to Montana, etc.
     

    MDMOUNTAINEER

    Glock, AR, Savage Junkie
    Mar 4, 2009
    5,739
    West Virginia
    so i had a thought, and maybe it wont be too well recieved here, but here it goes.

    basically, we are saying that our 2A rights are (or are supposed to be) unalienable, meaning no law can take them away, for ANY reason. yet there many laws that many of us are "ok" with with regards to gun regulation. For instance, the laws that prohibit felons from ever owning guns again. This is a form of infringement on that persons 2A rights is it not?

    Is it hypocritical of us to ask lawmakers to not interpret or restrict the 2A in other areas, while we dont fight to change current laws that we may find "reasonable" even though they do technically violate the wording of the 2A?

    (let me be clear, i DO personally believe that felons and others convicted of violent crimes should lose their 2A rights. I'm just trying to play devil's advocate and be uber objective and pose this hypothetical question)

    Felons should only be felons while incarcerated or while fulfilling their probation, then they go back to being regular people that fvcked up, then were rehabilitated, and can join the functioning sector of society again. Once they are free, they should be able to bear arms just as the Constitution enumerates.

    Just remember, you've probably committed a felony at some point in your life. You probably didn't even know it. All it takes is for you to get called out on it one time and then you become unemployable and can't own firearms anymore. Hell, even the misdemeanor "Telephone Misuse" charge in Maryland would result in your being banned from possessing firearms if convicted.
     

    gsrcrxsi

    Active Member
    Jan 15, 2012
    176
    Baltimore, MD
    Felons should only be felons while incarcerated or while fulfilling their probation, then they go back to being regular people that fvcked up, then were rehabilitated, and can join the functioning sector of society again. Once they are free, they should be able to bear arms just as the Constitution enumerates.

    Just remember, you've probably committed a felony at some point in your life. You probably didn't even know it. All it takes is for you to get called out on it one time and then you become unemployable and can't own firearms anymore. Hell, even the misdemeanor "Telephone Misuse" charge in Maryland would result in your being banned from possessing firearms if convicted.

    please answer the question(s) directly. are you agreeing that persons convicted of a felony (or anyone else that is restricted from gun ownership via law, "criminally insane", "mental disorder", "prohibited persons", etc) still should have the right to keep and bear arms solely on the wording of 2A?

    thats really the point i'm trying to make. keeping personal feelings/politics out of it for the sake of objectivity. i just thought it was an interesting perspective, and interesting that we fight to preserve the 2A under its wording, and go to great lengths to expose the TRUE meaning, but dont fight to change other laws, such as those i've mentioned, when they also violate the wording and spirit of 2A
     

    Minuteman

    Member
    BANNED!!!
    please answer the question(s) directly. are you agreeing that persons convicted of a felony (or anyone else that is restricted from gun ownership via law, "criminally insane", "mental disorder", "prohibited persons", etc) still should have the right to keep and bear arms solely on the wording of 2A?

    thats really the point i'm trying to make. keeping personal feelings/politics out of it for the sake of objectivity. i just thought it was an interesting perspective, and interesting that we fight to preserve the 2A under its wording, and go to great lengths to expose the TRUE meaning, but dont fight to change other laws, such as those i've mentioned, when they also violate the wording and spirit of 2A

    Giving you the benefit of doubt, I think this is a fair question, and one antis like to try to make.

    When you read these documents from our founding fathers you realize they very carefully chose those words. Also consider the context and spirit it was written. Now let's go down the rabbit hole you tripped upon. -> If a 'bad person' did harm or was clearly incompetent; they would be violating other provisions of the law. Your right to swing your fist stops at my nose.

    The Constitution is talking about the rights of all free men (all people acting in good faith). So yes, as much as any one of us may not like it at times, if a person has served their sentence and returned to society and is acting again in good faith, they should again be permitted to enjoy all their rights as any other citizen. This includes their right to own and bear arms, and that right shall not be infringed.
     

    Glaug-Eldare

    Senior Member
    BANNED!!!
    Jan 17, 2011
    1,837
    please answer the question(s) directly. are you agreeing that persons convicted of a felony (or anyone else that is restricted from gun ownership via law, "criminally insane", "mental disorder", "prohibited persons", etc) still should have the right to keep and bear arms solely on the wording of 2A?

    thats really the point i'm trying to make. keeping personal feelings/politics out of it for the sake of objectivity. i just thought it was an interesting perspective, and interesting that we fight to preserve the 2A under its wording, and go to great lengths to expose the TRUE meaning, but dont fight to change other laws, such as those i've mentioned, when they also violate the wording and spirit of 2A

    You've gotta use some common sense when you interpret the BoR. The 1st Amendment doesn't protect me if I'm waving around a knife and screaming that I'm going to kill you. The 4th Amendment doesn't prevent police from pursuing a fleeing suspect onto private property. The 8th Amendment doesn't forbid solitary confinement for problem inmates. Similarly, the people have a choice to exclude particularly dangerous or unqualified people from certain exercises of RKBA. It all seems pretty consistent to me, though I'd like to roll our present laws back a bit.
     

    teratos

    My hair is amazing
    MDS Supporter
    Patriot Picket
    Jan 22, 2009
    59,849
    Bel Air
    Glaug-Eldare said:
    You've gotta use some common sense when you interpret the BoR. The 1st Amendment doesn't protect me if I'm waving around a knife and screaming that I'm going to kill you. The 4th Amendment doesn't prevent police from pursuing a fleeing suspect onto private property. The 8th Amendment doesn't forbid solitary confinement for problem inmates. Similarly, the people have a choice to exclude particularly dangerous or unqualified people from certain exercises of RKBA. It all seems pretty consistent to me, though I'd like to roll our present laws back a bit.

    Good analogies. There are specific people who prove time and time again they they cannot handle the freedoms we are meant to enjoy. Perhaps rather than disqualify every felon, the courts can deem that certain persons not be permitted to have firearms as a condition of their not being confined to a prison cell.
     

    MDMOUNTAINEER

    Glock, AR, Savage Junkie
    Mar 4, 2009
    5,739
    West Virginia
    please answer the question(s) directly. are you agreeing that persons convicted of a felony (or anyone else that is restricted from gun ownership via law, "criminally insane", "mental disorder", "prohibited persons", etc) still should have the right to keep and bear arms solely on the wording of 2A?

    thats really the point i'm trying to make. keeping personal feelings/politics out of it for the sake of objectivity. i just thought it was an interesting perspective, and interesting that we fight to preserve the 2A under its wording, and go to great lengths to expose the TRUE meaning, but dont fight to change other laws, such as those i've mentioned, when they also violate the wording and spirit of 2A

    I did answer the question directly. Re-read my answer.

    Felons are only felons while imprisoned or during terms of probation. Once that is over they are free men (women). Pretty simple really.

    All free people should have a gun if they so desire.

    Once you start down another path (using a criminal history, mental health problems, etc.) it's a slippery slope and these restrictions are not enumerated in the BOR. Let everyone have a gun. The evil will be weeded out, just as our FF wanted it.
     

    teratos

    My hair is amazing
    MDS Supporter
    Patriot Picket
    Jan 22, 2009
    59,849
    Bel Air
    I did answer the question directly. Re-read my answer.

    Felons are only felons while imprisoned or during terms of probation. Once that is over they are free men (women). Pretty simple really.

    All free people should have a gun if they so desire.

    Once you start down another path (using a criminal history, mental health problems, etc.) it's a slippery slope and these restrictions are not enumerated in the BOR. Let everyone have a gun. The evil will be weeded out, just as our FF wanted it.

    There are certain people who have proven time and again that they are prone to violence. They are highly likely to re-offend. Should we execute them, keep them in prison for life, or make their release from prison contingent on certain things like forfeiture of firearm ownership?
     

    MDFF2008

    Ultimate Member
    Aug 12, 2008
    24,768
    There are certain people who have proven time and again that they are prone to violence. They are highly likely to re-offend. Should we execute them, keep them in prison for life, or make their release from prison contingent on certain things like forfeiture of firearm ownership?

    I'm sure the people who complain about high taxes now will love the tax raises needed to do that.
     

    teratos

    My hair is amazing
    MDS Supporter
    Patriot Picket
    Jan 22, 2009
    59,849
    Bel Air
    I'm sure the people who complain about high taxes now will love the tax raises needed to do that.


    So that leaves execution and a release from prison contingent on the sacrifice of certain rights......
     

    Speaker2Wolves

    Banned
    BANNED!!!
    Feb 27, 2012
    322
    Felons are only felons while imprisoned or during terms of probation. Once that is over they are free men (women). Pretty simple really.

    Uh, no. The operative word in convicted felon is "convicted." They may have done their time, but that doesn't mean they've paid their debt to society in full, and it doesn't mean they've necessarily retained the right to keep and bear arms.

    it's a slippery slope and these restrictions are not enumerated in the BOR.

    Correct, that's why we have things like courts and legislatures. So we can express those changes that are necessary but not enumerated in the BoR.

    Let everyone have a gun. The evil will be weeded out, just as our FF wanted it.

    So now you're advocating the worst kind of social darwinism? Here's a thought:

    Why are you so certain that you're on the side of the Angels? Has it occurred to you that you could end up one of the "evils" being culled? (Especially if you take it upon yourself to start "weeding out" people?)

    Seriously, the thought of thousands of self-rightous cowboys wandering the streets looking for evil-doers is exactly the kind of "blood in the streets" scenario anti-gun advocates would love to put forward as an argument for more restrictive gun control laws.
     
    Last edited:

    MDMOUNTAINEER

    Glock, AR, Savage Junkie
    Mar 4, 2009
    5,739
    West Virginia
    There are certain people who have proven time and again that they are prone to violence. They are highly likely to re-offend. Should we execute them, keep them in prison for life, or make their release from prison contingent on certain things like forfeiture of firearm ownership?

    I think sentencing guidelines need to be adhered to. No good behavior bs or other reasons for early release. Make prison an actual deterrent. Our legal system is a joke, criminals know it and exploit it. Mitigate the opportunity for exploitation and actually send murderers to jail, for the rest of their lives, no parole, then see what happens. If we did this I do think there would be a lasting impact on repeat offenders.

    I also believe that once a person has been released from the bonds of their imprisonment should from that point forward be free men. Make 'em pay a hefty price, and pay the whole thing, but when they are done give them the chance to actually succeed. When a criminal is released they are punished all over again every time they fill out a job application. I mean really, say you did something wrong. Maybe you stole some money as a 20 year old, or got caught selling drugs, or whatever. You do your time, 10-15 years later you've changed your life around, have a family, etc. You are not the same person you were years ago. Should it still be difficult for you to find a job? Should you be barred the means to defend yourself and your family?

    More importantly, that's not how the BOR reads and to be honest, I don't trust our legislators to make the right call in these circumstances.

    Uh, no. The operative word in convicted felon is "convicted." They may have done their time, but that doesn't mean they've paid their debt to society in full, and it doesn't mean they've necessarily retained the right to keep and bear arms.

    I disagree with this sentiment. Though, practically speaking, this is how society views any convicted felon (or criminal for that matter). But this has worked to society's detriment and I don't think it's a sound practice.

    Think about it. Some guy, we'll call him Sam. Sam gets caught stealing cars. He gets convicted and goes to jail. While in jail he truly changes. Maybe he finds faith in God. Maybe he has a mentor. Whatever, you get my drift. He decides when he gets out of prison he wants to really do something with his life. The problem is, he will never have that chance. He will be labeled a felon for the rest of his life no matter how much he wants to better it. So, after being released and discovering that change really isn't possible, no one will hire him, and he can't figure out how to make ends meet, what is Sam to do? Well considering it's nearly impossible to make a livable wage at McDonalds no matter how many hours you work he isn't left with many options. Then stealing cars seems like the ONLY way he can make a living (or selling drugs, or whatever illegal means he considers) because the civilized world won't give him another chance.




    Correct, that's why we have things like courts and legislatures. So we can express those changes that are necessary but not enumerated in the BoR.

    "Shall Not Be Infringed", there is no "except at our discretion" or other similar clause. I think it's pretty clear what the FF meant. I'm also certain that criminals were allowed their arms after the terms of their confinement were met.



    So now you're advocating the worst kind of social darwinism? Here's a thought:Why are you so certain that you're on the side of the Angels? Has it occurred to you that you could end up one of the "evils" being culled? (Especially if you take it upon yourself to start "weeding out" people?)

    I don't know what you are talking about. You don't know who I am or what my values are. I never once said I wanted people "culled" and I certainly never said I wanted to "cull" anyone. My respect for life of every kind is as deep if not deeper than anyone else's here. I save lives for a living, can you say that? And don't you ever suggest for a second that I'm some form of evil because I'm not perfect but I've done more good than 95% of the people out there, and I am on the side of Angels, every waking day of my life. I'm sure of that.

    Seriously, the thought of thousands of self-rightous cowboys wandering the streets looking for evil-doers is exactly the kind of "blood in the streets" scenario anti-gun advocates would love to put forward as an argument for more restrictive gun control laws.

    I don't want cowboys or blood in the streets. You're certainly not quoting any material I've ever written. It seems you are applying your own ideas to expand on a brief statement you haven't even attempted to ascertain the depths of. Please do not attribute these thoughts, albeit your thoughts, to my opinion.


    I don't want bloodshed. I don't want a single person to die by the hands of anyone evil. I don't want to see any man endure the prejudices of other men. That is why everyone is entitled the means to defend themselves against these injustices. That is why the Second Amendment says "Shall Not Be Infringed".

    You speak of felons and other criminals. Punish them so that they may learn the right path. Punish them so they never forget their crime. Punish them to correct their errs. But when you let them loose, let them attempt to thrive again. If they fail, make sure the punishments are sufficiently strict, and sufficiently known so that they may actually be a deterrent. Let the populace choose to be armed or not at their discretion so that the evil may in fact be deterred by the thought. My hope is that there not be blood in the streets, but I believe that every woman that has been raped and every victim of violence DESERVED the right to defend themselves. A right that has been eroded to near nothingness by over a century of infringement.

    Dammit, you look into a young college students eyes the night she gets raped in a decent part of town walking back to her dorm and tell her she didn't have the right to defend herself from her attacker. You tell her that her marijuana possession conviction is justification for usurpation of her fundamental rights. You might as well tell her she deserved it. Think it didn't happen? I know for a fact that it did. I had to pick up her broken pieces and hear her story. The one about an ex-boyfriend that beat her. About the raid on the house they shared. About how her charges were pled down but that same ex-boyfriend stalked her after he got out of jail up until the night he finally caught her in a moment of weakness and changed her life forever. She tried to change her life but she was a criminal. The state wouldn't give her a carry permit because she was disqualified from even possessing a gun. If she weren't disqualified the state probably wouldn't have given her a permit and if it had, she couldn't have carried it on campus. The system denied her right. The system you agree with left her in the dust. You still feel good about your moral stance?

    So that folks is just one of the reasons that I believe "Shall Not Be Infringed". I'm sorry for the graphic nature of the story I've presented. It is not a story I've ever shared before, but I think it's necessary for all those that think fundamental rights should be forfeited for criminals. This is what your common sense gun laws have allowed.


    The schizophrenics and other truly mentally disabled who are biologically immune to moral standards should not have guns. But I don't know the best way to handle this situation, because there are many others who have diagnosed illnesses that do not pose a threat and still have the benefit of a functioning moral compass and could still be armed without being a societal danger. I will further this theory with the supposition that an armed populace would give pause all but those with the most severe of mental illness that would have probably resulted in long-term commitment to begin with.
     

    Users who are viewing this thread

    Latest posts

    Forum statistics

    Threads
    275,643
    Messages
    7,289,603
    Members
    33,493
    Latest member
    dracula

    Latest threads

    Top Bottom