Automotive Deals Best Books of the Month Amazon Fashion Learn more nav_sap_plcc_ascpsc Pink Floyd Fire TV Stick Happy Belly Coffee Handmade school supplies Shop-by-Room Amazon Cash Back Offer TarantinoCollection TarantinoCollection TarantinoCollection  Amazon Echo  Echo Dot  Amazon Tap  Echo Dot  Amazon Tap  Amazon Echo Introducing new colors All-New Kindle Oasis STEM Water Sports
Customer Discussions > Politics forum

The 2nd amendment says people have the right to weapons


Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 126-150 of 215 posts in this discussion
In reply to an earlier post on May 29, 2012 1:13:32 PM PDT
seajaw says:
"What country can preserve its liberties if its rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms."

And we (the federal government) will quash them:

"To provide for calling forth the Militia to...suppress Insurrections..."

In reply to an earlier post on May 29, 2012 1:15:08 PM PDT
Chuckles says:
I would love for another Constitutional Convention to be held. It is high time that States were allowed to exercise their sovereignty similar to the nations of Europe. The federal government should be more restricted in its scope of authority, to be devoted to the national defense and coordinate interstate/international commerce.

In reply to an earlier post on May 29, 2012 1:15:59 PM PDT
yep, there was no social safety net.

In reply to an earlier post on May 29, 2012 1:17:50 PM PDT
Chuckles says:
I think it is tyranny that the National Guard can be federalized. That isn't what it was intended to do. It was not meant to be sent to fight foreign wars, but to provide stability within its home state's borders.

In reply to an earlier post on May 29, 2012 1:17:57 PM PDT
VRWC says:
Given what the government has done to many of our other rights, I for one am happy to have the paranoid out there guarding my liberties.

I don't subscribe to all slippery slope arguments, but when they do come true it is almost always government that is pushing us down the slope.

In reply to an earlier post on May 29, 2012 1:19:08 PM PDT
Nathan Kull says:
<<Be honest, do you think a bunch of gun hobbyists are really going to stand up to the armed Feds for long?>>

If things were so out of control that the people of this nation needed to rise up against their government in force, and they had enough people feeling that this cause was necessary, you would be surprised what a large number of people could do. I don't see this happening, but the people having this ability is NOT a bad thing.

I will never give up my weapons... Ever. I don't ever want to have to use them outside of the range, or hunting, but I do intend to keep them at the ready as long as I live.

In reply to an earlier post on May 29, 2012 1:19:20 PM PDT
Chaz,
I'm suprised, I thought you were a big government kind of guy. I think we would wind up with something close to the Articles of Confederation, really restricting federal power and the power to tax.

In reply to an earlier post on May 29, 2012 1:19:34 PM PDT
seajaw says:
I'm not stating that it isn't an individual right. It clearly is. Just as clearly, however, that individual is answerable to the federal government as called.

And there is no part of the Bill of Rights that states the government can't enforce a limit on any particular type of firearm. Doesn't say, either way.

No reason why the government can't limit extended clips, or semi-automatic handguns. It just says they have to let you -- presumably acting as a member of a well-regulated Militia -- own a gun. It doesn't say you get your pick of the litter.

The wording might even be a way to ensure that the gun owner is ultimately answerable to the federal government, if a local authority attempts to "go rogue."

Posted on May 29, 2012 1:20:58 PM PDT
TucsonCoyote says:
Word origin militia:

militia, military organization of citizens with limited military training, which is available for emergency service, usually for local defense. In many countries the militia is of ancient origin; Macedonia under Philip II (d. 336 bc), for example, had a militia of clansmen in border regions who could be called to arms to repel invaders. Among the Anglo-Saxon peoples of early medieval Europe, the militia was institutionalized in the fyrd, in which every able-bodied free male was required to give military service. Similar arrangements evolved in other countries. In general, however, the emergence in the Middle Ages of a quasi-professional military aristocracy, which performed military service in return for the right to control land and servile labour, tended to cause the militia to decay, particularly as political power became increasingly centralized and life became more secure. The institution persisted nevertheless and, with the rise of national monarchies, served in some measure to provide a manpower pool for the expanding standing armies. In France in the 18th century, one-eighteenth of the militia was required to enter the regular army each year.

In colonial America the militia, based on the tradition of the fyrd, was the only defense against hostile Indians during the long periods when regular British forces were not available. During the American Revolution, the militia provided the bulk of the American forces as well as a pool for recruiting or drafting of regulars. The militia played a similar role in the War of 1812 and the American Civil War. After that conflict, however, the militia fell into disuse. State-controlled volunteer units, referred to as the National Guard, were formed in most states and came to serve a quasi-social function. Many of these volunteers were veterans of the Civil War, and many were from the middle classes. In the 1870s and '80s, such units were called upon by state governors to break strikes. At that time these state units constituted the nation's only trained reserve. In the 20th century, despite the parallel growth of designated reserve forces, the National Guard was called into federal service in both world wars and continued to be used in emergencies by both the state and the federal government.

In Great Britain the Territorial Force, a militia-like reserve organization for home defense, was created in 1908. It became the Territorial Army in 1921, and overseas service was required. During World War II the militia principle was followed in the establishment of the Home Guard. Militia forces-conscripts who undergo periodic military training until retired to an inactive reserve in middle age-constitute today the bulk of the armed forces available for emergency service in Switzerland, Israel, Sweden, and several other countries. China and various other countries that maintain large standing forces and conscript reserves also support huge militia forces as territorial reserves for local defense.

http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/382443/militia

In reply to an earlier post on May 29, 2012 1:23:36 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on May 29, 2012 1:29:55 PM PDT
seajaw says:
You are assuming a modern independent Militia, which is presumably NOT the "well-regulated Militia" set forth in the Second Amendment.

Yours would be the Survivalists, Freemen, or whatever other groups are out there. They are not the "well-regulated Militia" of the Bill of Rights.

As such, I believe the Second Amendment does not protect them.

In reply to an earlier post on May 29, 2012 1:24:44 PM PDT
Chuckles says:
I guess you were wrong. I think that the clause, "to promote the general welfare" was too vague and was used to grab power from the states. There ARE things that only a federal government can do, like build an interstate highway system to facilitate interstate commerce, but it has overstepped its boundaries in too many instances.

In reply to an earlier post on May 29, 2012 1:28:42 PM PDT
seajaw says:
The National Guard is the "National" Guard for a reason. It is not limited to any one state, and can be called forth to support other states as need be.

I do agree that it is unfair to thrust the Guard into foreign conflicts.

In reply to an earlier post on May 29, 2012 1:28:44 PM PDT
<<Given what the government has done to many of our other rights, I for one am happy to have the paranoid out there guarding my liberties.

I don't subscribe to all slippery slope arguments, but when they do come true it is almost always government that is pushing us down the slope.>>

I'm in agreement with you on the loss of individual rights. I simply question what a bunch of gun hobbyists are going to do against the technology and firepower of the modern armed forces.

I mean, come on now.

In reply to an earlier post on May 29, 2012 1:31:48 PM PDT
seajaw,
My modern militia would be every free citizen with a firearm that felt strongly enough about an abuse to take up arms and risk their lives, fortunes and sacred honor in it's defense.

Posted on May 29, 2012 1:32:45 PM PDT
seajaw says:
The only Militia spoken to in the Constitution is one ultimately answerable to the federal government.

All others would presumably have no legal standing or Second Amendment protection, since they do not apply.

In reply to an earlier post on May 29, 2012 1:34:46 PM PDT
seajaw says:
Then, they don't qualify for Second Amendment protections, as they are not part of the "well-regulated Militia" that is answerable to the federal government in the Constitution.

In reply to an earlier post on May 29, 2012 1:37:10 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on May 29, 2012 1:37:58 PM PDT
Del,
Have you ever served in the military? To those of us who have your question is nonsensical.

Think about Iraq, Afganistan and Vietnam. How much good did the technology do us in any of those conflicts? Technology doesn't win wars, men willing to sacrifice everything for what they believe in do.

Many of those gun hobbists are ex-military and you might be suprised to learn what a lot of us old fart hobbists know about applied mayhem.

In reply to an earlier post on May 29, 2012 1:37:14 PM PDT
Mark Time says:
You would have a very small militia.

In reply to an earlier post on May 29, 2012 1:38:11 PM PDT
VRWC says:
Well, if we're really talking about a scenario in which widespread armed insurrection is likely, I suspect that large portions of our heavily armed military would side with the rebels.

In reply to an earlier post on May 29, 2012 1:39:03 PM PDT
Chuckles says:
Too bad that is not how the SCOTUS sees it. Now there is tyranny in action. Nine non-elected, serve a term for life people sitting in judgement as to what the constitution "means" to say.

In reply to an earlier post on May 29, 2012 1:40:48 PM PDT
I am a militia unto myself.
And...my right to bear arms should not be infringed.

Especially when it takes the cops over 10 minutes to get to my neighborhood.

In reply to an earlier post on May 29, 2012 1:40:54 PM PDT
Chuckles says:
I don't think so. I envision a scenario more like what is happening in Syria. The general populace would be slaughtered...like WACO.

In reply to an earlier post on May 29, 2012 1:40:56 PM PDT
Mark,
It would depend on how important the issue was. How many people do you think wold rise up to uphold freedom of religion or speech? Or how many would take up arms if an elected president cancelled further elections? There are issues and causes worth fighting and dying for and enough Americans would step up to bat if necessary.

In reply to an earlier post on May 29, 2012 1:45:42 PM PDT
Chaz,
the only reasons Assad is surviving is that the military is backing him. At Waco the military properly refused to cooperate with the civilian law enforcement agencies. The FBI wanted to obtain armored vehicles and crews from the 2nd Armored Dvision at FT. Hood and was refused. They then wanted vehicles and crews from the Texas Guard, and were only allowed to borrow vehicles, but not trained crews.

In reply to an earlier post on May 29, 2012 1:46:09 PM PDT
TucsonCoyote says:
In the US it would depend on which popular TV show was on that night.
[Add comment]
Add your own message to the discussion
To insert a product link use the format: [[ASIN:ASIN product-title]] (What's this?)
Prompts for sign-in
 


Recent discussions in the Politics forum

  Discussion Replies Latest Post
Announcement
Amazon Discussions Feedback Forum
3720 7 hours ago
If Trump wins, I expect everyone who threatened to leave America make good on it 43 21 seconds ago
Obama's half-brother says he's voting for Donald Trump 8 22 seconds ago
5 reasons why this society got to go: Part 1 - Our society is beyond repair so let's move on? 1 31 seconds ago
DNC chair won't speak at Dem convention 25 53 seconds ago
Wikileaks exposed DNC dishonesty--Wasserman Schultz says they have to stop 11 2 minutes ago
Rasmussen: Trump up by +7 points! 212 3 minutes ago
How well is Obama's Muslim outreach working? 2 3 minutes ago
MvM's summer shanty,an Oasis from politics for the Forum friends! 868 3 minutes ago
20,000 Wikileaks Emails Reveal Open Collusion Between DNC and HRC Before Nomination Secured 89 7 minutes ago
Judge orders Trump to pay over $300,000 in attorney fees for stiffing mom and pop paint store. 2 8 minutes ago
First Poll since Convention puts Trump ahead, 51% to 49% 32 10 minutes ago
 

This discussion

Discussion in:  Politics forum
Participants:  24
Total posts:  215
Initial post:  May 28, 2012
Latest post:  May 31, 2012

New! Receive e-mail when new posts are made.
Tracked by 1 customer

Search Customer Discussions