2nd Ammendment common sense...

Discussion in 'The Powder Keg' started by BenP, May 14, 2002.

  1. BenP

    BenP Guest

    If the authors of our constitution and bill of rights had intended that the general public not have the right to keep and bear arms, then why didn't they try disarming them from the beginning? I think 200 years of indifference to gun ownership ought to pretty much set the precedent on how the law ought to be interpreted now.

    What really bothers me is why, when the liberals first started making the argument on what the 2nd ammendment really meant, no one brought up the fact that we've always allowed law abiding citizens to keep personal firearms, and none of the leaders of this country have ever thought about disarming them, until lately, that is.

    If Washington really thought that only state militias should have firearms, then why didn't he collect everyone's up and put them in the armories after the war? I'd say it's obnoxiously obvious that the people who wrote the law had absolutely no intention of ever disarming the public. How can any sane person possibly come to any other conclusion?
  2. Stopper

    Stopper G&G Newbie

    Everytime I read it, the 2nd still says the same thing.


    What is so hard to understand. The militia stuff is about the militia but how can they negate the verse about the PEOPLE.

    Who do they think the PEOPLE are?

    It is pretty clear to me.

  3. PAPA G

    PAPA G G&G Evangelist Forum Contributor

    its pretty clear to me also!!! i wonder how the @nd amendment would read if todays lawyers wrote it???:rolleyes:

    SPOCAHP ANAR G&G Enthusiast


    I think the word militia as it pertains to the 2nd means the everyday Joe Blow citizen.

    The militia when utilized in the colonial times were volunteers of ordinary men; who may or may not have prior military service that would take up arms (usually their own) and defend themselves against whatever threat there was. If they weren't militia they would have been called "Colonial Soldiers".

    Now if any history buffs are out there you can help me out with the folowing:

    1) Was the militia paid?
    2) Was the militia an official part of any colonial government?

    I am telling you folks that unless the US supreme court addresses this and interprets this the way it is suppose to read then we will have increasing gun restrictions on us the law abiding until they finally get to where they will just start banning them and confiscation. I even expect it to get to where they try to amend the constitution by repealing the 2nd. (what is it 2/3rds or 3/4 to amend the BOR). You wait it will come the day unless something is done about it now.
  5. Big Dog

    Big Dog Retired IT Dinosaur Wrangler Forum Contributor

    Well, your title says it all - "common sense"! look on the websites of the rabid antigun groups. and you see that their idea of what constitutes common sense is woefully different than ours. Try to explain our views to them, you're talking to deaf ears. They don't want to hear our side. Logic means nothing. They'll rewrite the constitution to what they see fit.
  6. Doglips

    Doglips Guest

    Gona have to go with big dog on this one. What was it Admeral Halsey once said..."Common Sense is an uncommon vertue". The problem is that I have seen lawyers argue over how the placement of a "," changes the meaning of a contract. The word milita for lawers is open season.....My concer is that the anti constatution people will just bann bulletts....we be porked then.
  7. BattleRifleG3

    BattleRifleG3 G&G Evangelist

    The most official militias ever got was under local government. Everyone in a town was to be mustered at least once a year, I think. They were expected to bring their own clothes and weapons.
    As far as being under a government, it was more of a community requirement. If you live in this town, you defend it from Indians, that simple.

    SPOCAHP ANAR G&G Enthusiast

    Thanks BRG3

    I found out the true definition of "militia" as defined by the US Supreme Court in the 1939 US vs Miller case. The one libs claim to say we have no right to bear arms (it says anything but) You should read it sometime.
    Just read my signature!
  9. BenP

    BenP Guest

    If the lawyers want to hang their hat on semantics, then I would say to them look at the precedence. How has it been interpreted for the last 200 + years? Why is it their interpretion, which doesn't correlate historically, must somehow be right. Are they somehow enlightened beyond what the authors of the law were when they actually wrote and enforced the law for the first time? If the men who wrote and ratified the 2nd ammendment intended that it restrict gun ownership, were they then cowards for not enforcing their intentions, or did they believe that the law abiding individual ought to be allowed ownership of conventional weaponry, as was indicated by their own actions? I think that the lawyers have no support for gun control arguments based on any interpretation of the 2nd ammendment or any other part of the constitution or the bill of rights.
  10. Shaun

    Shaun G&G Evangelist

    they need to stop defining "IS" this could be why they keep challenging the plain and simple verbage of the 2nd