mod sledder
I guess it could be argued that the militia is refering to the national guard.
tim
I guess it could be argued that the militia is refering to the national guard.
tim
Stock piling ammo
- Thread starter MPS
- Start date
M
MPS
Well-known member
come on over brotha!
and Tim....yes that could be argued...but it could also be argued that it refers to any militia that secures our freedom....agencies change - gain and lose power (or can be corrupted), the founding fathers understood that...therefore they did not want to label anything.
I saw a Zombie today! Oh wait, it was just an emo kid. I probably should go appologize to his family. Brb.
4000 rounds of 12 gauge loaded...22# of powder 15000 primers and approx but very close 2400# of lead shot. I can hold them off for a while.
I think the second amendment refers only to the right for civilians to form militia, not that it is an individuals right to own guns.
Though, I don't think that the founding fathers would think that there would have ever be an issue or a reason to take away peoples / individuals guns in the first place. I don't think they anticipated the gun question that we are in now.
I am curious though, that everyone doesn't seem to be bothered by the fact that we have a standing military, when it was there belief that it was a problem having one.
Though, I don't think that the founding fathers would think that there would have ever be an issue or a reason to take away peoples / individuals guns in the first place. I don't think they anticipated the gun question that we are in now.
I am curious though, that everyone doesn't seem to be bothered by the fact that we have a standing military, when it was there belief that it was a problem having one.
I think the second amendment refers only to the right for civilians to form militia, not that it is an individuals right to own guns.
than why did the supreme court strike down the handgun ban in washington dc?
than why did the supreme court strike down the handgun ban in washington dc?
like most things, the court creates policy from the bench, interpreting the intent of what was written.
As I said, I don't think our founding fathers would have thought that we would get to a point where guns would be illegal... which is why it isn't written as an individual right. That is my thought / interpretation of it though, not fact, just my thoughts.
M
MPS
Well-known member
You never cease to amaze me....you and your counterpart need to take a Consitution class!!!!!!!!! The people are the citizens of this nation!
the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed
You forgot the word militia in there.... It should be read as the right to keep and bear arms for purposes of a militia... At least that is how I logically read that statement.
The first part of the statement is showing the need / purpose / for what is coming after....
I have a counterpart? She isn't on here... she is out driving a humvee out in the sun... blasted training...
S
Snow Fox
Guest
The founding fathers considered citizens as militia. It was this reason to protect the countries citizens from the government in case the need would arise to rebel against the government.
For all the liberals who seem to get confused by BIG words like militia, let me direct you. Questions???????
http://gunshowonthenet.com/2ndAmendmentdefined.html
http://gunshowonthenet.com/2ndAmendmentdefined.html
Very true... I guess the point I am trying to make is that it clearly states that we have the right to have guns for militia purposes only. The other uses of guns is not so specific. This is where the gray area, and the area of disagreement / different conclusions are made.
It does not clearly state that you have the right to have a gun when there isn't a militia formed. Now I am not arguing with what I deem as correct, should be, just how I read / interpret what was written so long ago.
Remember, the constitution is a limiting document. It clearly states what rights you DO NOT have, and is exclusionary in principle and purpose. By stating what rights you do have, it also states what rights we don't have... something to keep in mind as it is an interesting point / topic.
Last edited:
If you tuely believe this please point out the sections that define Medicade, Social Security, Taxes...........The list goes on......Sounds like you should be in the Constitutional party, IF YOU TRUELY BELIEVE THIS!!!
M
modsledr
Well-known member
One thing to keep in mind is that many of the rights addressed by the constitution and the amendments are assumed as pre-existing.
The second amendment is one of those...your right to "keep and bear arms" is assumed, the amendment addresses the drafters desire that your right not be infringed.
And, the right is NOT conditioned on being part of a militia...it simply states that a militia is necessary for the security of a free state.
The second amendment is one of those...your right to "keep and bear arms" is assumed, the amendment addresses the drafters desire that your right not be infringed.
And, the right is NOT conditioned on being part of a militia...it simply states that a militia is necessary for the security of a free state.
ruffy, you need to spend less time interpreting and more time reading what it says.
if you want to live in a gun free, heavy gov't country there are plenty to choose from, just get out of mine.
if you want to live in a gun free, heavy gov't country there are plenty to choose from, just get out of mine.
Ruffy,
"the right of the people to keep and bear Arms", seems pretty clear to me.
Do you think this means the state?
First Amendment: "the right of the people peaceably to assemble", do you also think this is talking about the state, or militia?
Forth Amendment: "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
What about this, does the state only have this right, or the militia. Within the context of the "amendments", it is pretty clear.
Since militias, at the time this document was written, were not very formal, what would it take to form a militia? A governor to just say, let a militia be?
"the right of the people to keep and bear Arms", seems pretty clear to me.
Do you think this means the state?
First Amendment: "the right of the people peaceably to assemble", do you also think this is talking about the state, or militia?
Forth Amendment: "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
What about this, does the state only have this right, or the militia. Within the context of the "amendments", it is pretty clear.
Since militias, at the time this document was written, were not very formal, what would it take to form a militia? A governor to just say, let a militia be?
Last edited:
Why do you think my interpretation of what it says is equal to what my opinion is on the subject? I have not stated my opinion... Seems like with all your complaining about the USA lately, maybe you are the one that should go..... just a thought, as I kind of like it here.
Talking about all people, not state, nor militia... I think you are making a poor argument, or at least are not clear at the point I am trying to make, or maybe I am not clear in the point I am trying to make..
How about if the First Amendment stated this...
"For purposes of taxes, the right of the people peaceably to assemble" Would you take that to mean that you can peaceable assemble to talk about taxes only, or that you have the right to peaceable assemble on anything..
Not sure if that is a good example or not, but I am going with it.
Some sort of command structure, maybe a uniform, I don't know... some guns and not much else.
How long do you guys let ammo sit around before you would consider it unsafe or unusuable? I'm not a fanatic, but I do own a few guns. Shotgun and Pistol for self/home defense and a AR mostly as a toy. (But it would sure come in handy in a worst case senario) I keep a few hundred rounds of each on hand at most times, but I'm leary of having too much sit around for a long time and be useless. Any thoughts?
