Your View: Time to take Second Amendm...

Your View: Time to take Second Amendment from 'cold dead hands'

There are 87 comments on the Alabama Live story from May 10, 2012, titled Your View: Time to take Second Amendment from 'cold dead hands'. In it, Alabama Live reports that:

The problem with discussing gun ownership in this country, I believe, begins with the assumption that everyone has the "right" to own as presumably -- and, I might add, incorrectly -- interpreted by the Second Amendment.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Alabama Live.

First Prev
of 5
Next Last
The Gun Guy

Red Lion, PA

#1 May 10, 2012
And on and on it goes; the same claptrap about the 2nd Amendment being for the purpose of creating a militia. Any such reference is easily understood by realizing the Founder's understanding for the need to maintain an armed population to protect against tyranny from without, and within. This protection for the people was to be controlled by the people, not as some favor granted by the government. Thus, the affirmation of the RIGHT of the PEOPLE to arm themselves. The article infers that firearms be treated the same as automobiles. He is not correct in writing, "...each gun should be licensed, just as each of our cars is 'tagged'." If an automobile is to be stored or driven on private property, it need not be licensed in most states. The article states, as well, "Consider that in 39 states, the purchase of guns requires no license or registration. We shouldn't be able to buy guns like they are vegetables in the produce market." Since the requirement of the NICS background check was instituted, there is NO state where a firearm may be purchased from a dealer (who must be licensed) without the acquiescence of the federal government. Wouldn't it be grand to be able to purchase a firearm as easily as we purchase an automobile or vegetables?

“Tu ne cede malis”

Since: Dec 06

Lots of different places

#2 May 10, 2012
The Gun Guy wrote:
And on and on it goes; the same claptrap about the 2nd Amendment being for the purpose of creating a militia. Any such reference is easily understood by realizing the Founder's understanding for the need to maintain an armed population to protect against tyranny from without, and within. This protection for the people was to be controlled by the people, not as some favor granted by the government. Thus, the affirmation of the RIGHT of the PEOPLE to arm themselves. The article infers that firearms be treated the same as automobiles. He is not correct in writing, "...each gun should be licensed, just as each of our cars is 'tagged'." If an automobile is to be stored or driven on private property, it need not be licensed in most states. The article states, as well, "Consider that in 39 states, the purchase of guns requires no license or registration. We shouldn't be able to buy guns like they are vegetables in the produce market." Since the requirement of the NICS background check was instituted, there is NO state where a firearm may be purchased from a dealer (who must be licensed) without the acquiescence of the federal government. Wouldn't it be grand to be able to purchase a firearm as easily as we purchase an automobile or vegetables?
Agreed, and the author of that hit piece know not whereof he speaks.
.
In fact under the U.S. Constitution, Article I, Section 8, clause (15) states:
——————————
.
To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions;
——————————
.
Well, if the militia is entirely a state force —which it is— then any contention regarding the 2nd AoA as 'giving permission' to the states to form militias is ludicrous on its face. That's further buttressed in Article I, Section 10, clause (3):
——————————
.
No state shall, without the consent of Congress, lay any duty of tonnage, keep troops, or ships of war in time of peace, enter into any agreement or compact with another state, or with a foreign power, or engage in war, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent danger as will not admit of delay.
——————————
.
Note the distinctions: The Constitution DOES NOT state that the states are 'permitted' their militias, being as they are an entirely civilian force.
.
But on the other hand, in Section 10, there is the express prohibition of keeping troops, which by their definition are an organised and permanent military force, i.e., a 'standing army.'
.
Finally, in the Heller decision, all nine justices ruled unanimously that the 2nd AoA is indeed an INDIVIDUAL right. Where they disagreed was on that matter of the ability of the states to 'regulate' the right. The majority ruled that no such power exists, and neither should it, inasmuch as rights can't be such if they are subject to depredation by way weasel words which would insinuate that the right is nought but a mere privilege.
.
Finally, the U.S. Constitution is a document of limited powers, as indicated by the 10th AoA.

Since: Apr 12

Location hidden

#3 May 11, 2012
Wow you guys really know how to take a simple, easily understood phrase and twist it into a crazy pretzel.

“Constitutionist/ SAF”

Since: Mar 08

Location hidden

#4 May 11, 2012
JackBray wrote:
If you look closely at that amendment, you will see the Founders were talking about arming a militia, not every Tom, Dick and Harriet American who would ever be born.
...the right of the ''militia members'' to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

“Now thats a tin hat!”

Since: Oct 07

Blue Ridge Mountains

#5 May 11, 2012
OregonSUX wrote:
Wow you guys really know how to take a simple, easily understood phrase and twist it into a crazy pretzel.
What, that oregonsux is a terminal dumbass.

Your right. It is a simple phrase.

I take it to mean you are too stupid to get put of bed without your breaking your neck.
Louiston

Omaha, NE

#6 May 11, 2012
OregonSUX wrote:
Wow you guys really know how to take a simple, easily understood phrase and twist it into a crazy pretzel.
Obviously it's not understood by the window licker on the short bus but you are what you are. Some day you'll get it but I don't hold out hope.

Since: Apr 12

Location hidden

#7 May 11, 2012
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.

NOT

The right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

Why aren't gun lovers able to read a simple sentence and comprehend its meaning as well as a typical 12 year old.

Since: Apr 12

Location hidden

#8 May 11, 2012
Oh yeah, it is also NOT

Being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

“Now thats a tin hat!”

Since: Oct 07

Blue Ridge Mountains

#9 May 11, 2012
OregonSUX wrote:
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.
NOT
The right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
Why aren't gun lovers able to read a simple sentence and comprehend its meaning as well as a typical 12 year old.
Let me help, you thundering moron.

A well regulated militia is indeed necessary to the security of a free state. Nice simple elegant.

That would be a complete sentence, something you don't understand.

The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Another simple and elegant complete sentence.

Two simple and elegant complete sentences.

Yet far to complicated for little idiots like you.

Try this

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Accorsding to idiots like you, this mean only the people can assemble and petition, and only the press has free speech.

Jesus but you are indeed stupid.

I guess when they say the people, they are not talking about knuckle draggers like you.
goes around comes around

Buffalo, NY

#10 May 11, 2012
OregonSUX wrote:
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.
NOT
The right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
Why aren't gun lovers able to read a simple sentence and comprehend its meaning as well as a typical 12 year old.
I will keep my arms and provide my own security as I see fit. Those arms may be anything from an axe or knife to a firearm or firearms as needed. I will not go out of my way to bother anyone but damn sure will not be bothered in return.

Since: Apr 12

Location hidden

#11 May 11, 2012
goes around comes around wrote:
<quoted text>I will keep my arms and provide my own security as I see fit. Those arms may be anything from an axe or knife to a firearm or firearms as needed. I will not go out of my way to bother anyone but damn sure will not be bothered in return.
Who is asking you to return anything?

I am not. Who is?

Since: Apr 12

Location hidden

#12 May 11, 2012
Still torturing the Constitution for no reason.

I like those semicolons.

Since: Apr 12

Location hidden

#13 May 11, 2012
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

This is NOT:

...or abridging the freedom of speech of the press

...or the right of cows peaceably to assemble
Intent

Belden, MS

#14 May 11, 2012
OregonSUX wrote:
Oh yeah, it is also NOT
Being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
Can you show in any of the other rights "THE PEOPLE" means anything other than THE PEOPLE?
Louiston

Omaha, NE

#15 May 11, 2012
OregonSUX wrote:
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.
NOT
The right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
Why aren't gun lovers able to read a simple sentence and comprehend its meaning as well as a typical 12 year old.
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.
NOT
A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people IN THE MILITA to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
NOT
A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the MILITIA to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
----------
Why are the gun grabbers incapable of seeing just who the right is affirmed for? Damn 3-year olds.
Louiston

Omaha, NE

#16 May 11, 2012
“Foolish liberals who are trying to read the Second Amendment out of the Constitution by claiming it's not an individual right or that it's too much of a public safety hazard, don't see the danger in the big picture. They're courting disaster by encouraging others to use the same means to eliminate portions of the Constitution they don't like.”

Alan Dershowitz - Liberal professor and gun control proponent.

Since: Apr 12

Location hidden

#17 May 11, 2012
Intent wrote:
<quoted text> Can you show in any of the other rights "THE PEOPLE" means anything other than THE PEOPLE?
What are you screaming about. You make zero sense.

Since: Apr 12

Location hidden

#18 May 11, 2012
Louiston wrote:
<quoted text>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.
NOT
A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people IN THE MILITA to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
NOT
A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the MILITIA to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
----------
Why are the gun grabbers incapable of seeing just who the right is affirmed for? Damn 3-year olds.
Why would they repeat the word militia when it is clear what they meant.

Since: Apr 12

Location hidden

#19 May 11, 2012
Louiston wrote:
“Foolish liberals who are trying to read the Second Amendment out of the Constitution by claiming it's not an individual right or that it's too much of a public safety hazard, don't see the danger in the big picture. They're courting disaster by encouraging others to use the same means to eliminate portions of the Constitution they don't like.”
Alan Dershowitz - Liberal professor and gun control proponent.
"Dershowitz said that “a narrow right to own guns for self-protection” existed but that there is still room for substantial government regulations.

Dershowitz, however, called the Second Amendement an “anachronism” because if America had the choice today it would not choose to be an “armed society.”

“The Second Amendment has no place in modern society,” he said.

Dershowitz said that ideally he would like a gun ban, but would settle for significant restrictions.

At the same time, he voiced his opposition to “constitutionalizing” the gun control debate by leaving it for the Supreme Court to decide. Dershowitz said he would prefer that controls are worked out through the legislative process."
goes around comes around

Buffalo, NY

#20 May 11, 2012
OregonSUX wrote:
<quoted text>
Who is asking you to return anything?
I am not. Who is?
Read my first statement again. Also read the entire Bill Of Rights. "The Right Of The People" is specific in the 1st, 2nd and 4th Amendments.#1 freedom of speech, assembly, religion and to petition the government for redress of greivances.#2 right to keep and bear arms.#4 unreasonable search and seizure except under a specific warrant. Those rights are sacred and not to be violated. Have you ever served to defend this country in any manner?

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 5
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Guns Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Clinton blames Republican leaders for a 'paraly... 20 min Chilli J 1,488
News Democrats to push for universal background chec... 10 hr FormerParatrooper 1
News Melania Trump will address immigration controve... 23 hr JohnInLa 234
News George Soros, Other Democratic Megadonors Plowi... Aug 21 Heath Ledger Suic... 2
News New Dating Site Aims to Pair Concealed Carry Si... Aug 21 RobertM 1
News Psychiatrists Reminded To Refrain From Armchair... Aug 20 lorr d 4
News In Several States, Trump's Poll Monitors May Be... Aug 17 Marauder 9
More from around the web