A Complete Sentence: The Second Amendment

Phaseolus

Phaseolus

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 26, 2014
Messages
680
The entire sentence of the second amendment reads, 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.

When people quote the Second Amendment it usually sounds like, “Shall not be infringed”. How should, “A well regulated militia,” and ”,being necessary to the security of a free State,” be interpreted?
 
thomas89 said:
In before the lock.

Don’t you guys got anything else to do other than get riled up?
Click to expand...
Who's riled up? I was just helping clarify definition. The government will never change the 2nd amendment...they dont have to. They will tax the living crap out of guns and ammo to the point where nobody can afford to own one anymore.
 
Phaseolus said:
The entire sentence of the second amendment reads, 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.

When people quote the Second Amendment it usually sounds like, “Shall not be infringed”. How should, “A well regulated militia,” and ”,being necessary to the security of a free State,” be interpreted?
Click to expand...
If you think that taking AR's away is their end goal, you're not very well informed.

Does anyone truly feel like they are well represented by someone in high level government?

If I remember history class correctly, the colonists were upset because no one in the government represented their needs. Then they were getting the shit taxed out of them so they rebelled. They wouldn't have been able to rebel without weapons.

At what point are we being unreasonably taxed? Sending 100's of billions overseas to other countries seems foolish.


FB_IMG_1648485600649.jpg
 
Have at it, but interpreting the meaning of the constitution is what experts in constitutional law do and if you ask 100 experts in constitutional law about the meaning of the second amendment, you're going to get several VERY different interpretations. In the end, we have a politically motivated method of determining who has the final say (The Supreme Court) and for now, we have a ruling that sits pretty close to one end of the spectrum. It will probably change at some point.
 
That went south in a hurry. I had hoped people would talk about the original second amendment as written.
 
Phaseolus said:
That went south in a hurry. I had hoped people would talk about the original second amendment as written.
Click to expand...
It's a very touchy subject for the entire country because half desire it to be understood as written...shall not be infringed upon, and the other half desire it to be remanded and done away with because they foolishly believe that it is the source of mass shootings.
 
Dougfirtree said:
Have at it, but interpreting the meaning of the constitution is what experts in constitutional law do and if you ask 100 experts in constitutional law about the meaning of the second amendment, you're going to get several VERY different interpretations. In the end, we have a politically motivated method of determining who has the final say (The Supreme Court) and for now, we have a ruling that sits pretty close to one end of the spectrum. It will probably change at some point.
Click to expand...
Yeah, but I own a Remington, a Ruger, and a Smith & Wesson ... so doesn't that make me a 2A Constitutional scholar and expert? ;)
 
Pretty simple actually. Government shows up at your door for no valid reason. They are going to take your property. What do you feel should have the right to do? And what shoul you be able to do it with?
 
Hot take.

Neither side cares what it says.

Both sides want their way.

If either side had a time machine to 1776 and got it from the horses mouth they would come back and say "oh well 2023 is different than 1776."

Stevens and Scalia just wrote a really high brow iteration of 37 HT threads.

​

 
If you've read The Federalist papers you have your answer. If you haven't, in this or any other argument regarding the constitution, you don't know what you're talking about.
 
Straight Arrow said:
Just to clarify in order to consider your question, give an example of that occurring.
Click to expand...
Maybe he means hypothetically? If they came for that, that’s likely what will happen.. idk though. I had read an article a couple years ago also that in one or two states law enforcement showed up to folks houses that are registered owners of “assault rifles” and demanded they hand them over or provide some bill of sale. I can’t find squat on an article now though. Fake news perhaps 😂 that’s all I have to contribute.. can’t wait to see where this goes! How many of us are willing to “stand your ground” in a state that provides that statute, against a government entity coming to infringe on your constitutional rights? You better believe they’ll be in Kevlar and armed to the T
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

joelweb
Rep. Clyde Introduces Legislation to Eliminate the Excise Tax on Firearms and Ammunition
7 8 9
Replies
175
Views
13K
rwc101
R
K
Chapter two, shooting the breeze
Replies
4
Views
336
Hunting Wife
Hunting Wife
SD_Prairie_Goat
South Dakota Constitutional Amendment A
Replies
14
Views
2K
Addicting
Addicting
Pucky Freak
Historically-representative ecosystem management
Replies
12
Views
919
Pucky Freak
Pucky Freak
Irrelevant
The coolest thing I saw on this deer hunt was a ruffed grouse.
2
Replies
28
Views
2K
FREAK
FREAK
Caribou Gear

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
111,034
Messages
1,944,418
Members
34,975
Latest member
Fishing-Moka

Share this page

Back
Top