Just a few points to ponder, because you take away a persons right to own a firearm doesn't mean you take away his right to defend himself, you can defend yourself very well with household items, baseball bats,a bow and arrow or a can of extra strength raid, of course the body's natural weapons hand and foot too.

There are some jurisdictions which restore a NON violent felon's right of firearms ownership. I have no problem with this but there are lots of cases of HABITUAL criminals who DO NOT commit felonies or are non violent. I'm not so sure such persons should be owning firearms because of their criminal lifestyle even non violent. "Drug addict in possession of a firearm" was always one of my favorite examples

LAST TO MY KNOWLEDGE, NO ONE HAS EVER BEEN PROSECUTED FOR BELONGING TO A SELF STYLE MILITIA....Then again how far down do you split the infinitive in defining a "militia", does a "militia" have to be armed (with firearms) suppose they are armed with baseball bats or home made spears,or not armed at all and merely are a citizens watch?

any prosecution of persons by the Govt for forming or belonging to a "militia" would have an excellent chance of exonoration in my opinion under the 2nd.

Quote from: TboneAgain on November 22, 2014, 03:53:06 PM
Not quite.

The Second Amendment, like the rest of the first ten amendments -- the Bill of Rights -- was not written to assign a right or privilege to anyone. In fact it wasn't even part of the Constitution as first submitted to the states for ratification.

The right to keep and bear arms was assumed by the Founders to be the right of every free citizen. It was a right he obtained at birth, granted by God, a right that no power could modify or remove. The same can be said for freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, freedom to petition the government, freedom from unlawful search or seizure, and on and on. These were all 'assumed' rights in the minds of the founders. They were basic concepts of life that no one could possibly question, the Founders thought. The entire Constitution was written to prevent the new federal government from infringing on those rights.

Some states weren't comfortable with the concept of such 'assumed' rights, and demanded a listing of the basics -- hence the first ten amendments, later described as the "Bill of Rights." The Founders were probably tempted to insert the words "of course" in front of many of the clauses they constructed. In other words, it might have read, "... of course the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." But they didn't do that.

In summary, the Second Amendment, like most of the first ten amendments, is a descriptive declaration, not a claim of some new or unique right. In 1789, every state believed its individual citizens had the God-given right to keep and bear arms. But coming off a period of domination by a foreign crown that constantly sought to deny that right to its subjects, the states understandably wanted all the T's crossed and the I's dotted in the fancy new Constitution. The Second Amendment wasn't a cool new thing that the Founders discovered and added to the Constitution. It's just an explicit statement of what everybody already assumed to be the case.

WTF....are you on drugs  ??

The constitution at it's simplest, says "the fed govt WON'T deny these things".

Guns being one of them.  Perhaps the most obvious, against despots.

End of debate.

Quote from: TboneAgain on November 22, 2014, 03:53:06 PM
Not quite.

The Second Amendment, like the rest of the first ten amendments -- the Bill of Rights -- was not written to assign a right or privilege to anyone. In fact it wasn't even part of the Constitution as first submitted to the states for ratification.

The right to keep and bear arms was assumed by the Founders to be the right of every free citizen. It was a right he obtained at birth, granted by God, a right that no power could modify or remove. The same can be said for freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, freedom to petition the government, freedom from unlawful search or seizure, and on and on. These were all 'assumed' rights in the minds of the founders. They were basic concepts of life that no one could possibly question, the Founders thought. The entire Constitution was written to prevent the new federal government from infringing on those rights.

Some states weren't comfortable with the concept of such 'assumed' rights, and demanded a listing of the basics -- hence the first ten amendments, later described as the "Bill of Rights." The Founders were probably tempted to insert the words "of course" in front of many of the clauses they constructed. In other words, it might have read, "... of course the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." But they didn't do that.

In summary, the Second Amendment, like most of the first ten amendments, is a descriptive declaration, not a claim of some new or unique right. In 1789, every state believed its individual citizens had the God-given right to keep and bear arms. But coming off a period of domination by a foreign crown that constantly sought to deny that right to its subjects, the states understandably wanted all the T's crossed and the I's dotted in the fancy new Constitution. The Second Amendment wasn't a cool new thing that the Founders discovered and added to the Constitution. It's just an explicit statement of what everybody already assumed to be the case.

???  I'm not quite sure of where you were going with the lengthy explanation as the 2nd Amendment is roughly one sentence long and pretty cut and dry.  It doesn't mention exclusions or limitations, nor does it give any branch of the government the authority to regulate this right, but it does clearly state that this right of the "people" shall NOT be infringed.  Very obvious to me, that was done for a reason.

First, the quote in my opening post was from a post in another thread by Gator Monroe.

I thought I'd offer some counter points to encourage some intelligent discussion.

Perhaps I should have known better...

Second at least TboneAgain "gets it"!

Quote from: TboneAgain on November 22, 2014, 03:53:06 PM
Not quite.

The Second Amendment, like the rest of the first ten amendments -- the Bill of Rights -- was not written to assign a right or privilege to anyone. In fact it wasn't even part of the Constitution as first submitted to the states for ratification.

The right to keep and bear arms was assumed by the Founders to be the right of every free citizen. It was a right he obtained at birth, granted by God, a right that no power could modify or remove. The same can be said for freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, freedom to petition the government, freedom from unlawful search or seizure, and on and on. These were all 'assumed' rights in the minds of the founders. They were basic concepts of life that no one could possibly question, the Founders thought. The entire Constitution was written to prevent the new federal government from infringing on those rights.

Some states weren't comfortable with the concept of such 'assumed' rights, and demanded a listing of the basics -- hence the first ten amendments, later described as the "Bill of Rights." The Founders were probably tempted to insert the words "of course" in front of many of the clauses they constructed. In other words, it might have read, "... of course the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." But they didn't do that.

In summary, the Second Amendment, like most of the first ten amendments, is a descriptive declaration, not a claim of some new or unique right. In 1789, every state believed its individual citizens had the God-given right to keep and bear arms. But coming off a period of domination by a foreign crown that constantly sought to deny that right to its subjects, the states understandably wanted all the T's crossed and the I's dotted in the fancy new Constitution. The Second Amendment wasn't a cool new thing that the Founders discovered and added to the Constitution. It's just an explicit statement of what everybody already assumed to be the case.

This is absolutely 100% correct!

Darth

I am in a minority as far as my views on 2A & RTKBA but purists are torn on a few examples here & there at least which gives me hope that they are not blinded by the whole thing...

Quote from: Darth Fife on November 22, 2014, 10:50:08 PM
First, the quote in my opening post was from a post in another thread by Gator Monroe.

I thought I'd offer some counter points to encourage some intelligent discussion.

Perhaps I should have known better...

Second at least TboneAgain "gets it"!

This is absolutely 100% correct!

Darth

Putting people down actually only reflects your lack of intelligence.  I stand by my opinion.  The 2nd Amendment is very simply stated.  If all the but's and if's were intended the framers would have outlined such. Stated in the Constitution are steps needed to make an amendment.  The 2nd amendment was ratified in 1791 and has withstood numerous attacks over time and has been whittled away at.  All of our rights are dependent on this amendment; without it, all others are at risk.

Quote from: suzziY on November 23, 2014, 05:48:52 AM
Putting people down actually only reflects your lack of intelligence.  I stand by my opinion.  The 2nd Amendment is very simply stated.  If all the but's and if's were intended the framers would have outlined such. Stated in the Constitution are steps needed to make an amendment.  The 2nd amendment was ratified in 1791 and has withstood numerous attacks over time and has been whittled away at.  All of our rights are dependent on this amendment; without it, all others are at risk.

RoevWade must not resonate then and you should have a beef with it also ?

Tyranny or Invasion are main reasons 2A is paramount .

Quote from: Gator Monroe on November 23, 2014, 09:57:47 AM
Tyranny or Invasion are main reasons 2A is paramount .

Yes and we have been under invasion for quite sometime and we have a tyrannyst president and government.

Yet if we prepare and train and stock up we are "Paramilitary Douches"

Quote from: Gator Monroe on November 23, 2014, 11:03:49 AM
Yet if we prepare and train and stock up we are "Paramilitary Douches"

  That's ok, I've been called worse by the leftist liberal mental midgets (terrorist, baby killer, heartless,. anti-American, racist you name it).

Quote from: suzziY on November 22, 2014, 07:33:11 PM
???  I'm not quite sure of where you were going with the lengthy explanation as the 2nd Amendment is roughly one sentence long and pretty cut and dry.  It doesn't mention exclusions or limitations, nor does it give any branch of the government the authority to regulate this right, but it does clearly state that this right of the "people" shall NOT be infringed.  Very obvious to me, that was done for a reason.

What is DOES NOT say is "the people have the right to keep and bear arms." THAT WAS ASSUMED. Their view was: "That doesn't need to be said; of course the people have that right." That's why they wrote "the right of the people to keep and bear arms [which of course already exists and cannot be denied] shall not be infringed." Can you see the difference?

If my explanation was too long for you, you may be on the wrong forum. In this place we say what needs to be said, even if it goes longer than a sentence or two.

Quote from: TboneAgain on November 23, 2014, 02:06:01 PM
What is DOES NOT say is "the people have the right to keep and bear arms." THAT WAS ASSUMED. Their view was: "That doesn't need to be said; of course the people have that right." That's why they wrote "the right of the people to keep and bear arms [which of course already exists and cannot be denied] shall not be infringed." Can you see the difference?

If my explanation was too long for you, you may be on the wrong forum. In this place we say what needs to be said, even if it goes longer than a sentence or two.

Give Gator Monroe enough sentences and he will surely hang himself.

Quote from: TboneAgain on November 23, 2014, 02:06:01 PM
What is DOES NOT say is "the people have the right to keep and bear arms." THAT WAS ASSUMED. Their view was: "That doesn't need to be said; of course the people have that right." That's why they wrote "the right of the people to keep and bear arms [which of course already exists and cannot be denied] shall not be infringed." Can you see the difference?

If my explanation was too long for you, you may be on the wrong forum. In this place we say what needs to be said, even if it goes longer than a sentence or two.

Again, exactly correct!

It was feared that if any rights of the people were spelled out in the Constitution it would be assumed that those were the only rights the people had!

And, looking around us, I see that the framers fears were well founded!

In fact, it has gone far beyond that. Entirely too many people, today, believe that their rights are granted by the Government!

And, as we all know, what the Government gives, the Government can take away!

Darth

Quote from: Gator Monroe on November 23, 2014, 02:08:17 PM
Give Gator Monroe enough sentences and he will surely hang himself.

Sentences = rope?