tomcaster
Halfnote
Posts: 91
Formerly Known As: strat-hacker
|
Post by tomcaster on Feb 23, 2021 12:17:23 GMT -5
We spend so much time debating this-it should be re-written to much more straightforward language. The US is a gun nation and will always be. The whole militia thing just muddies the waters to me and is no longer relevant. A militia to keep the government in check? Nonsense-especially in this country.
Thanks to the head Giraffe for making discussions like this one not going off the rails.
|
|
|
Post by Mfitz804 on Feb 23, 2021 13:12:09 GMT -5
It’s not me, the boys stayed within the lines on this one. I am impressed by our membership, once again.
|
|
|
Post by NoSoapRadio on Feb 23, 2021 17:03:56 GMT -5
The whole militia thing just muddies the waters to me and is no longer relevant. Maybe you could take the time to read the entire thread. A militia to keep the government in check? Nonsense-especially in this country. It's worked for over 200 years.
|
|
dan
Quarternote
Posts: 47
|
Post by dan on Feb 23, 2021 23:46:45 GMT -5
But no one has brought up that the 2A was written in large part because the founders did not want a professional army, they thought an army was the enemy of a free people. Well there you go, the 2A has utterly failed! The Constitution provides for an army, who will command, and how it will be funded -- Article I, Section 8, Clause 12. The 2A, as part of the Bill of Rights, was finally adopted two years later. The two are not related. What has utterly failed is our public school system. Well nosoap, I assume you are a product of the public school system, so don't be so down on yourself. I think you turned out just fine...
|
|
tomcaster
Halfnote
Posts: 91
Formerly Known As: strat-hacker
|
Post by tomcaster on Feb 24, 2021 12:35:04 GMT -5
The whole militia thing just muddies the waters to me and is no longer relevant. Maybe you could take the time to read the entire thread. A militia to keep the government in check? Nonsense-especially in this country. It's worked for over 200 years. I did read the whole thread-sorry to have annoyed you. I have my opinion and you have yours. First of all if your over 44 you're out and that's probably most people on here. Yes this is on paper but when was the last time a militia was called for by any state? And when has any militia in the last 150 years challenged the federal government in any significant way whatsoever? Gun rights and militias are 2 different things to me. My take is that gun ownership is guaranteed so you can/may join a militia, which is not a thing in this day and age. I'm sure there are people who disagree with that's my personal opinion. When I said "this country" my reference is to the worlds biggest military.
|
|
|
Post by Mfitz804 on Feb 24, 2021 13:16:35 GMT -5
This was my thought: the term “militia” is too vague. Is it an organized group called by the state, or is it any person with a gun that could one day possibly be called upon (or take it upon themselves) to come forward?
The concept that there will be a State uprising against the Federal Government is probably pretty stale. Why not make clear that EVERYONE has the right, if that is what is intended, without referencing militias?
|
|
|
Post by Larry Madsen on Feb 24, 2021 13:24:09 GMT -5
Why not make clear that EVERYONE has the right, if that is what is intended Well, It does. "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." I admit though that the "preamble" (especially now days) opens the door to what we mentioned previously. My guess is no matter how it was worded there would be those out there arguing it really means something different. Expediency in the moment too often takes over.
|
|
|
Post by Mfitz804 on Feb 24, 2021 13:35:14 GMT -5
Why not make clear that EVERYONE has the right, if that is what is intended Well, It does. "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." I admit though that the "preamble" (especially now days) opens the door to what we mentioned previously. My guess is no matter how it was worded there would be those out there arguing it really means something different. Expediency in the moment too often takes over. Only if you cut out the second part of what I said. Which was my point, the “militia” language isn’t relevant, or at least not as relevant, as the second part, and it only leads to more argument. If it said that every person has the right to own and carry a firearm without a license, and that the States cannot enact any law, rule, ordinance that says otherwise, that’d be pretty clear. Giving the States that power would be similarly clear.
|
|
|
Post by Larry Madsen on Feb 24, 2021 13:51:03 GMT -5
Well, It does. "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." I admit though that the "preamble" (especially now days) opens the door to what we mentioned previously. Only if you cut out the second part of what I said. Which was my point, the “militia” language isn’t relevant, or at least not as relevant, as the second part, and it only leads to more argument. If it said that every person has the right to own and carry a firearm without a license, and that the States cannot enact any law, rule, ordinance that says otherwise, that’d be pretty clear. Giving the States that power would be similarly clear. I would be willing to argue (on behalf of the founders) that in their time the was no Federal Government or army. The protection of freedom and liberty was reliant on and in the hands of the States. The whole idea was to NOT create an all encompassing Federal Government. With that as a frame of reference the notion of Militia should make the Right less open to argument, not more open. It's that other part I mention earlier that gets us to where we are now. I would argue that time is the enemy of the original meaning. Many generations of interpretation of that original meaning tend to dilute it and make further, gradual, incremental deviation more likely.
|
|
|
Post by Mfitz804 on Feb 24, 2021 14:02:48 GMT -5
It’s fine, there’s absolutely arguments both ways. That’s why my position is, amend it and clear it up. Again, one way or the other, the only position I’m taking is that it’s unclear enough to cause hundreds of years of debate.
|
|
dan
Quarternote
Posts: 47
|
Post by dan on Feb 25, 2021 0:31:03 GMT -5
It’s fine, there’s absolutely arguments both ways. That’s why my position is, amend it and clear it up. Again, one way or the other, the only position I’m taking is that it’s unclear enough to cause hundreds of years of debate. I think there is a compelling third argument. I believe the 2A to mean that we all have the right to literally bear our arms. In other words the state could never amputate our arms without due process. Double arm amputees have a very difficult time saluting their militia commander or holding a spear tipped flag pole, and there is the rub on why the preamble talks about militias. Glad I could clear things up (my superb public school education hard at work)! btw titos vodka has a good kick,,,,
|
|
|
Post by Mfitz804 on Feb 25, 2021 7:16:48 GMT -5
It’s fine, there’s absolutely arguments both ways. That’s why my position is, amend it and clear it up. Again, one way or the other, the only position I’m taking is that it’s unclear enough to cause hundreds of years of debate. I think there is a compelling third argument. I believe the 2A to mean that we all have the right to literally bear our arms. The right to bare arms, a/k/a The Guido Amendment.
|
|
jtheissen
Wholenote
Montana lurker, mostly🎸
Posts: 203
|
Post by jtheissen on Feb 25, 2021 10:38:10 GMT -5
Kinda morphed from the original post. Since it started both Montana and Utah have passed concealed carry w/o permit laws. Looks like Indiana is on the way as well.
|
|
|
Post by Larry Madsen on Feb 25, 2021 10:50:19 GMT -5
Kinda morphed from the original post. Yes, As we all know, these usually do boil down to a discussion of the 2nd Amendment to one degree or another. Since it started both Montana and Utah have passed concealed carry w/o permit laws. Looks like Indiana is on the way as well. These laws being passed is all very good news to me.
|
|
|
Post by NoSoapRadio on Feb 25, 2021 12:08:54 GMT -5
That’s why my position is, amend it and clear it up. Again, one way or the other, the only position I’m taking is that it’s unclear enough to cause hundreds of years of debate. But of course you know that the only way to amend the Constitution is with another Amendment and that's not going to happen anytime soon -- particularly in the case of the 2A.
|
|
|
Post by Mfitz804 on Feb 25, 2021 13:15:29 GMT -5
That’s why my position is, amend it and clear it up. Again, one way or the other, the only position I’m taking is that it’s unclear enough to cause hundreds of years of debate. But of course you know that the only way to amend the Constitution is with another Amendment and that's not going to happen anytime soon -- particularly in the case of the 2A. Yes, I am aware of that. I didn’t say it would be done, just that in my view it should be done.
|
|
|
Post by NoSoapRadio on Feb 25, 2021 13:24:27 GMT -5
I understand your position. Just adding some context.
|
|
|
Post by Mfitz804 on Feb 25, 2021 13:36:34 GMT -5
I understand your position. Just adding some context. Understood. I don’t think for a second it will happen, not with that issue.
|
|
|
Post by K4 on Feb 25, 2021 15:37:53 GMT -5
If we get 33 States with "constitutional" carry there might be a chance.
I think we are at 20 or 21?
|
|
|
Post by Mfitz804 on Feb 25, 2021 15:39:03 GMT -5
If we get 33 States with "constitutional" carry there might be a chance. I think we are at 20 or 21? I just think whichever way it was proposed, the response from the other side would be way too strong and it would never happen.
|
|
|
Post by K4 on Feb 25, 2021 15:50:10 GMT -5
Ky is pretty clear.
Section 1 Rights of life, liberty, worship, pursuit of safety and happiness, free speech, acquiring and protecting property, peaceable assembly, redress of grievances, bearing arms.All men are, by nature, free and equal, and have certain inherent and inalienable rights, among which may be reckoned:
First: The right of enjoying and defending their lives and liberties.
Second: The right of worshipping Almighty God according to the dictates of their consciences.
Third: The right of seeking and pursuing their safety and happiness.
Fourth: The right of freely communicating their thoughts and opinions.
Fifth: The right of acquiring and protecting property.
Sixth: The right of assembling together in a peaceable manner for their common good, and of applying to those invested with the power of government for redress of grievances or other proper purposes, by petition, address or remonstrance.
Seventh: The right to bear arms in defense of themselves and of the State, subject to the power of the General Assembly to enact laws to prevent persons from carrying concealed weapons.
Text as Ratified on:August 3, 1891, and revised September 28, 1891.History:Not yet amended
|
|
|
Post by Mfitz804 on Feb 25, 2021 15:56:04 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by K4 on Feb 25, 2021 16:04:07 GMT -5
Bourbon flavored Jelly.
|
|
|
Post by Larry Madsen on Feb 25, 2021 16:06:27 GMT -5
I think we are at 20 or 21? If my info in the original post is correct at 16 ... you add Utah, Montana and maybe Indiana soon, that's 19.
|
|
|
Post by NoSoapRadio on Feb 25, 2021 16:43:12 GMT -5
The states that have passed constitutional carry laws and those that have declared 2A sanctuary status already have what they want. There is no advantage to those states agreeing to a constitutional convention.
In my opinion, there are only bad things (from a pro 2A perspective) that can happen with a revision to the Second Amendment.
|
|
|
Post by K4 on Feb 25, 2021 17:04:51 GMT -5
I'd love to be able to discuss the pros and cons of a constitutional convention, sadly I don't think it would last long.(the discussion)
|
|
|
Post by Larry Madsen on Feb 25, 2021 18:05:03 GMT -5
I'd love to be able to discuss the pros and cons of a constitutional convention, sadly I don't think it would last long.(the discussion) Well, Mike has stated in this thread that discussing law and the Constitution is not off limits. Just stick to the law and keep the Politics out of it and I bet it would be fine. I assume the topic would revolve around "Convention of States".
|
|
|
Post by K4 on Feb 25, 2021 18:09:01 GMT -5
I think it should be a different thread if you want to start one. Worst thing that could happen is it gets the DOB
|
|
|
Post by NoSoapRadio on Feb 25, 2021 18:31:27 GMT -5
I think it should be a different thread if you want to start one. Worst thing that could happen is it gets the DOB Yeah, I don't see how that discussion isn't political. I'd love to give it a go but I don't think it's fair to Mike to ask him to referee a mess like that.
|
|
|
Post by Mfitz804 on Feb 25, 2021 18:39:52 GMT -5
I’m game. It’s pretty easy to shut a thread that goes off the rails.
Could it be done without getting into political positions, like this thread has? It’s possible. Likely? Maybe not.
|
|