In the new world of cancel culture - I cannot support Red Flags. A family hates you. A divorce spouse gets angry. A angry co worker decides to destroy you. The FBI targets you. Yes that can’t possibly end well. The 2nd amendment is about our right to defend our nation against foreign adversaries. How about we actually start enfor…
In the new world of cancel culture - I cannot support Red Flags. A family hates you. A divorce spouse gets angry. A angry co worker decides to destroy you. The FBI targets you. Yes that can’t possibly end well. The 2nd amendment is about our right to defend our nation against foreign adversaries. How about we actually start enforcing the laws we have on the books. Or is that too inconvenient for Soros funded DAs.
In my view, Bruce, the preamble "A well regulated Militia" all the way through to the "security of a free state" appears to mean (at the time this was written in the late 18th century) the right for a citizen to bear arms in order to join a military force in defending the country from an invading foreign power (ie Britain, France, or Spain..) when needed.
Domestic tyranny, if you want to call it that, would not arrive in serious force until 1860. And that, probably claimed more by the Confederate side. But that's another story.
I don't recall where I read the comment or who, but someone said reading the *drafts* of the Constitution indicated a different reading. Don't know anything about it, myself, so there is that.
The right to own weapons was a necessity in. Colonial America. For both food and protection. The militia line is a throwaway. The notion that the right was “owned” by the sovereign would be laughed at. Then and now.
Sorry Bruce - ‘a well regulated militia’ was not a throwaway. I disagree. It’s the preamble - it sets up the right to bear arms. It’s the reason why we should and must have the right to have weapons in the first place - otherwise why would the Founders put it there?
Why have the word militia in there at all?
You appear to view the 2nd Amendment through 21st century lens - as do many here. You cannot say with any certainty that the ‘militia’ connotation was a throwaway line - the men who wrote this were a hell of a lot more serious than that.
Lee, if the right to own a weapon was organic and predated the Constitution, that right didn’t come from government. In fact, the weapons of militiamen were their personal property- not provided by the militia company. You’ve got it completely backward.
Interesting comment. If the right to bear arms predates the Constitution - then why is the 2nd Amendment of said Constitution held as sacrosanct?
The only right I know of that could possible be construed as 'organic' is breathing (sexual intercourse might be another).
The right to bear arms was indeed a granted right - by the designers of a Constitution that structures the government we have today (for good or for bad..)
The question then becomes, as has been discussed for the last 230 years - is what kind of right? A controlled one? Or a free for all?
They aren’t granted rights. That’s where you make a mistake. They are inherent rights and they are codified in the constitution that Congress shall make no law…..
The right is a granted one, Bruce. Because what would have happened if the Constitution went the other way and did not codify the right to bear arms? And either not mention them or expressly denied their use in private hands? What would have stood? The inherent right or the Constitution?
The Constitution, in my view. Thats why millions of Americans adore the 2nd Amendment - since the right to bear arms in enshrined in a founding document. If it had gone the other way Americans would be equally bound.
Again, there are no granted rights. Our Founders believed that rights belong to the people and government gets only those rights bestowed by them. The Bill of Rights was intended to codify what government could not do, not to grant rights to us. That's the fundamental difference in America. Our rights come from God, not the government.
What does He (She) have to do with it? There might be Christians in Russia and China who do not have the right of free speech. How come God didn't grant it to them? Does God only like Americans?
Free speech is a granted right. Granted by humans. And controlled by humans. Just like gun rights (only a little less controlled..for now).
Historically not really. If you review when it was written and in the context of the times - it was always about our ability to defend the land and ensure “the security of a free state”. I suspect the domestic tyranny element could arguably be supported in a more current times analysis when there are military grade weapons being issued to local law enforcement but I truly do not believe that we need to defend against our government (although J6 political persecutions don’t bear that out generally does it). There are other rights which support us should we be targeted by our government in the Bill of Rights as well. However, to your point, we have the right to bear arms and defend ourselves and be secure in our homes from any enemy foreign or domestic. Period. “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.”
Unfortunately I don’t have the time right now to reply in depth but I think you take a very cramped and unrealistic view of the historical antipathy of our founders to government power
In the new world of cancel culture - I cannot support Red Flags. A family hates you. A divorce spouse gets angry. A angry co worker decides to destroy you. The FBI targets you. Yes that can’t possibly end well. The 2nd amendment is about our right to defend our nation against foreign adversaries. How about we actually start enforcing the laws we have on the books. Or is that too inconvenient for Soros funded DAs.
I saw this definition of red flag laws the other day: the ex-girlfriend empowerment act.
*slow clap*
And defending ourselves against a tyrannical govt
The gun ownership rate certainly has a deterrent effect.
The Second Amendment is about our right to defend our nation against domestic tyranny.
In my view, Bruce, the preamble "A well regulated Militia" all the way through to the "security of a free state" appears to mean (at the time this was written in the late 18th century) the right for a citizen to bear arms in order to join a military force in defending the country from an invading foreign power (ie Britain, France, or Spain..) when needed.
Domestic tyranny, if you want to call it that, would not arrive in serious force until 1860. And that, probably claimed more by the Confederate side. But that's another story.
I don't recall where I read the comment or who, but someone said reading the *drafts* of the Constitution indicated a different reading. Don't know anything about it, myself, so there is that.
The right to own weapons was a necessity in. Colonial America. For both food and protection. The militia line is a throwaway. The notion that the right was “owned” by the sovereign would be laughed at. Then and now.
Sorry Bruce - ‘a well regulated militia’ was not a throwaway. I disagree. It’s the preamble - it sets up the right to bear arms. It’s the reason why we should and must have the right to have weapons in the first place - otherwise why would the Founders put it there?
Why have the word militia in there at all?
You appear to view the 2nd Amendment through 21st century lens - as do many here. You cannot say with any certainty that the ‘militia’ connotation was a throwaway line - the men who wrote this were a hell of a lot more serious than that.
Lee, if the right to own a weapon was organic and predated the Constitution, that right didn’t come from government. In fact, the weapons of militiamen were their personal property- not provided by the militia company. You’ve got it completely backward.
Interesting comment. If the right to bear arms predates the Constitution - then why is the 2nd Amendment of said Constitution held as sacrosanct?
The only right I know of that could possible be construed as 'organic' is breathing (sexual intercourse might be another).
The right to bear arms was indeed a granted right - by the designers of a Constitution that structures the government we have today (for good or for bad..)
The question then becomes, as has been discussed for the last 230 years - is what kind of right? A controlled one? Or a free for all?
They aren’t granted rights. That’s where you make a mistake. They are inherent rights and they are codified in the constitution that Congress shall make no law…..
The right is a granted one, Bruce. Because what would have happened if the Constitution went the other way and did not codify the right to bear arms? And either not mention them or expressly denied their use in private hands? What would have stood? The inherent right or the Constitution?
The Constitution, in my view. Thats why millions of Americans adore the 2nd Amendment - since the right to bear arms in enshrined in a founding document. If it had gone the other way Americans would be equally bound.
Again, there are no granted rights. Our Founders believed that rights belong to the people and government gets only those rights bestowed by them. The Bill of Rights was intended to codify what government could not do, not to grant rights to us. That's the fundamental difference in America. Our rights come from God, not the government.
God?
What does He (She) have to do with it? There might be Christians in Russia and China who do not have the right of free speech. How come God didn't grant it to them? Does God only like Americans?
Free speech is a granted right. Granted by humans. And controlled by humans. Just like gun rights (only a little less controlled..for now).
Always fun discussing things with you, Bruce.
Historically not really. If you review when it was written and in the context of the times - it was always about our ability to defend the land and ensure “the security of a free state”. I suspect the domestic tyranny element could arguably be supported in a more current times analysis when there are military grade weapons being issued to local law enforcement but I truly do not believe that we need to defend against our government (although J6 political persecutions don’t bear that out generally does it). There are other rights which support us should we be targeted by our government in the Bill of Rights as well. However, to your point, we have the right to bear arms and defend ourselves and be secure in our homes from any enemy foreign or domestic. Period. “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.”
Unfortunately I don’t have the time right now to reply in depth but I think you take a very cramped and unrealistic view of the historical antipathy of our founders to government power