Biden saying now he will defeat the NRA

[JonC]

No doubt there is some obligation of a state to uphold the State, and within that would be its security as free. The recognized right to keep and bear arms is still of the people, not the state or the State. A necessary condition for a free State, that is, the only way a State can be free, is if its citizens are free. And if one might imagine otherwise, one cannot for a State of “We, the people” without violating sense so as to abandon all reason. But it wouldn’t be the first time.

However, the latter part is the more intriguing. To rephrase the premise, the States at some point surrendered their freedom to the Federal government by allowing the Federal government to overtax their citizens and then depending on the Federal government to grant some of that tax money back to themselves. While the ironic effect may be present, the idea that that freedom could be constitutionally surrendered without amendment is simply unconstitutional. But that doesn't seem to stop them these days.

I disagree. It is "of the people" but it has a very specific purpose in the amendment.

Here's something pretty cool (in a bad way). I was over the military training program for new soldiers in Tennessee. NGB decided that all states needed to stop using MEPS for sending trainees to training because it was costing too much (some had to fly to MEPS, some had to drive long distances, etc.). I met with our leadership and said that we did not need to use that method because it did not make sense for Tennessee (we had three MEPS - one in Memphis, one in Nashville, and one in Knoxville). We could easily avoid the cost and pain of hiring people to operate a system that was already working well.

The federal government (NGB) said we, as a State, had that freedom. But when funding was sent out they would divide the funds going to the States that would not participate between the States that would - in other words, Tennessee was free, but if they did not submit then they would pay a steep price. We, of course, had to use the program.

Apply that to roads, public education, medical funding, whatever . States have become dependent on the federal government.

We are not even allowed to decide what is on the lunch menu at elementary schools independent of the federal government. There are no free states in this "union".

 

[Salty]

I also look at it this way. Why should a local community send taxes to DC - and have people (that are paid by the government -ie the taxpayers) to send money to the State Capitols so those people (that are paid by the government - ie the taxpayers) to send that money right back to the community for the schools! Seems like there would be more money (by not paying all those govt workers) and keeping the money local!.

 

[Alcott]

It is not a clause

I presume you are referring to "A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state,..." That is a clause. And if you know your grammar at all, it is a nonrestrictive clause.

 

[JonC]

I presume you are referring to "A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state,..." That is a clause. And if you know your grammar at all, it is a nonrestrictive clause.

No, I am not referring to "A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state".

I am referring to the Second Amendment as a whole:

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.

A well regulated Militia [the what], being necessary to the security of a free State [the reason for a Militia, i.e., it is necessary to the security of a free State], the right of the people to keep and bear Arms [again, the what], shall not be infringed [the prohibition].

Some would pull out one clause to say that the Second Amendment gives individuals the right to bear arms. BUT this is only a clause in context of a whole.

If you are progressive, then you can come up with a lot of policies and interpretations (it only applies to an organized militia, it only applies to individual rights, etc.) BUT if you are Constitutionalist then you take the thing as a whole (NOT clause by clause...i.e., you cannot divorce one clause from the whole). It was carefully constructed.

 

[Wingman68]

I wonder what kind of country my grandkids will get to experience...7, 6, 4

At 61, I could easily live another 20 years, maybe more. My parents are upper 80's and still ok. So I might have to see another 30 years of the USA spiraling into a morass of evil. Or maybe, God will grant us repentance to know the truth. You certainly wont get any truth or freedom from democrat socialists.

 

[Scott Downey]

Biden Proposed Gun Control Plan Could Hit Guns Owners With $34 Billion In Taxes · The Floridian

Biden's plan to collect billions on gun taxes for guns you already own.

 

[RighteousnessTemperance&]

I disagree. It is "of the people" but it has a very specific purpose in the amendment.

Here's something pretty cool (in a bad way). I was over the military training program for new soldiers in Tennessee. NGB decided that all states needed to stop using MEPS for sending trainees to training because it was costing too much (some had to fly to MEPS, some had to drive long distances, etc.). I met with our leadership and said that we did not need to use that method because it did not make sense for Tennessee (we had three MEPS - one in Memphis, one in Nashville, and one in Knoxville). We could easily avoid the cost and pain of hiring people to operate a system that was already working well.

The federal government (NGB) said we, as a State, had that freedom. But when funding was sent out they would divide the funds going to the States that would not participate between the States that would - in other words, Tennessee was free, but if they did not submit then they would pay a steep price. We, of course, had to use the program.

Apply that to roads, public education, medical funding, whatever . States have become dependent on the federal government.

We are not even allowed to decide what is on the lunch menu at elementary schools independent of the federal government. There are no free states in this "union".

Good examples, and the point is well taken. We just obviously disagree. Unless the loss of freedom was accomplished explicitly constitutionally, then it is unconstitutional no matter.

The 2nd amendment is a primary addition to the Constitution, so fundamental, along with the rest of the Bill of Rights, that there was no ratification without it. It specifies the securing of a free State, and the right of the people is primary in insuring that. That can only be finally undone by constitutional amendment. If the State is not free, or becomes unfree or its freedom threatened, or if a state is not free, or becomes unfree or its freedom threatened, then the people have the constitutionally recognized right and are even obligated to amend the problem by bearing arms sufficient for the cause. Furthermore, constitutionally that and the right to keep those arms cannot be infringed, neither by traitors in Congress nor the Supreme Court, and most certainly not by the Presidency.

 

[RighteousnessTemperance&]

I also look at it this way. Why should a local community send taxes to DC - and have people (that are paid by the government -ie the taxpayers) to send money to the State Capitols so those people (that are paid by the government - ie the taxpayers) to send that money right back to the community for the schools! Seems like there would be more money (by not paying all those govt workers) and keeping the money local!.

Yes, this is precisely the point. It is not a little ironic, this situation in which we have been placed. At best it is inane, but might more appropriately be labeled insane. Healthcare was the latest addition to this mess. Never say it couldn't be worse. But they intend to prove it can whatever we say.

 

[JonC]

Good examples, and the point is well taken. We just obviously disagree. Unless the loss of freedom was accomplished explicitly constitutionally, then it is unconstitutional no matter.

The 2nd amendment is a primary addition to the Constitution, so fundamental, along with the rest of the Bill of Rights, that there was no ratification without it. It specifies the securing of a free State, and the right of the people is primary in insuring that. That can only be finally undone by constitutional amendment. If the State is not free, or becomes unfree or its freedom threatened, or if a state is not free, or becomes unfree or its freedom threatened, then the people have the constitutionally recognized right and are even obligated to amend the problem by bearing arms sufficient for the cause. Furthermore, constitutionally that and the right to keep those arms cannot be infringed, neither by traitors in Congress nor the Supreme Court, and most certainly not by the Presidency.

Yes, brother. We simply disagree. And I fought for your right to express your opinion even if it is wrong

 

[Salty]

Yes, brother. We simply disagree. And I fought for your right to express your opinion even if it is wrong

and as we (well, most of us) are reasonable people - we can agree to disagree, and be civil with each other.

 

[Salty]

six hour warning -
This thread will be closed no sooner than 1230 am EST (Wed) / 930 pm PST (Tue)

 

[church mouse guy]

That is the issue, isn't. I provide the actual amendment and you, my Antifa brother, consider those to merely be meaningless words. We agree on much, and we disagree on much. For example, I do believe that Black lives matter, but I disagree with the movement and I strongly disagree that the Second Amendment was designed for citizens to keep the police in check.

antifa are kommunist komrade.

 

[church mouse guy]

I believe they would have, but the fact is they remained silent. I think it is reasonable to believe that citizens possessing guns for self-defense and hunting were taken for granted. I do not think that the authors of the Constitution thought it would be the issue it is today. That is probably why the Second Amendment addresses the issue in terms of protecting a free State.

words, words, words

 

[Alcott]

words, words, words

Are things rotten in Denmark, too?

 

[church mouse guy]

Are things rotten in Denmark, too?

Good one!

 

[JonC]

antifa are kommunist komrade.

I thought you antifa folk were trying to keep that secret. You are going to be in trouble when you report to your leader.

 

[JonC]

words, words, words

Yep. What you are missing is words have meaning

 

[church mouse guy]

Yep. What you are missing is words have meaning

yada, yada, yada

 

[church mouse guy]

I thought you antifa folk were trying to keep that secret. You are going to be in trouble when you report to your leader.

don’t drink beet juice.

 

[JonC]

yada, yada, yada

Ok....I stand corrected....your words don't have meaning