2A and the Truth

Before I get into this, I am an Army Vet, I've been around the world 5x, and been on a two way range a few times. I'm an NRA member, and have enough guns to be happy, and I love shooting.

I've lurked around this board for years, never commenting simply cause the temperament of this forum. For the most part, this forum promotes the type of paranoia, and fear mongering that spreads and perpetuates racism, and bigotry in America.

The 2nd Amendment in truth was not speaking to every Tom, Dick, and Harry having a firearm. It spoke specifically of a Well Regulated Militia, and their right to keep and bear arms. The "Well Regulated" is referring to properly trained, supplied, and disciplined citizens. The "Militia", a group of citizen "soldiers" that can fill the ranks of our regular army. The right of the people, to keep and bear arms, simply refers to those people who are in the militia, with the idea of protecting the land from foreign governments and enemies the same.. reserve military.

The 2nd was not based on some lose interpretation of some British constitution. It was specifically written to create the idea of having basically a reserve army. It was NOT intended to create this mass hysteria of raising your guns to our government, and everyone having guns to just have guns.

Often times we argue about Dems vs Republicans in this idea that Dems want to take guns, but no one ever has any real proof yet we allow this to divide and often influence decisions. The right, so interpreted by our law makers gives you the ability to have such firearms, why bicker about it? You have your right now, buy what you can and be happy.

It is my personal belief, the only people that should have firearms are those that are willing to stand in the Armed Forces and fight for the country. Fat Bob isn't going to do it, slacked jawed Becky isn't going to do it, neither is De'Onte, or a Sharita.. who will are the able bodied Americans, whether Black, Asian, White, Latin American or other.

The so called "Patriots" and "Oath Keepers", are keeping what oath exactly? They are not keeping any military oath, nor any citizen oath. Education is free here: Military Oath = Armed combatant, defending the entire body of the US, not the written constitution. Citizenship Oath = Help in a NON COMBATANT form to defend the entire body of the US.

In all, we are all Americans, and all willing to fight foreign govts. Reading some of the posts on this forum is a sense sickening, to see people all to willing to take up arms against other Americans cause you may or may not have to register your guns.

I took a real oath 4x, and volunteered 5x for missions most of the 2A nuts piss their beds about. I have yet to fathom the idea of arming myself to fight our Govt, that's called a Coupe.. and not any part of any oath I took. Nor have I thought I would have to arm myself to fight other Americans cause of a very valid election process.

Of course this will piss people off, they have Midol for that, take two and relax. Just my opinion, and simple observation... we are all entitled to our beliefs, that's what makes America Great, not some foolish loudmouth with a mic.

And he’s in with a bang!

Well, a welcome is in line.

Thanks for putting it on the line.

Your time here will be interesting.

Really? There is no real proof that the dems want to take guns? I guess high ranking democratic politicians saying on the record that they want to do exactly that isn't proof huh?

Um....no. Your interpretation of 2A is the same argument liberals have made about why we need to restrict gun rights for decades. It has never been given any credence in serious constitutional or legal discussions

The framers specifically separated the use of terms militia and people in the text of the 2A for a reason

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of the free state the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed

It means that we have to have an army to keep other nations from attacking us, but it is inherently dangerous to liberty for the government to have such power. They understood this because the British just used that exact power to control the colonies under tyrannical rule.

Because we have to have a military controlled by the government, the right OF THE PEOPLE (specifically NOT the military) to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed

This is so if the government used it's military strength to control the people, the people had the means to overthrow the government.....sort of like had just happened in the revolution

sundazes said:

Click to expand...

Please share.

Also I have some immediate skeptisism about a true identity here

This screams "Schill poster"

This is two quotes from DiFi...many more from others...

He would have been right at home in East Germany.

People like that are the reason for the 2nd amendment

Smh

Nope, my oath to the same Constitution was made with the full knowledge that the Bill of Rights were specifically crafted to restrict the federal government's encroachment on individual liberties.

Sent from my SM-G960U using Tapatalk

ABN18F said:

.... For the most part, this forum promotes the type of paranoia, and fear mongering that spreads and perpetuates racism, and bigotry in America ....

.... It was NOT intended to create this mass hysteria of raising your guns to our government, and everyone having guns to just have guns....

.... It is my personal belief, the only people that should have firearms are those that are willing to stand in the Armed Forces and fight for the country. Fat Bob isn't going to do it, slacked jawed Becky isn't going to do it, neither is De'Onte, or a Sharita.. who will are the able bodied Americans, whether Black, Asian, White, Latin American or other....

....not some foolish loudmouth with a mic.

Click to expand...

What was your screen name before you were banned / perma banned?

Or what is your screen name now, the one where no one like you?

It’s obvious that your opinion is that not everyone should have firearms. That’s fine, you are entitled to that. However your statement regarding the “true” meaning of the 2A as fact is flat out wrong. The “meaning” given to words changes over time. Just in my lifetime “gay” once referred to being happy. It now has a completely different meaning. These newly accepted meanings cannot be applied retroactively. People during the “gay nineties” cannot be construed to have been homosexual just because of the current acceptance of a word.

The same applies to the 2A. “Well regulated” meant “in good working order” or “proper working order”. “Militia” referred to able bodied adults.

ABN18F said:

The 2nd Amendment in truth was not speaking to every Tom, Dick, and Harry having a firearm. It spoke specifically of a Well Regulated Militia, and their right to keep and bear arms. The "Well Regulated" is referring to properly trained, supplied, and disciplined citizens. The "Militia", a group of citizen "soldiers" that can fill the ranks of our regular army. The right of the people, to keep and bear arms, simply refers to those people who are in the militia, with the idea of protecting the land from foreign governments and enemies the same.. reserve military.

Click to expand...

You've got this 100% backwards, and are ignoring the ample writings of historians, and - more importantly - of the people who WROTE AND RATIFIED the Second Amendment. They meant it precisely to protect the right of the individual to keep and bear arms - even if the nation established a standing, pro- or semi-pro military. The founders were not at all pleased about the idea of a standing military or even the idea of a locally run militia doing the bidding of the mayor, governor, or anyone wealthy enough to equip and feed such a group.

Their point, as expressed in the 2A using simple language is, "Just because we may need and are likely to have a standing professional military doesn't mean the government can be allowed to have a monopoly on the keeping and bearing of arms."

In short, they wrote the 2A specifically because there would be people like you saying the average person doesn't get to have weapons because there are professionals who have them. Your reasoning is exactly what the British trotted out when they disarmed individuals. "Never mind, Farmer Bob, you don't need that musket. If you have trouble with Indians or bandits or bears, why, just pop into town and let the local Red Coat commander know, and it'll all be taken care of! Now, back to planting potatoes!"

The 2nd was not based on some lose interpretation of some British constitution. It was specifically written to create the idea of having basically a reserve army. It was NOT intended to create this mass hysteria of raising your guns to our government, and everyone having guns to just have guns.

Click to expand...

Again, precisely backwards. The Bill of Rights - all of it, every bit of it - describes the ways in which the government may NOT do things to your personal liberty. They didn't take just one of those amendments - the second - and use it to establish ANYTHING, let alone a standing or reserve army. It's called the Bill of Rights for a reason: it protects YOUR RIGHTS from government infringement - so you can gather and speak as you wish, have your privacy and safety from capricious arrest, defend yourself, have a quick and fair trial, and so on. Every bit of the BoR refers to individual liberties and lays out how the government may not infringe upon them. Read the copious correspondence, speeches, and other writings surrounding the ratification ... because you have it entirely wrong.

Often times we argue about Dems vs Republicans in this idea that Dems want to take guns, but no one ever has any real proof yet we allow this to divide and often influence decisions. The right, so interpreted by our law makers gives you the ability to have such firearms, why bicker about it? You have your right now, buy what you can and be happy.

Click to expand...

Many a high profile Democrat are on record over and over again speaking EXACTLY about taking your guns away. Quit pretending you're not aware of this. Oh, and ... our "law makers" aren't the ones that interpret the constitution - that's the courts, and ultimately the Supreme Court. The legislatures at every level - county councils, state houses, and the Congress - routinely pass what turn out to be unconstitutional laws, and get the smack down as they should. Your basic understanding of civics is incorrect, and shows in the language you choose to use.

It is my personal belief, the only people that should have firearms are those that are willing to stand in the Armed Forces and fight for the country.

Click to expand...

Sure enough, you are EXACTLY why they wrote the 2A. You are the pure essence of what they knew people in power would often conclude. Just like they knew some people would try to silence others as they spoke (and started with the 1A), they knew that people with a vested interest in being professionally armed would need to be kept in check as they sought to disarm their fellow citizens and strip them of the right to defend themselves.

Fat Bob isn't going to do it, slacked jawed Becky isn't going to do it, neither is De'Onte, or a Sharita.. who will are the able bodied Americans, whether Black, Asian, White, Latin American or other.

Click to expand...

I just knew, as I kept reading, that the condescension would escalate. Let me guess: A former Ranger who's just lost both his legs and is no longer able bodied ... he's just also lost the sensibilities needed to own a handgun for his own protection, now that he's stuck in his future in a wheelchair at home?

I won't bother to quote the rest of your rant because it's obviously pointless. But I responded with the notions above just in case someone of a good heart but uninformed on the history and purpose of the Bill of Rights happens to stumble across your totalitarian manifesto.

EDIT: Oh, and trying to preempt disagreement by ludicrously suggesting that anyone disagreeing with your position is a racist - that's some seriously childish crap, right there.

ABN18F said:

... It is my personal belief, the only people that should have firearms are those that are willing to stand in the Armed Forces and fight for the country. ....

Click to expand...

Thank you for saying that I have less gun rights than you. I didn't serve in the armed forces. I bought firearms later in life. I don't need to articulate why, because the 2A is a right, which has been affirmed by the SC. Tremendous arrogance in your post.

daggo66 said:

It’s obvious that your opinion is that not everyone should have firearms. That’s fine, you are entitled to that. However your statement regarding the “true” meaning of the 2A as fact is flat out wrong. The “meaning” given to words changes over time. Just in my lifetime “gay” once referred to being happy. It now has a completely different meaning. These newly accepted meanings cannot be applied retroactively. People during the “gay nineties” cannot be construed to have been homosexual just because of the current acceptance of a word.

The same applies to the 2A. “Well regulated” meant “in good working order” or “proper working order”. “Militia” referred to able bodied adults.

Click to expand...

Op has zero knowledge of history, that in part fuels his utter lack of understanding.

ABN18F said:

It was specifically written to create the idea of having basically a reserve army. It was NOT intended to create this mass hysteria of raising your guns to our government, and everyone having guns to just have guns.

Click to expand...

Hint cupcake, the militia wasn't to be a backup to a 'standing' army. Now go and do your homework.

ABN18F said:

I have yet to fathom the idea of arming myself to fight our Govt, that's called a Coupe.. and not any part of any oath I took. Nor have I thought I would have to arm myself to fight other Americans cause of a very valid election process.

Click to expand...

Actually, a coupe is a small, two door car.

Full retard. There are some in the military and law enforcement that feel this way. Good for me not for thee. The bastardization of interpretation of the 2A is giving me a headache.

Enjoy your stay. It will be short, I suspect.

KevinK said:

What was your screen name before you were banned / perma banned?

Or what is your screen name now, the one where no one like you?

Click to expand...

This.

Can you imagine this idiot telling a founding father, sorry, you misunderstand the second amendment, you didn't directly participate in the conflict with the British and you won't should they invade again due to your advanced age, so your gun rights are imaginary.