New School of Thought and Research on the Second Amendment

[Thorgrim]

Originally Posted by JSmythe

The idea that the founding fathers did not intend for Americans to be able to keep and bear arms is laughable. And if you don't raise that point then everything else doesn't really matter.

And yes, I didn't read much of your OP at all.

at least your honest, some people can't even realize a cut and paste anti-collectivist argument and my post was not pro-collectivisit

[Thorgrim]

Originally Posted by MKULTRA

It was a response to your items, all of them. I'm not about to pick through a dumpster and point out every piece of trash in it. That is what I'd be doing if I examined your ridiculous posts point by point, and they are totally ridiculous. It's like you've written a manual on government tyranny and absolute power. You could've just saved yourself the trouble and written a single sentence but then that would have exposed your posts for what they truly are wouldn't it?

You do nothing but dig up evidence that supports beliefs, while totally ignoring all evidence to the contrary. Your beliefs are totally contrary to the way this country has always been ran, totally destructive, and totally against the very plain written 2nd Amendment, that only a long-winded fool with a motive for deceit could take and misinterpret so poorly.

Yeah thanks for wasting space in my thread by charging in, calling it all crap and refusing to debate anything, thats really what this forum is about

[Pro Street]

Originally Posted by Thorgrim

How so? Well everyone who took government training programs would get at least a M16 and hundreds/thousands of rounds of ammo. It would all be registered and the ammo would be sealed. For practice you would go to a government facility and use their ammo, which they would have to let you use. Your house would be subject to inspection, and you would be required to account for your ammo and gun, which would be safely locked away. Then, if an emergency ever came about, you could unseal your ammo, unlock your gun, and have a fully automatic m16 ready to use to defend in conjunction with other militia members in your area. Also, if the government ever became tyrannical, you could do the same. Also, militia commanders would be designated for every large group of militiamen, and they would be trained by the government in insurgency tactics should the US military ever be fully defeated.

Is that the kind of arrangement gun control advocates would like? No
Is that the kind of arrangement gun individualists would like? No

Is that the most accurate way to translate the intention of the 2nd amendment to today's society? Yes

Then the question becomes: "Well I want a handgun, shotgun, etc for self defense and hunting"

Then I would step in and say "Go ahead and make a new amendment, you certainly have the numbers" and a new amendment would be made. Heck I am for Americans embracing hunting as an enjoyable and useful sport. Since US culture has changed so much, it would be impossible to ban handguns or something like that, so make a new amendment to reflect the new US culture.

But I cannot and will not accept bad history twisted for political purposes.

No.. what makes you think that ammo locked and sealed away.. hell rifles as well?

oh, keep the rifles? open up a black market and once again, only criminals have guns.


no, no, no... no.

[MKULTRA]

Thorg, the post that Diamond put up and then I pasted, is a response to your points. It easily exposes every half-baked point of view you've posted here. You demand people address your content but then when they do, you don't address anything they've put up. You spend more time on your threads trying to tell everyone what the rules are than you do discussing the contents of what you started the thread with. It's like you are trying to play a game of checkers with everyone but then tell them they can't move any pieces.

It is very easy to read, easy to understand language used in the Bill of Rights. It was written that way on purpose, so people like you could not take it and twist it but nothing can last forever and even the simplest things can be taken out of context, which is what you're doing here. The anti-federalists did not put that language into the Bill of Rights to grant the government power which it already had. They put it in there and many of the Federalists agreed to it because they had to but also because it guaranteed the right of the common man to keep and bear arms. Just the idea that a group of farmers would demand the 2nd Amendment put in to further guarantee the federal government the right to keep and bear arms is asinine. But some people have a penchant for talking and they take horse shit and try to weave it into silk but in the end it's still horse shit.

[Thorgrim]

Originally Posted by Pro Street

No.. what makes you think that ammo locked and sealed away.. hell rifles as well?

oh, keep the rifles? open up a black market and once again, only criminals have guns.


no, no, no... no.

who said anything about taking away every single gun?

I am talking about a supplemental program

We are talking about CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS not "oh gee what would be the best legislation for 2007"

If the federal government wanted to give gun rights to americans, using your logic, sure go ahead, its not AGAINST the constitution, its just not a founding right

There's no right to education in the constitution either, but we still have it, it'd be the same thing with guns in all likelyhood...customary right, not constitutional

its about getting history right, not destroying the NRA or stealing something from you

[Scrum]

Originally Posted by Kytro

Technically if you can keep and bear any arms the right has not been infringed

That's the way I see it as well, but many here think if you say they can't purchase that 500th gun you have violated their rights.

[Kytro]

Originally Posted by Scrumtralecent

That's the way I see it as well, but many here think if you say they can't purchase that 500th gun you have violated their rights.

Actually I have revised my opinion. Infringe isn't the same as revoke or remove. If the amendment is supposed to apply to everyone then the government should infringe the right to bear arms in way. This would include criminals.

[Pro Street]

Originally Posted by Thorgrim

who said anything about taking away every single gun?

I am talking about a supplemental program

We are talking about CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS not "oh gee what would be the best legislation for 2007"

If the federal government wanted to give gun rights to americans, using your logic, sure go ahead, its not AGAINST the constitution, its just not a founding right

There's no right to education in the constitution either, but we still have it, it'd be the same thing with guns in all likelyhood...customary right, not constitutional

its about getting history right, not destroying the NRA or stealing something from you

however it is.. if I read your post right, you want guns issued (or not) and all ammo locked away in a Government facility.

[Thorgrim]

Originally Posted by Pro Street

however it is.. if I read your post right, you want guns issued (or not) and all ammo locked away in a Government facility.

no, stored away in your shack or something, whatever, you control the firearms and the ammo, the government just inspects it to make sure you haven't been using it outside a government range

You can always deny inspection and join a rebellion

again, this wouldn't mean you'd trade in all your guns for one m16, im just telling you what a modern use of the 2nd amendment would really mean

A system like that would immediately be set up, maybe you would be militia commander for your voting district (those are pretty small) and you would get training in advanced weaponry designed for guerilla warfare...mostly m16s but also some AA and AT weapons, however you would not store those at your home for obvious reasons

Nevertheless, we'd finally have a real militia again

I imagine states would immediately make up their own firearm laws and probably congress would pass a new amendment giving everyone the right to own a handgun and rifle or whatnot...either way it wouldn't involve a big government seizure

this is all theory, what the founders really wanted out the 2nd amendment, a militia of citizens modeled under military rules, not a club of sportsmen

[MKULTRA]

Originally Posted by Thorgrim

no, stored away in your shack or something, whatever, you control the firearms and the ammo, the government just inspects it to make sure you haven't been using it outside a government range

You can always deny inspection and join a rebellion

again, this wouldn't mean you'd trade in all your guns for one m16, im just telling you what a modern use of the 2nd amendment would really mean

A system like that would immediately be set up, maybe you would be militia commander for your voting district (those are pretty small) and you would get training in advanced weaponry designed for guerilla warfare...mostly m16s but also some AA and AT weapons, however you would not store those at your home for obvious reasons

Nevertheless, we'd finally have a real militia again

I imagine states would immediately make up their own firearm laws and probably congress would pass a new amendment giving everyone the right to own a handgun and rifle or whatnot...either way it wouldn't involve a big government seizure

this is all theory, what the founders really wanted out the 2nd amendment, a militia of citizens modeled under military rules, not a club of sportsmen

Look, the Bill of Rights is clear. The Federalist Papers are easy enough to understand. You want to dig up English Common Law and 100 other things that may be related, but are not the authority on this. The authority on this is the very simple and easy to read 2nd Amendment as well as how it has been upheld in this country since it became the 2nd amendment. It means and it has been upheld to mean that citizens have the right to keep and bear arms, as well as ammo, to protect themselves from enemies both foreign and domestic. Throughout the Constitution the founding fathers talked of need of overthrowing the government when it becomes too tyrannical. Not all of them agreed on everything but throughout the Federalist Papers, the Constitution, and with the Anti-Federalists, it was clear and written in easy to understand language, that the 2nd Amendment is there so you can protect your person and your property from foreign invaders as well as domestic enemies.

Likewise, private militias have been upheld in court over and over, as have hunting clubs and people owning firearms for self defense. It was only due to racism and sexism that these laws became perverted. If you want to talk about the origin of a militia, look no further than the Revolution. It was farmers and everyone else with their own arms, organizing own their own, fighting against an evil empire.

What you are describing is very similar to what the USSR had. It involved routine federal inspections of weapons and ammo with all militias being under ultimately federal control. And it led to the massacre of millions of peasant farmers and Jews.

And anytime we or anyone else give total control of our weapons and firearms over to government, the same thing will happen. I have never seen any exceptions to this, except for small countries. Eventually someone will come along and abuse that authority they have over the people, that are totally disarmed and helpless. It is just human nature. People will take all they can until someone stops them. That is why you have to have armed citizens and local militias, to offset the power the federal government has over people. It is the same reason you need checks and balances in government and you need laws preventing slavery.

[Pro Street]

Originally Posted by Thorgrim

no, stored away in your shack or something, whatever, you control the firearms and the ammo, the government just inspects it to make sure you haven't been using it outside a government range

You can always deny inspection and join a rebellion

again, this wouldn't mean you'd trade in all your guns for one m16, im just telling you what a modern use of the 2nd amendment would really mean

A system like that would immediately be set up, maybe you would be militia commander for your voting district (those are pretty small) and you would get training in advanced weaponry designed for guerilla warfare...mostly m16s but also some AA and AT weapons, however you would not store those at your home for obvious reasons

Nevertheless, we'd finally have a real militia again

I imagine states would immediately make up their own firearm laws and probably congress would pass a new amendment giving everyone the right to own a handgun and rifle or whatnot...either way it wouldn't involve a big government seizure

this is all theory, what the founders really wanted out the 2nd amendment, a militia of citizens modeled under military rules, not a club of sportsmen

There's no reason for the government to hold inspections, nor to request them. That's pushing Federal power way too far... even if they can be denied.

The whole idea really makes sense.. all it's doing is saying, "re-vote on the 2nd Amendment because I don't interpret it the way most have for 250 years"

[lew]

Originally Posted by Thorgrim

this is all theory, what the founders really wanted out the 2nd amendment, a militia of citizens modeled under military rules, not a club of sportsmen

You're completely incorrect.


The 2nd Amendment is about the right of the people to be armed, it's not about having a militia army.

[Thorgrim]

Originally Posted by Pro Street

There's no reason for the government to hold inspections, nor to request them. That's pushing Federal power way too far... even if they can be denied.

The whole idea really makes sense.. all it's doing is saying, "re-vote on the 2nd Amendment because I don't interpret it the way most have for 250 years"

No, its exactly how the founding fathers treated miltias 250 years ago when they founded this coutry, check militia laws enacted/enforced when this country was founded...inspections

[Diesel66]

Originally Posted by Thorgrim

No, its exactly how the founding fathers treated miltias 250 years ago when they founded this coutry, check militia laws enacted/enforced when this country was founded...inspections

THE 2nd Amendment HAS NOTHING to do with militias.


Read the damn thing.

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.

Those are commas.

[Winter]

To the OP...why do you keep bumping this thread? You started it in Nov...some things are just meant to die a natural, dignified death. Obviously people feel that you are being aggressive and it would appear that you believe the only correct inference to your whole theory (yes I read it) is yours.

I have MANY strong feelings and opinions about this, but I will reserve to comment as I'm sure that if they don't line up exactly with yours, they'll be "wrong."

Honestly, I think your post history is admirable and knowledgable and believe that more people would respond here and be willing to discuss this most important issue if you didn't have such a self-important demeanor about your original post. Honest debate is good and healthy. If the world revolved around one set of ideas, it would cease to be functional.

In closing, I know you put a lot of work into your post...and you did a great job presenting your argument. If only you were willing to hear out and consider other points of view, this may be an extremely prevocative thread.

(This is not a personal attack...just an observation/opinion.)

[hsmith]

I think we should sell permits for people to talk freely and practice religion.

[hsmith]

Originally Posted by Diesel66

THE 2nd Amendment HAS NOTHING to do with militias.


Read the damn thing.

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.

Those are commas.

The second amendment is the only amendment that they made grammatical errors on, duh

[Thorgrim]

I am perfectly willing to hear other points of view, what I am not willing to hear are cut and paste anti-collectivist arguments

This reminds me of another thread, although ill change the history of what happened to suit this thread:

Me: Vaccines once contained mercury, but we've gotten rid of it in basically all vaccines, done modern testing procedures that make vaccines one of the safest things you can use, no vaccines contain mercury except for flu shots, but thats just one and I'm not here to advocate flu shots
X: But some vaccines contain mercury, therefore vaccines are dangerous
Me: Well if you read what I wrote, you'd see I already said some contain mercury, but its only one type if you ignore that then we're having a different argument
X: But vaccines contain mercury, look at all these websites I have about flu shots
Me: I'm not talking about flu shots...
X: It's the simple truth, some vaccines contain mercury, your OP is BS and this is all crap
Me: *Le Sigh*

[hsmith]

Originally Posted by Thorgrim

I am perfectly willing to hear other points of view, what I am not willing to hear are cut and pas