.

A breakdown of the 2nd Amendment

gunphreakgunphreak Member Posts: 1,791 ✭✭✭✭✭
I can't believe we have actually had infringing laws and "open interpretation" of our rights put on the books. My grandfather once told me our Constitution is not open for interpretation, and that any change to it would be an infringement of our right to liberty, happiness, and ultimately, our lives. So let me give you the simplest interpretation of the 2nd Amendment.

"A well-regulated (not to be confused with poorly equipped) militia (that's any able bodied male between the ages of 18 and 45 years of age according to the Militia Act of 1792, and to the best of my knowledge, has remained uncontested presently. It is NOT the National Guard. The Constitution was ratified in 1789, and the Bill of Rights shortly after. The National Guard was created in 1904, over a century later.) being necessary (not negotiable or optional) to the security of a Free State (depending on who you are, there may be two different opinions. The first would be synonymous with a free country or boundaries, but I believe it meant a free state of being, versus one of oppression or involuntary servitude such as a slave, serf, peon or subject. After all, our Forefathers fought to end their own oppression, why would they not seek to prevent it in the future?)Here comes the good part... the RIGHT (not power) OF THE PEOPLE (not the military, not law enforcement, not those elitists, not the politicians, and certainly not the criminals) SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED. (in other words, what part of that do they not understand??? And they think we're stupid)

The 2nd Amendment, freedoms only guarantee......


Death to Tyrants!!!

-Gunphreak

Death to Tyrants!!!

-Gunphreak

Comments

  • daddodaddo Member Posts: 3,408
    edited November -1
    Even the most simplest writings are twisted to conform to the attorney's will. "They" have fun trying to make changes at a chalenge, caring not about the percussion of their actions.
  • salzosalzo Member Posts: 6,837
    edited November -1
    quote:

    "..... being necessary (not negotiable or optional) to the security of a Free State (depending on who you are, there may be two different opinions. The first would be synonymous with a free country or boundaries, but I believe it meant a free state of being, versus one of oppression or involuntary servitude such as a slave, serf, peon or subject.
    Death to Tyrants!!!

    -Gunphreak

    Death to Tyrants!!!

    -Gunphreak


    With all due respect, your definition of the meaning of "state" in the second amendment, makes the activist interpeters of the constitution look like strict constructionists.

    Happiness is a warm gun
  • gunphreakgunphreak Member Posts: 1,791 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    Which would you rather have? A person who is a strict constructionist, or someone loosely interpreting your rights away. Once a right is gone, it is usually gone forever.

    Those who would sacrifice essential liberties for temporary security deserve neither liberty or security.

    Death to Tyrants!!!

    -Gunphreak
  • salzosalzo Member Posts: 6,837
    edited November -1
    I prefer a strict constructionist interpetation. But your definition of "state" in the second amendment is about as activist, and as far from "strict constructionism" as you can get.

    Happiness is a warm gun
  • gunphreakgunphreak Member Posts: 1,791 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    Not exactly sure how you mean that, but in all seriousness, what's the difference? If what you are talking about is a free state or country, that implies the people in it are not under indentured or involuntary servitude, correct?? I merely took it a step further. The Constitution was written to assign powers to our Federal Government, and the Bill of Rights was written to express our rights. To me, the minute we begin confusing any portion of The Bill of Rights to mean collective rights or rights for only certain people, we lose the meaning of our rights and then our rights come under seige. In that sense, the People, or the Country, it makes little difference which our Founding Fathers meant, it would ensure both.

    If the people are free, then the country will be free, also. You do the math.

    Death to Tyrants!!!

    -Gunphreak
  • salzosalzo Member Posts: 6,837
    edited November -1
    Actually, all of the rights listed in the bill of rights, are in fact "collective rights". The rights were inserted into the constitution, because the states demanded that they be there. The bill of rights, is a limitation on the FEDERAL government, preventing them from infringing on issues that are issues for the state to decide-
    ex. 1st amend- CONGRESS shall make no law establishing or prohibiting religion, prohibiting free speech and press.." It says nothing about protecting the rights of INDIVIDUALS, it only states that CONGRESS cannot interfere in those areas.
    Of course, the states that ratified the constitution would not limit the people of their own states from exercising the rights outlined in the BOR, but nothing in the constitution would prevent them from doing so, if they wanted to.
    The BOR has changed, in the sense that people beleive that it is binding on the state, with the 14th amendment being the reason. But in reality, the 14th amendment ALLOWS the federal government to interfere in areas that it was supposed to stay out of, and does nothing as far as "guaranteeing" rights for a US citizen. If you think about it, the government takes more rights away then they allow us to exercise.

    Happiness is a warm gun
  • Rob GreeneRob Greene Member Posts: 102 ✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    Any right that the government grants you is one that they have already taken from you. They have nothing else to give!

    **It is your right to posess a firearm. In case of questions, please refer to ammendment 2, United States Constitution.**
  • gunphreakgunphreak Member Posts: 1,791 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    Ahh, the 14th Amendment. Ratified under duress to abridge the right of the people. We, as people should know that government which governs best governs least, because it knows the people are disciplining themselves. This obviously states otherwise. This is only an observation, but I do believe the Founding Fathers did not care about the States as they were writing up until the 10th Amendment, when they felt it might be a good idea to insert it to keep the States from trumping the Bill of Rights. Why would they care about the prosperity of a state or union of states as the case was, over the people for whom those rights were being written??? It says nothing about the RKBA for self defense, specifically, but it does if you read between the lines... "being necessary for the security of a Free State..." free from what?? Free from anyone who would abridge your rights to life, liberty, or pursuit of happiness, as guaranteed by Our Creator. Until that right reads, "The right of the States to gather their own Army" it belongs to us.... the people at large.

    Remember, this was simply an observation, any way you look at it. We simply cannot ask our Founding Fathers to spell it out for us in this time. Perhaps I am wrong. But what if you are?? How do you really think they would feel if they could see how things turned out???

    Death to Tyrants!!!

    -Gunphreak
Sign In or Register to comment.