Obama is coming for your guns!

[Boreas]

Originally Posted by matteos

How was it not? The right to defend yourself from a tyrannical government.

No, the duty to serve in the militia in order to defend the country and the government from foreign invasion and from insurrection.

"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."

The idea was to have each state organize a militia, comprised of all able bodied men between the ages of (I think) 17 and 47. This was to be in lieu of a standing army like Britain's, an army they had been dealing with for a very long time and were, therefore, more than a little suspicious of.

These militias were used on three significant occasions. The first two were to put down Shays Rebellion in Massachusetts and The Whiskey Rebellion in Pennsylvania. Both of these rebellions were tax revolts. (Sound familiar?) The third was to fight the British invaders in 1812. So, it could be argued that the 2nd Amendment was actually created in part to protect a tyrannical government.

And, as a practical matter, do you really think that a bunch of Bushmaster-toting "sovereign citizen" yobs would have a chance against the US government if it decided to become "tyrannical"? And who defines what's tyrannical? Teabaggers?

John

[Pio1980]

Originally Posted by matteos

How was it not? The right to defend yourself from a tyrannical government.

That was never intended or implied afaik.

Sent from my SM-N900V using Tapatalk

[Pio1980]

I recall the Supremes have agreed that self and home protection is a legitimate interpretation of the 2nd. It's a shame we have to consider defense from our fellows, worse that defense from tyrannical agencies like some law enforcement entities is not that simple.

Sent from my SM-N900V using Tapatalk

[matteos]

Originally Posted by Boreas

No, the duty to serve in the militia in order to defend the country and the government from foreign invasion and from insurrection.

"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."

The idea was to have each state organize a militia, comprised of all able bodied men between the ages of (I think) 17 and 47. This was to be in lieu of a standing army like Britain's, an army they had been dealing with for a very long time and were, therefore, more than a little suspicious of.

These militias were used on three significant occasions. The first two were to put down Shays Rebellion in Massachusetts and The Whiskey Rebellion in Pennsylvania. Both of these rebellions were tax revolts. (Sound familiar?) The third was to fight the British invaders in 1812. So, it could be argued that the 2nd Amendment was actually created in part to protect a tyrannical government.

And, as a practical matter, do you really think that a bunch of Bushmaster-toting "sovereign citizen" yobs would have a chance against the US government if it decided to become "tyrannical"? And who defines what's tyrannical? Teabaggers?

John

Strange you'd label the founding fathers as a Tyrannical government.

"the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

This is also included in the text. You might be of the opinion that this only holds to a state militia, but the amendment is not interpreted that way.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZS.html


Held:

1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2–53.


Whether you think the second amendment has been interpreted incorrectly and does not follow the intentions of the founding fathers (Your opinion, fine.) The fact is, that in law it is interpreted to support personal defense.

[Boreas]

Originally Posted by matteos

Strange you'd label the founding fathers as a Tyrannical government.

So, that's your debate style? Putting words in other people's mouths? Good to know.

"the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."


This is also included in the text.

It's also in my post. Being the second clause of a one sentence amendment, it's what's known as a dependent clause. In other words, its meaning and importance depend on what precedes it. So, "the right of the people to keep and bear arms" is inextricably tied to the institution of militias for national defense. It's the sole justification within the Amendment for that right.

You might be of the opinion that this only holds to a state militia, but the amendment is not interpreted that way.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZS.html

Like virtually everything to come out of the Roberts Court, Heller is a piece of agenda-driven shit.

John

[matteos]

Well, I just want to be like everyone else

You interpret it one way. The Supreme Court has interpreted it another. You may believe they are wrong, maybe they are tyrannical (Good thing you got them guns then....)

[bobabode]

If anyone is delusional enough to think they could carry out an armed insurrection campaign against the gubmint? I'd say they are a poor student of history.

It has always ended badly for such nutjobs.

Ballots not bullets.

[Ike Bana]

Somebody needs to come for the guns. It never was going to be Obama. It's not like he's the reformer that was pitched to the electorate. Maybe Elizabeth Warren will come for the guns.

[Tom Joad]

Originally Posted by Ike Bana

Maybe Elizabeth Warren will come for the guns.

I think she's cute, so she can have my gun.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4kU0XCVey_U

[merrylander]

Originally Posted by matteos

Well, I just want to be like everyone else

You interpret it one way. The Supreme Court has interpreted it another. You may believe they are wrong, maybe they are tyrannical (Good thing you got them guns then....)

Then I suggest that you find a copy of Madison's Notes on the Debates in The Federal Convention of 1787, although I believe it may be out of print. Given the discussion concerning militia and the perceived need for one the 2nd has been misinterpreted since day one.