hamilton on gun control (not really) & militia

http://theweek.com/articles/629815/h...-228-years-ago

surprised by this one in that my views & Hamiliton are similar when it comes to the meaning of the 2nd admendment.

the writer raises some good points, but I think he is wrong on the militia as "gun control"

I think he is also wrong about the militias being insurrectionist considering most of the militias have to be registered with the state to get recognition.

The purpose and the wording are not that difficult to understand.

Had our founders intended to restrict gun ownership and the ability to bear those "arms" they would have said "militia" rather than "the people" as the ones that hold the right.

To understand the reasoning is not difficult at all unless your attempt is to make the amendment something that it is not, which is gun control.

The founding fathers knew how expensive it would be to maintain a standing army and how much of a burden it would be to the citizens to pay for it. This is one of the reasons that the Constitution only allows for funding for a standing army in two year periods. The idea is that in order to protect this new nation from threats the people should be armed so that we could defend ourselves while an army was being mustered.

One of the greatest fears and a primary reason for the founding of this nation was tyranny. The loss of the right to self determination was and still is a constant threat to our freedom.

In the most simplistic of terms, a militia is nothing more than an army of the people.

Wolverines

The purpose and the wording are not that difficult to understand.

Had our founders intended to restrict gun ownership and the ability to bear those "arms" they would have said "militia" rather than "the people" as the ones that hold the right.

To understand the reasoning is not difficult at all unless your attempt is to make the amendment something that it is not, which is gun control.

The founding fathers knew how expensive it would be to maintain a standing army and how much of a burden it would be to the citizens to pay for it. This is one of the reasons that the Constitution only allows for funding for a standing army in two year periods. The idea is that in order to protect this new nation from threats the people should be armed so that we could defend ourselves while an army was being mustered.

One of the greatest fears and a primary reason for the founding of this nation was tyranny. The loss of the right to self determination was and still is a constant threat to our freedom.

In the most simplistic of terms, a militia is nothing more than an army of the people.

Wolverines Originally Posted by The2Dogs

yep, militia is people who own guns; organized or unorganized and no training either.

yep, militia is people who own guns; organized or unorganized and no training either. Originally Posted by dilbert firestorm

thats why we have so many innocent people getting murdered by assholes with guns.

In United States v. Cruikshank (1876), the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that, "The right to bear arms is not granted by the Constitution; neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence" and limited the applicability of the Second Amendment to the federal government.[

In United States v. Miller (1939), the Supreme Court ruled that the federal government and the states could limit any weapon types not having a "reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia

In Caetano v. Massachusetts (2016), the Supreme Court reiterated its earlier rulings that "the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding" and that its protection is not limited to "only those weapons useful in warfare".[

so SCOTUS rulings have kinda been all over the map on the 2nd amd. Its not as clear cut as the NRA would have you believe.

In United States v. Cruikshank (1876), the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that, "The right to bear arms is not granted by the Constitution; neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence" and limited the applicability of the Second Amendment to the federal government. Originally Posted by southtown4488

Wasn't that ruling made by some of the same justices that ruled against Plessy in Plessy vs Ferguson, suckclown?

In United States v. Miller (1939), the Supreme Court ruled that the federal government and the states could limit any weapon types not having a "reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia Originally Posted by southtown4488

Korematsu v. United States was also a great ruling, wasn't it, suckclown?

so SCOTUS rulings have kinda been all over the map on the 2nd amd. Its not as clear cut as the NRA would have you believe. Originally Posted by southtown4488

The Founding Father's explanation for the Second Amendment and court rulings based on those explanations are all that really count, suckclown.

Wasn't that ruling made by some of the same justices that ruled against Plessy in Plessy vs Ferguson, suckclown?

Korematsu v. United States was also a great ruling, wasn't it, suckclown?

The Founding Father's explanation for the Second Amendment and court rulings based on those explanations are all that really count, suckclown. Originally Posted by I B Hankering

rant rant fail

rant rant fail Originally Posted by southtown4488

Your imbecilic bile does not constitute a factual rebuttal to the facts presented against your ignorant POV, suckclown.

In United States v. Cruikshank (1876), the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that, "The right to bear arms is not granted by the Constitution; neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence" and limited the applicability of the Second Amendment to the federal government.[ Originally Posted by southtown4488

Then if that's the case what are they waiting for?

Jim

Then if that's the case what are they waiting for?

Jim Originally Posted by Mr MojoRisin

The biggest obstruction for common sense gun laws is the NRA and gun lobby. . . they've been very effective at recruiting single issue voters. So the political climate has to build enough to overcome that. Wont be easy, but it needs to happen or more and more people will be murdered for no good reason.

The biggest obstruction for common sense gun laws is the NRA and gun lobby. . . they've been very effective at recruiting single issue voters. So the political climate has to build enough to overcome that. Wont be easy, but it needs to happen or more and more people will be murdered for no good reason. Originally Posted by southtown4488

Lib-retards have been legislating gun control since at least the '30s, suckclown. Are you now claiming that lib-retards never applied any "common sense" in any of those laws, suckclown?

Lib-retards have been legislating gun control since at least the '30s, suckclown. Are you now claiming that lib-retards never applied any "common sense" in any of those laws, suckclown? Originally Posted by I B Hankering

ignoring rant
whenever u wanna have an adult debate feel free to start