A questions as to your interpretation of the 2nd Amendment

[eye95]

Almost sounds like the US is about over due for another revolution. Just MHO though.


.................--Moderator Statement--Rule Violation--

Just reminding everyone of the post that prompted the first rebuke for seemingly advocating revolution--with admittedly waffling language.

 

[georg jetson]

What is apparent is that Jefferson was interested in level-headed powers attributed to, and exercised by both the People, and the Government, by the spirit of the statement Jefferson made, which you provided. And at this point it seems that there is neither level-headedness with the Citizens, nor the Government.

For example:

Citizens ask for better road, but reject higher taxes.

Bad example in the case of the US...

1. Enough taxes are paid for roads... The rejection of higher taxes is because of government waste. Also, existing revenue is mis-alocated. The level-headedness is with the citizen that understands this.

 

[Beretta92FSLady]

Bad example in the case of the US...

1. Enough taxes are paid for roads... The rejection of higher taxes is because of government waste. Also, existing revenue is mis-alocated. The level-headedness is with the citizen that understands this.

Really? Interesting. And this whole time I was under the impression Republicans are against more taxes because of a 'swelling Federal Government', as well as they consider it to be a 'redistribution of wealth'.

You are right, the level-headedness is with the citizens who understand the purpose of the Government, taxes, and are keen on the political machines inner working. Are you suggesting that only individuals who are level-headed should be permitted to vote? If so, then a test must be created to weed out those who are no level-headed, right?

 

[georg jetson]

Really? Interesting. And this whole time I was under the impression Republicans are against more taxes because of a 'swelling Federal Government', as well as they consider it to be a 'redistribution of wealth'.?

...all part of waste and mis-alocation...

You are right, the level-headedness is with the citizens who understand the purpose of the Government, taxes, and are keen on the political machines inner working. Are you suggesting that only individuals who are level-headed should be permitted to vote? If so, then a test must be created to weed out those who are no level-headed, right?

I am suggesting that your example was not a good one.

 

[Gunslinger]

Its a tricky subject.

On the one hand, one can say that the elephant in the room is the 2nd Amendment's real purpose. We can just pretend that purpose isn't there, talking around it by only discussing hunting and self-defense against criminals.

On the other hand, we could just acknowledge it. It really and truly is a legal contradiction. Its the one right designed expressly towards doing something illegal. The constitution gives the federal government the power to put down insurrections*, yet protects the ability of the people to do just exactly that--rebel. So, of course any discussion on the subject will be walking a narrow line.

The trick is to avoid saying things that seem to advocate insurrection. Advocating insurrection is a federal offense known as sedition. A felony if I recall.

So, just use a little caution. Its one thing to quote ol' Thomas Jefferson (deceased) when he was speaking in a general sort of way. Its something else for one of us to call for it in a specific way in a specific time frame against a specific government, or to urge others towards it in those same terms.

Just use a little care when you write. I am sure the moderators can distinguish between sedition and an educational discussion on the subject.


*Article 1, Section 8 (powers of Congress):
"To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions;"

The Smith Act is "calling for the overthrow of the government by force of arms." It has been called anti-sedition, but really is something else. Sedition is encouraging others to engage in this act. A fine distinction. For example, Grape encourages Citizen to overthrow the Federal Government with his Glock. Citizen goes out and does it. Technically, Grape commits sedition; Citizen insurrection, violating the Smith Act. The act has been held unconstitutional in several cases, but has never been repealed. I will now report both to the SS.

 

[Citizen]

SNIP Interesting that Jefferson advices to put down a rebellion, but for the sake of what? The sake of the Government not being overthrown?...

No offense, Beretta, but Jeezus, can't you do a little research?

Why don't you hunt up some of Jefferson's comments about it on the web?

If a certain group in the Champagne region of monarchial France rebelled because of high taxes, burned a few government offices, hung a few tax collectors, etc., it is maybe tossing out the local government and giving the king a headache, but its not overthrowing the national government.

The French Revolution provides us with a wonderful quote attributed to one of Louis' ministers that helps show there are nuances to this.
Louis: Is it a revolt?
Minister: No, your Majesty. Its a revolution.

If a bunch of western Pennsylvania farmers are told whiskey taxes are going up, and they rebel, its not even overthrowing the PA government, much less the federal government.

Misunderstanding and false information are not "subjective". Either somebody was lied to or they weren't. Either somebody misunderstood something or they didn't. There doesn't need to be any gray areas here. Either the hinterlands received distorted reports or they didn't. Either the king's ministers lied about the intent of the legislation or they didn't. Etc.

 

[Beretta92FSLady]

No offense, Beretta, but Jeezus, can't you do a little research?

Why don't you hunt up some of Jefferson's comments about it on the web?

If a certain group in the Champagne region of monarchial France rebelled because of high taxes, burned a few government offices, hung a few tax collectors, etc., it is maybe tossing out the local government and giving the king a headache, but its not overthrowing the national government.

The French Revolution provides us with a wonderful quote attributed to one of Louis' ministers that helps show there are nuances to this.
Louis: Is it a revolt?
Minister: No, your Majesty. Its a revolution.

If a bunch of western Pennsylvania farmers are told whiskey taxes are going up, and they rebel, its not even overthrowing the PA government, much less the federal government.

Misunderstanding and false information are not "subjective". Either somebody was lied to or they weren't. Either somebody misunderstood something or they didn't. There doesn't need to be any gray areas here. Either the hinterlands received distorted reports or they didn't. Either the king's ministers lied about the intent of the legislation or they didn't. Etc.

You may have missed the question marks which indicate that I am asking a question, not making statements.

 

[rushcreek2]

The term revolution refers to political reaction to circumstances that VIOLATE a percieved "agreement". The United States Constitution is such an agreement forged as the foundation of our Republic.

It is not necessary to advocate "revolution" at this juncture simply because the body politic is already energized to accomplish this objective in November 2012.

The electoral error that occurred in 2008 will not be repeated in 2012.

Governor Rick Perry is not George Bush by a long shot !

Why do we keep electing Presidents from Texas? Because the rest of the 49 states apparently look to Texas to restore respect for our Constitutional Republic.

 

[DevinWKuska]

The term revolution refers to political reaction to circumstances that VIOLATE a percieved "agreement". The United States Constitution is such an agreement forged as the foundation of our Republic.

It is not necessary to advocate "revolution" at this juncture simply because the body politic is already energized to accomplish this objective in November 2012.

The electoral error that occurred in 2008 will not be repeated in 2012.

Governor Rick Perry is not George Bush by a long shot !

Why do we keep electing Presidents from Texas? Because the rest of the 49 states apparently look to Texas to restore respect for our Constitutional Republic.

Texas is PRO 2A... wo why do we keep getting anti 2a presidents?

 

[wrightme]

Texas is PRO 2A... wo why do we keep getting anti 2a presidents?

As long as you don't want to OC......

 

[georg jetson]

The electoral error that occurred in 2008 will not be repeated in 2012.

We'll see...

Governor Rick Perry is not George Bush by a long shot !

Correct... he's not nearly as believable.

Why do we keep electing Presidents from Texas? Because the rest of the 49 states apparently look to Texas to restore respect for our Constitutional Republic.

Of course, Texas has a lot to offer... from it's congressmen...

 

[Gunslinger]

As long as you don't want to OC......

But Perry has come out strongly in favor of a bill to allow it. Never could understand their laws on OC and knives, especially when I lived there.

 

[rushcreek2]

The Texas , and Colorado Constitutions' reservations of the right to keep & bear arms against infringement are essentially identical.

"Every citizen SHALL HAVE THE RIGHT to keep and bear arms in lawful defense..."(Texas Const.)

"The right of no person to keep & bear arms in defense of home, person, or property SHALL BE CALLED INTO QUESTION......." (Colorado Const.)

Both constitutions then have a provisional clause intended to address the practice of concealing of arms.

Colorado's Constitution is unambiguous in clearly excepting concealed carry from the reserved right .

The Texas Constitution was adopted with the ambiguous provision for the Legislature to regulate the "wearing of arms, WITH A VIEW TO PREVENT CRIME" - the intent of which was to provide for the regulation of the concealment of arms. This FACT is not subject to any honest debate. The State has leveraged the perceived ambiguity of this provisional language to transgress upon the very right reserved in the declarative clause for 135 years.

Colorado was spared the curse of being a former Confederate state, and subjection to Reconstruction administration, even though Texas did not deprive the freedmen of the right to keep & bear arms as other former Confederate states did.

Texas courts have interpreted the "wearing of arms" regulatory provision as authority for the State to establish a handgun EXCEPTION to the right declared to be reserved to every citizen.

Although incorporation of the 2A via the McDonald v. Chicago decision seems to bring the Texas handgun exception into question- the best remedy for Texas remains HONEST interpretation of Article 1, Section 23, by the high powers of the State reversing the 135 year old transgressions upon the right to bear a nonconcealed handgun in lawful defense.

 

[Fisherman]

I have a question for anyone interested. What do you believe the 2nd amendment to mean? I know many consider this amendment to mean we the people have the right to carry firearms. Such as
(In 2008 and 2010, the Supreme Court issued two Second Amendment decisions. In District of Columbia v. Heller (2008), the Court ruled that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to possess a firearm, unconnected to service in a militia[1][2] and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution


However my understanding is that the ORIGNAL 2nd Amendment was this:
As passed by the Congress:

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.
As ratified by the States:

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.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

Dont get me wrong I own many long guns as well as 2 sidearms(handguns). But I am concerned that people are warping its meaning. I do not believe this was necessarily intended to mean everyone should have the right to carry a weapon(although i understand back then rifles were considered hunting tools). I have heard in the past that every state has a regulated militia and I am not a member. SO should I REALLY be able to carry firearms? This question boggles my mind. In one hand I dont think I would willingly give up any firearm. On the other hand I would like to think I would surrender a firearm to preserve the true meaning of the constitution. The Government already twists and warps the Constitution to say what they want it to. I would like to be on the honest side. I would appreciate your thoughts, but please try to be objective.

Sorry if someone already gave this answer but here goes. A lot of people keep forgetting that comma in the sentence. " A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State," means that we need a militia made up of "the people" to fight for our freedom and that is "well regulated" by "the people". "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." means just that. "The people", us, have the right to keep and bear arms (rifles, shotguns, handguns, big knife, big stick, buggy whip.....) and it shall not be infringed upon by anyone. It's pretty easy. Remember the comma.

 

[rpyne]

Texas is PRO 2A...

I don't know whether to laugh of barf over that statement. Have you actually taken time to read Texas gun laws and their history?

How about the fact that Texas legislators blackmailed Utah legislators into changing Utah's CFP requirements to do their dirty work for them. They didn't have enough skeletal structure to pass their own law requiring Texas residents to have a Texas CFP, instead they threatened Utah that if Utah didn't require non-residents to get their own state's resident permit before they could get the Utah permit, Texas would stop recognizing the Utah permit.

Not only does Texas not allow OC, it also has the highest restrictions on who can get a CFP I have seen anywhere. Having an unpaid traffic citation or other unpaid government fee, being behind on a student loan, or being behind on child support will prevent you from getting a Texas permit. And have you looked at the Texas list of prohibited paces for CC?

If the majority of Texas residents were really Pro 2A, this would NOT be the case.