Wiccan Warriors discussion of the Bill of Rights...2nd Amendment

[Wiccan Warrior]

ok I would like to post one amendment to the Constitution in here a day and get everyones opinion on it, how they feel about it, how it has been upheld or stripped from us, just in general talk about it and if you ever had a time to use/exercise it.


Amendment II

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.

[Greyhound]

1. I like all of the Bill of Rights.

The second was included to ensure the rest.

See you in the Gungeon.

[LostinVA]

2. Oh dear God -- not this early -- I just brushed my teeth

:popcorn:

[Wiccan Warrior]

3. LOL...cute ...n/t

[Marrah_G]

5. WAKE UP!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

:hide:

[Marrah_G]

4. I absolutely defend the second amendment

The last thing the founding fathers wanted was a populace unable to defend themselves. They knew that every so often freedom and democracy would need to be defended. They also knew that there would be future King Georges.

The last thing I want is to have the only armed people being government "Christian soldiers", like some nightmare version of "Handmaids Tale"

I want to see our Liberal brothers and sisters stating in the military to balance out those right wing zealots as well.

[Wiccan Warrior]

6. Yes one thing I would like to see is

our military stand up and say WAIT A DAMN MINUTE were tired of this shit were outta here and don't stand in our way.

[Marrah_G]

9. Are you military?

I often have to giggle because people like to think of us as peace-loving tree-hugging hippies (or dark evil baby killers with horns and fangs) when in actuality most of my male Wiccan friends have military or police past/present experience.

[Wiccan Warrior]

10. Not military, but do have Law Enforncement experience. n/t

[Marrah_G]

13. !

Once again the stereo-type goes BOOM!

[doni_georgia]

7. The right wingers forget the first part of this amendment

"A well regulated militia, being necessart to the security of a free state"

What many people fail to realize is at the time the Bill of Rights was written, states had militias and every militia member had to bring his own weapon. The purpose of the amendment was to insure that the people could defend themselves against foreign invasion and/or an unjust government. Lexington and Concord was fought over the British's attempt to seize the militia's weapons. This amendment was written to insure that didn't happen again.

[Wiccan Warrior]

8. It was a B.Y.O.G. party then? **sarcasm**

[doni_georgia]

17. Yep and now it's a BYOA party

Bring your own armor

[Wcross]

11. I see it as an individual right.

2nd amendment;
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.


Now, lets take a look at the fourth amendment;


The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.


How could the phrase "right of the people" in the second amendment mean a collective right unless "the right of the people" in the fourth amendment is also a collective right? People do not own collective homes nor do they have collective persons. This clearly indicates that the founding fathers used the term "the people" to refer to individuals.

Let us look at the tenth amendment;
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

They clearly and specifically use the term "the States" to refer to a collective right and "the people" to refer to individual rights.


Case closed. The second amendment is an individual right.

[scrinmaster]

12. Individual right.

There should be far fewer restrictions on the second amendment than there are now.

[DangerDave921]

14. So outdated

I don't see why we, in 2007, have to honor a document written over 200 years ago. The times are so different today. Why do we bow and scrape to a document written by slave-owning white men in a time when we didn't know 1% of what we know today in terms of science, sociology, economics, etc. I think it's high time to draft a NEW constitution -- one that reflects the current world and not one that is stuck in the past. So much turmoil is caused today by the 9 members of the SCOTUS trying to interpret what the founders meant. Why interpret? Let's just write a new one that actually SAYS what we want it to say instead of having to make up what we THINK it means.

[davsand]

18. I suspect that flexibility is part of the reason The Constitution is still valid.

Honest, I think it was drafted that way for a very specific reason. Remember, the Framers were guys who were FED UP with rules dictated by someone else. The idea was very much a matter of LOCAL or self governance rather than something with a centralized power.

Frankly, I think they got it VERY right a long time ago and it has only gotten messed up in recent times.

Just saying...


Laura

[Wiley50]

20. So, You too think the constitution is "just a goddamned piece of paper"

What other views do you share with Smirky?

[DangerDave921]

21. ??

Sorry, I don't get the reference. And I didn't say G-D.

[benEzra]

27. That sums up the position of W and "No Habeus Corpus" Gonzales pretty well.

I don't see why we, in 2007, have to honor a document written over 200 years ago. The times are so different today.

That sums up the position of W and "No Habeus Corpus" Gonzales pretty well. You know, how 9-11 changed everything, and we have to throw out those archaic restraints on centralized power and whatnot...

So much turmoil is caused today by the 9 members of the SCOTUS trying to interpret what the founders meant. Why interpret? Let's just write a new one that actually SAYS what we want it to say instead of having to make up what we THINK it means.

You think we've got turmoil NOW--rip up the Constitution and overthrow the system that has kept a very diverse and unruly group of people together for 218 years, mostly peacefully, and THEN you'd see some turmoil.

[uppityperson]

15. Have you gone here yet?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topics&forum=118

[Wiccan Warrior]

23. Yes I have visited there a couple of times. n/t

[PVnRT]

16. In general, I agree with it

However, what I get sick and tired of is the fearmongering by groups like the NRA that every little new regulation or introduced bill is a catastrophic assault on gun rights, when in fact they're not.

[benEzra]

25. I think a lot of proposals are sold as being a lot less sweeping than they are...

the "assault weapon" bait-and-switch (outlawing the most popular target rifles in America, plus all shotguns over 5 rounds and pistols/rifles over 10 rounds) being a case in point.

I agree with you, though, that the NRA's rhetoric tends to have a "sky is falling" edge all too often. I think they would get their message across to fence-sitters a lot more effectively if they tried a little more reason and a little less emotion.

[ThomWV]

19. I Want To Explain Why We Have That Amendment

It never ceases to amaze me how few people have bothered to read the background for that Amendment, to see where the thinking was coming from that gave us the right to be armed. A year or two ago I took the couple of hours to see why we have that amendment and it surprised me once I came to understand the original intent.

As you will probably recall the founding fathers were dead set against a standing army. They would be more than simply appalled by the complex we have built but that is another story. They understood that defense was vital but kept the forces to provide it at the state level. Much like today's National Guard states were expected to maintain a militia to be available in time of need. These militia were to be controlled, trained, and provided for by the state's Governors (or equal). The founding fathers understood that men who desire power can corrupt others and so you find it recognized in the Constitution that the militias must be "well regulated". Of course by 'well regulated' what they meant was that a militia would not become the private Army of a Governor gone bad or made or by their own Officers for that matter - the point is that while this nation would not have a standing army that one could be gathered in short order for the common defense if the need be by amassing the militias from the various states.

So who would 'well regulate' the militias were a rogue leader to tack charge of one? The citizens would. In that time the members of a militia would not be much more well armed than the common citizens. It was a well armed populace that would provide the necessary controls to 'regulate" the militia and if the militia were to go bad it was presumed that all those citizens with all their guns could out power the rogue militia. And that is what it was all about.

Now days no matter what sort of arsenal you might have at home you and your neighbors are not going to outgun our Army. So it is reasonable to make the argument that the Amendment is outdated. I personally thing the Amendment should stand just as it is because at some level its original intent still stands.

[LeftCoast]

22. I think anyone who wants to own a gun should be required to join a 'well-regulated militia'

One that has regular meetings and such. :)

[ThomWV]

28. Then you miss the point of the Amendment

The point was for the citizenry to be better armed than the militia, which would allow the people, by virtue of their greater power, to "well regulate" their state's militia. Of course the days when the general population could outgun the National Guard of their state are long gone, but that was the intention and it is the meaning of 'well regulated'.

[conscious evolution]

24. At one time I wanted to see the 2nd Amendment

removed from the constitution.
Not anymore.
I am currently arming myself to the hilt for the day that we have to fight to regain our freedom.

[derby378]

29. Thanks for coming around

A couple of sites you might find interesting:

http://www.a2dems.net
http://www.progunprogressive.com

[benEzra]

26. Dems and the Gun Issue - Now What?

Dems and the Gun Issue - Now What?
Written in '04 and largely vindicated in '06, IMO. A map of the issue to help non-gunnies understand why bans on nonhunting-style civilian guns are so adamantly opposed by most of us gun owners.

The Conservative Roots of U.S. Gun Control
Half of U.S. gun owners are Dems and indies, and a lot of U.S. gun control was enacted by authoritarian conservatives in an attempt to keep guns out of the hands of minorities, immigrants, and peons. (Which is why the Brady Campaign doesn't mind you owning a $5,000 skeet shotgun or high-zoot deer rifle, but wants to outlaw the $379 carbine in my gun safe.)

This is why Ronald Reagan was the most anti-gun mayor in California history up to that point, and why California now has some of the harshest gun-ownership laws in America:



Because "those people" are the wrong color to be owning and using guns. Only wealthy white skeet shooters have the "right hands" to be allowed to own guns, you know...

:sarcasm:

FWIW, here's my own personal contribution to keeping the spirit of the Second Amendment alive:



No, that's NOT a real Title 2/Class III restricted AK-47; I don't have the $15,000 it would take to buy one, though I could easily qualify for the BATFE Form 4 required by Federal law. That's a non-automatic civilian carbine (SAR-1) based on the AK design, but incapable of automatic fire, and my primary target/competition rifle.