You will not get my 2nd Amendment right. You will not limit it. It's MY right. You can limit YOURSELF in your right to own a weapon, but not ME. Go ---- yourself. Sincerely, the rest of America not in California, New York or Washington State.

And there are TWO parts to the Second Amendment. One that addresses Militia's outside of the governments control, and one that addresses a citizen's personal right to carry a weapon. It's right there in black and white.

If you dont agree, I dont care. You will not infringe on a citizen's right to own a weapon. Period. End of story.

Thank God for Donald Trump and his Supreme Court Nominees.

I dont care about his crazy behavior or you liberals Trump Derangement Syndrome. He did what he said he would do. Put up a firewall between the crazy, constitution destroying left by electing common sense, actual people who know about the constitution judges to stop the crazed left. And he has more than fulfilled his word.

Go get em Supreme Court.

But the reality is that is has already been limited.

You are now living under those limits.

And I can agree with that. But any further limits need to STOP. Stop trying to come up with ideas to limit my right. The second amendment needs to be left alone. A fence needs to be placed around the second amendment and that's what the court is probably going to do.

we'll talk.

About what? There's nothing to talk about. How about you read the text of the 2nd amendment. That's all the talking I need to do..

You don't speak for anybody but yourself you childish ass.

#13 | Posted by jpw

LOL. I bet I speak for more of the country than you do.

But you keep thinking like that. It will keep us winning elections for years to come..

How does your interpretation of the 2nd Amendment correlate with the rule of law in the United States?

What do you mean?

He means what are you going to do when there's eventually a convention of the states that removes the 2nd amendment.

If the states, together, vote for that then ok. But we know that wont happen. No state is going to give up it's voice just because California has an over abundance of people.

#22 and #23

You are wrong. That sentence has been understood since the dawn of the Republic that people have the right to own weapons to defend themselves. And NO, it wasnt "just" defined a few short years ago. It's only been trying to be CHANGED by -------- like YOU a few short years ago.

I wont let you change the meaning of things all the time like you liberals try to do.

his view simply reflected the overwhelming consensus on the issue at the time."

Actually, it didnt. And if it was "overwhelming", then a constitutional convention would have over turned it and we all know how THAT would turn out.

but you will never change history or reality.

You mean like you are trying to do?

2. Protecting the rights of Slave states to organize Slave Patrols to control the slave population through recapture of runaways, and intimidation to prevent rebellions.

Your racist card has been declined, do you another card that you can make a reasoned argument with?

In Federalist No. 46, Madison wrote how a federal army could be kept in check by state militias, "a standing army ... would be opposed [by] a militia." He argued that state militias "would be able to repel the danger" of a federal army, "It may well be doubted, whether a militia thus circumstanced could ever be conquered by such a proportion of regular troops." He contrasted the federal government of the United States to the European kingdoms, which he described as "afraid to trust the people with arms," and assured that "the existence of subordinate governments ... forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition".[14][15]

There it is in black and white.

1. that the states should and were intended to be separate and autonomous to keep the federal in check.
2. that the 2nd was intended as a way for states to fight against an overbearing federal government.
3. that it is a people's right.

Early English settlers in America viewed the right to arms and/or the right to bear arms and/or state militias as important for one or more of these purposes (in no particular order):[g][h][55][56][57][58][59][60]

enabling the people to organize a militia system;[61]
participating in law enforcement;
safeguarding against tyrannical government;[62]
repelling invasion;[61]
suppressing insurrection, allegedly including slave revolts,[63][64][65] though some scholars say these claims are factually incorrect;[66]
facilitating a natural right of self-defense.[61]

Your premise is --------, whodaman

Furthermore, one article from New York in 1769 stated: "it is a natural right which the people have reserved to themselves, confirmed by the Bill of Rights, to keep arms for their own defence."[72]

Learn something you ignorant idiots...

Pennsylvania, September 28, 1776

Article 13. That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the state; and as standing armies in the time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; And that the military should be kept under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.[91]

North Carolina, December 18, 1776

A Declaration of Rights. Article XVII. That the people have a right to bear arms, for the defence of the State; and, as standing armies, in time of peace, are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; and that the military should be kept under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.[95]

Vermont, July 8, 1777

Chapter 1. Section XVIII. That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of the themselves and the State; and as standing armies, in the time of peace, are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; and that the military should be kept under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.[97]

Massachusetts, June 15, 1780

Sure looks like they wanted the individual to have arms...It's even repeated often throughout.

A Declaration of Rights. Chapter 1. Article XVII. The people have a right to keep and to bear arms for the common defence. And as, in time of peace, armies are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be maintained without the consent of the legislature; and the military power shall always be held in an exact subordination to the civil authority and be governed by it.[98]

Before a standing army can rule the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretence, raised in the United States.[14][119]

You people really need to learn some history.

Timothy Farrar

In 1867, Judge Timothy Farrar published his Manual of the Constitution of the United States of America, which was written when the Fourteenth Amendment was "in the process of adoption by the State legislatures.":[141][m]

The States are recognized as governments, and, when their own constitutions permit, may do as they please; provided they do not interfere with the Constitution and laws of the United States, or with the civil or natural rights of the people recognized thereby, and held in conformity to them. The right of every person to "life, liberty, and property," to "keep and bear arms," to the "writ of habeas corpus" to "trial by jury," and divers others, are recognized by, and held under, the Constitution of the United States, and cannot be infringed by individuals or even by the government itself.

God, we need people like this today...

I've explained to you more than once, in excruciating detail, why this isn't true.

You havent done anything but ignore the PROOF I gave you in posts 28 - 31...

Sort of kin to you putting your fingers in your ears going LALALALALALAALALALALALALA

Ok, where is the "well regulated" militia?

It's where the people want it to be. In their individual, sovereign states, independent of the federal government.

Who's "regulating" these nut jobs running around hugging their ARs? How do you have any kind of command structure and how do you have a "well regulated militia" without one?

Not you. You are against us. You think the federal government, who the militia's that were created in the constitution to guard against, should be regulated by the one entity they were created to be a check on?

God liberals are stupid...

What other outdated/non-existent laws will they fight against?

#61 | Posted by BruceBanner

The ones you liberals havent thought up yet..

So then how was President Washington command the Militia to put down the Whiskey Rebellion, if the militia was independent of the Federal Government?

From soldiers who were still on the active/Inactive rolls. This isnt hard, Snoofy.

Why you try to so hard to not understand what type of nation and government we have is beyond me..

Washington responded by sending peace commissioners to western Pennsylvania to negotiate with the rebels, while at the same time calling on governors to send a militia force to enforce the tax. Washington himself rode at the head of an army to suppress the insurgency, with 13,000 militiamen provided by the governors of Virginia, Maryland, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania.

Basically, it was the national guard Washington used....

News of Necker's dismissal reached Paris on the afternoon of Sunday, 12 July. The Parisians generally presumed that the dismissal marked the start of a coup by conservative elements.[12] Liberal Parisians were further enraged by the fear that a concentration of Royal troops"brought in from frontier garrisons to Versailles, Svres, the Champ de Mars, and Saint-Denis"would attempt to shut down the National Constituent Assembly, which was meeting in Versailles. Crowds gathered throughout Paris, including more than ten thousand at the Palais-Royal. Camille Desmoulins successfully rallied the crowd by "mounting a table, pistol in hand, exclaiming: 'Citizens, there is no time to lose; the dismissal of Necker is the knell of a Saint Bartholomew for patriots! This very night all the Swiss and German battalions will leave the Champ de Mars to massacre us all; one resource is left; to take arms!'"[7]

Funny how, in the midst of the French revolution, the people realized the only way to true freedom, was to take up arms. But afterward, the liberals who had gained control, immediately disarmed the public.