The 2nd Amendment was created for a reason that is no longer viable

I would like you guys to read it and comment on this. This is the URl: https://truthout.org/articles/how-th...standing-army/

I shorten with Tiny URL to: https://tinyurl.com/y8kk2zvu

Here's an archived version so you don't give these bootlickers clicks.

https://archive.fo/i15Uj

Pretty much an under researched opinion piece.

.

“The Constitution of most of our states (and of the United States) assert that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed.”
– Thomas Jefferson, letter to John Cartwright, 5 June 1824

If this article had any merit, the 2nd Amendment would read "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the militia to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"

But it specifically says people in the operative clause. That means the right of the citizenry, the PEOPLE, to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jthrelf

If this article had any merit, the 2nd Amendment would read "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the militia to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"

But it specifically says people in the operative clause. That means the right of the citizenry, the PEOPLE, to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

---

Well the unorganized militia is made up of "The People", not the government. Big difference. The People need to have private arms and be proficient with them in order to serve in the militia. However, being in or associated with a militia is not a prerequisite for private ownership of firearms by The People.

That site is an anti-Trump site and that alone makes it suspicious. As to the article, just because we have a large standing army does not mean an armed populace is still not the best defense against tyranny, which is the basis of the second amendment as I understand it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pilot321

Well the unorganized militia is made up of "The People", not the government. Big difference. The People need to have private arms and be proficient with them in order to serve in the militia. However, being in or associated with a militia is not a prerequisite for private ownership of firearms by The People.

---

Here in PRNY, it is illegal to form a private militia. Sheds some light on the motivation for antis to strictly associate gun ownership with the militia.

Section 240 of the NYS military law, if anyone wants to read up on it. Here's a excerpt from the section header:

Quote:

---

No body of men other than the organized militia and the armed forces of the United States [...] shall associate themselves together as a military company or other unit [...]

---

Even IF the militia was a requirement, 10 USC 246 (US Code) states:

Quote:

---

(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.

(b) The classes of the militia are-

(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and

(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.

---

So, codified in US federal law, every healthy man (and likely woman) between the ages of 17 and 45 is technically in the militia. I've got one more year of eligibility! :)

Well.....here is the thing.........2A doesn't really matter.

Nowhere in COTUS is it spelled out that the Federal Government has the power to disarm the people, prevent the people from arming themselves, prohibit self-defense, etc. Since these powers are not enumerated, AND since it is commonly understood that the people HAD these powers when the document was created, it is pretty clear that EVEN WITHOUT 2A:

• The Federal Govt has no enumerated power to disarm the people
• The people have the right to arm themselves

Therefore, the author of this study, and all of his little friends, buddies, cohorts, admirers, butt buddies and so forth, can all go fuck themselves.

How about that?

Remembering the Rodney King riot where the police abandon the peoples to be on their own. The rioters kept away from the Koreans with AR's w/ capacity mags.
That says it all.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ideaman

I would like you guys to read it and comment on this. This is the URl: https://truthout.org/articles/how-th...standing-army/

I shorten with Tiny URL to: https://tinyurl.com/y8kk2zvu

---

But..... you have to read the ENTIRE Second Amendment. Not just bits and pieces. :-)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jthrelf

If this article had any merit, the 2nd Amendment would read "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the militia to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"

But it specifically says people in the operative clause. That means the right of the citizenry, the PEOPLE, to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

---

And who is the "militia"? Title X of the U.S. Code explains tells us who the militia is.

succinct history but the conclusion is in error.
they reason because we have a standing army and a federally controlled "state" armies, the militia is outdated; but nothing in those actions changed the fact of the militia, 2A, congressional authority over arms, or the rules for calling the militia.

as free pointed out, the 2A is irrelevant to our rights to arms.
it existed before the constitution and were not relinquished by the constitution, so they still exist in the people (10A)

this does point out the danger of framing gun rights as 2A rights though.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by free

Well.....here is the thing.........2A doesn't really matter.

Nowhere in COTUS is it spelled out that the Federal Government has the power to disarm the people, prevent the people from arming themselves, prohibit self-defense, etc. Since these powers are not enumerated, AND since it is commonly understood that the people HAD these powers when the document was created, it is pretty clear that EVEN WITHOUT 2A:

• The Federal Govt has no enumerated power to disarm the people
• The people have the right to arm themselves

Therefore, the author of this study, and all of his little friends, buddies, cohorts, admirers, butt buddies and so forth, can all go fuck themselves.

How about that?

---

^^^ This is why we tolerate all of your contrarianism around here. Every so often you nail it. The 2nd Amendment only recognizes (and guarantees to citizens of the U.S.) what existed as a natural right throughout human history.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ROCK-IT3

^^^ This is why we tolerate all of your contrarianism around here. Every so often you nail it. The 2nd Amendment only recognizes (and guarantees to citizens of the U.S.) what existed as a natural right throughout human history.

---

Ut Prosim.

It does not matter if the amendment is outdated. It is still on the books and must be defended by all who take the oath. If they think its not needed anymore then repeal it. Until then it is part of the basic framework around which laws are found to be constitutional or not.

DGAF. Author should lead the stack. See how that works out.

I personally prefer to quote Article 1 Section 21 of the Constitution of Pennsylvania. No need to argue about the defination of Milita.

Heller + Miller = tough luck Beto.

Three words: Battle of Athens