I'm sorry but you don't know what you're talking about. The constitution was indeed meant to limit the powers of the federal government and nothing I wrote said otherwise. Those rights were clearly understood not to be absolute by the people who wrote the constitution however as clearly shown by their actions while governing under the constitution.
I have read most of the federalist papers at one time or another and if you think the constitution wasn't designed with the idea that the government could limit people's rights to speech, arms, etc if necessary then you have been badly misinformed.
There is only one person in this thread pushing revisionist history and that's you.
The constitution was written by 55 men, all of which who didn't have the exact same opinions. Why would you look to the opinions of a few when we can look at the constitution itself, that has agreed upon language in already? For example, the word militia, no where in the constitution does it imply the meaning to be independent individuals. The constitution also clearly lays out who and what and how this nation is to be protected, including that there should be no standing army.
So maybe you should read the actual document where consensus was required instead of pointing to other sources that didn't require consensus.
There is only one person in this thread pushing revisionist history and that's you.
The constitution was written by 55 men, all of which who didn't have the exact same opinions. Why would you look to the opinions of a few when we can look at the constitution itself, that has agreed upon language in already? For example, the word militia, no where in the constitution does it imply the meaning to be independent individuals. The constitution also clearly lays out who and what and how this nation is to be protected, including that there should be no standing army.
So maybe you should read the actual document where consensus was required instead of pointing to other sources that didn't require consensus.
10 U.S. Code § 311 - Militia: composition and classes
(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.
(Aug. 10, 1956, ch. 1041, 70A Stat. 14; Pub. L. 85–861, § 1(7), Sept. 2, 1958, 72 Stat. 1439; Pub. L. 103–160, div. A, title V, § 524(a), Nov. 30, 1993, 107 Stat. 1656.)
For example, the word militia, no where in the constitution does it imply the meaning to be independent individuals.
We can end gun violence by outlawing competition, devoting our national treasury to the moral education of all of our children, eliminating advertising and the titilation of lust, ending war creating meaningful work for all, etc. Alternatively, we can continue to pretend that we care because we certainly don't.
You obviously didn't read your own bolded words. You said the Constitution was written to allow the fed to restrict rights, I say it was written to limit the power of the fed. Then you changed your story. Whatever, this country was founded on the principle of max freedom for the people, with the minimal amount of restrictions on those freedoms as possible.
? Now I'm confused...
If the confusion is over the bolded it means killing somebody for their Nikes.
Yes, it was written to restrict the rights of the federal government. My story is the same as it always was.
far too many people have rigid views based on personal doctrine and are interested only in converting others to the "correct" view.
The Constitution was written to allow for the government to restrict rights when it had a strong interest in doing so. I have no problem with this.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/311
True, if you're willing to ignore the past 100 years of 2A legislation and Supreme Court cases.
Try again. For supreme court references you can look up collective right versus individual rights regarding the second amendment..
For context of the word "militia" do a search of the constitution and tell me the context of the word "militia" and tell me with a straight face that it means anything but an organized force controlled by the state or the president under certain circumstances.
Here we go with this crap again. Sure, the founders completely meant to give the government the right to disallow individual ownership of firearms by mentioning the word "militia" in the Constitution. At a time in our history where basically every household owned a gun for everything from hunting to protection from Native Americans and even bears that were sometimes seen in major cities. And those citizens with guns were the very force that helped win our independence.
If you want to stick with that nonsense then you should go full retard and say other rights can only be exercised collectively also; for example only the press has freedom of speech because it's a collective right not an individual right otherwise the founders would have said that "the people" have the right to seek redress of grievances and not individuals. Therefore you as a private citizen can't talk to your legislator.
Or you can just stop being a freaking moron and just be honest and say you don't give a fuck what the Constitution says, you just want to restrict firearms and just see the Constitution as something to work around in pursuit of that goal.
When you can't argue against what someone actually says, just make up you own argument, right? Here is a clue: I never said the constitution disallows individuals the right to bear arms. What I said was that the right to bear arms is in regards to the state's rights and ability to defend itself and for the president to be able to call upon the state's when needed.
But maybe it's you who doesn't give a fuck what the constitution says since its you who only wants to read a tiny bit of it and without context.
So then is the right to free speech in regards to the state's rights also? And the right used to defend the state?
So again to restate, your position is the 2nd Amendment was written to ensure the collective "people" can exercise freedom to bear arms but only in service of the state and only as a member of the militia?
This is overall good news though. As gun owners continue to decline their outsized influence will eventually diminish. Then we can implement common sense gun restrictions that have been blocked for years.
It's only a matter of time until we win on this matter, it's just a shame that so many people will die needlessly before it happens.
Because all those new control rules will stop violence that results from the illegal drug trade.
http://crimeresearch.org/2015/07/ne...rgest-increase-ever-in-the-number-of-permits/
All these people with permits need guns.... Whatever liberal source provided the number of firearms decreasing statement seems to be wishful thinking.
Lol, is the right to free speech in reference to the state and their ability to secure itself? No.
The 2nd amendment was written to guarantee that the states were allowed to have their own armies and that the federal government couldn't make any law that restricted their ability to protect themselves. The constitution also gave the president the ability to call on upon those state militias when needed.
So let me see if I have this straight; you think the amendment was written so the state could protect itself from some undefined threat yet still provide the federal government with the flexibility to restrict guns from the individual people of that same state to protect themselves from bears, attacks from native american tribes, privateers, and all the other multitude of threats that existed back then?
Interestingly, it's most often that the Federal Government had to go into gun loving states to protect the Constitutional rights of their residents. For whatever reason, the South was not desegregated, and slaves weren't freed by the local "Second Amendment defends all others" crowd.
http://money.cnn.com/2016/07/05/news/fbi-background-checks/index.html
40% increase in background checks, buried in the throwaway Friday press release, people forget the news over the weekend.
If sales are up, and ownership is down, that means those with guns would tend to have a lot of them. I tend to buy multiples when they run a background check, picked up 5 last week with one background check.