according to what source?

according to what source?

any fair and reasonable man who understands the intent behind it.

more circular logic,,,


its 'reasonable' to me that weapons have some regulations,, its also reasonable to millions of others


that is not so 'unequivocal'

That's OK…We understand.



Some pretty strange things can seem reasonable to people who live in an asylum. Strangely enough, you could probably get majority votes on all kinds of insane things, so what is reasonable to you leaves open the question of how reasoning your mind is and whether or not you feel millions of others might share what might be irrational reasoning on your part is not necessarily an indication that they are either rational or irrational, but that point is meaningless anyway. You live in a republic, not a democracy.

If you favour mob rule, you are quite entitled to your opinion, but it doesn't change the reality that you live in a republic that is SUPPOSED to respect the Rule of Law.

If you re-read the second amendment, you will see that it is the militia that should be well-regulated, NOT their weaponry.

That is the simple truth, and it is quite "unequivocal" to spite your irrational belief that it is not.

and how do you 'regulate' a militia exactly

this should be interesting


would regulating said militia EXCLUDE the ability to regulate what weaponry they should use?

The militia is the people themselves, and they stand OVER their "government" because it is the people that properly ARE the government. Therefore, the militia REGULATES ITSELF. Consequently, it is that militia (the people) that determines what weaponry it needs to be competent at doing its duty to protect the nation from ALL enemies, foreign AND domestic..

wow

so the people are regulating their own weapons to decide which weapons they need to combat against the people?


,,ok,, thats logical,,,

this phrase

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


is implying that there is an AUTHORITY which may try to infringe upon rights

if the right is granted to the PEOPLE, how much sense does it make that the authority in question is also the people?


how can one infringe upon oneself?


makes no sense

10th 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.



clearly, the UNITED STATES, its STATES, and its PEOPLE

are considered THREE SEPERATE issues throughout the constitution...

This is getting tiresome. Do I really have to explain how a government is supposed to work to you? Do I have to explain where governments get their authority from? Do I really have to explain till I'm blue in the face that the HIGHEST authority is the PEOPLE themselves?…that they DELEGATE that authority to county, state and federal governments?…that a government has NO LAWFUL AUTHORITY without the CONSENT of the PEOPLE to delegate it to them?…that "people" is a collection of INDIVIDUALS, who can INDIVIDUALLY withdraw their consent to be governed and therefore withdraw the authority they delegated to become individual SOVEREIGNS of the alleged "government" and CREDITORS of that corporation? (yes that's right…your precious "government" is just a business not unlike Wal-Mart…It has been operating in receivership since 1933 and the American people have been keeping the corrupt business afloat by giving it the money it needs to keep operating…which they then squander on making fortunes for themselves & their corporate cronies & launching criminal and senseless wars of aggression)

What more do you need explained to you?

I just signed. She is a bozo deluxe. I remember back when she blew the Nightstalker investigation in the 80's!

Motown:


I agree, the bill that Senator Feinstein intends is to stop the sale, transfer, importation and manufacturing of military-style assault weapons and high-capacity ammunition feeding devices.

How could that possibly be conceived as treason?


JustDukky:


Yep.
And by the way, what makes anyone think that privately owned hand guns and rifles of American citizens would be a match for the largest, most technically advanced military complex in the world?


Metalwing:


It wouldn’t take much for any insurrection in the private sector to be declared terrorist acts – how foolish does one have to be to think that such an ‘insurrection’ would stand a chance against the (American) military turned against them. ????

Metalwing:

What history are you relating to: Pre-Federalist paper or Federalist documents themselves? What purpose did the ‘State’s privately armed Militias’ serve in the Whiskey Rebellion?

Why was it important for the ‘Men’ to have their own arms and to be trained in a state militia?

JustDukky:

You are wrong, a variety of handguns and rifles, which include antiques and those that are non-functional, (even at 300 million) with a limited private supply of bullets, would NEVER be called into a single minded force. If that were the case, then this constitution “that any nation would give its eyeteeth for” would not be in any danger as we have many pathways to change or prevent legislation in a peaceful manner.

Any attempt to become violent would be crushed by our professionally trained military.

Rebellioussoul:

What law are you referring to?

And the second amendment is vague because the terms and conditions under which it was enacted are different today. That means we must relate to that amendment differently but in order to do that we have to apply the current terms and conditions that have changed since the inception of the amendment.

Metalwing:

Well – Motowndowntow and I have a similar question: And how many types of guns were there in the late 1780’s

Metalwing:

The response made no sense at all so please read the quote we were questioning:

Clarification please by answering: And how many types of guns were there in the late 1780’s and how many rounds could be fired in say, 5 minuets? AND since each individual was required to have their own firearm for the State militia – do you suppose people could afford to have TWO ‘muskets’, one for shooting food and one to set aside “just in case” they were called to serve the State’s interest?


Per Toodygirl5

The first sentence of this petition is blatant misinformation and the total disregard for facts continues in the next paragraph.



I think I have the answer to all these delusional concepts -- it must be what happens when consuming too many GMO products!!!

Metalwing

Not so amazing really, just a misconception that can be corrected without affront to a person’s intelligence. What is really amazing is how many people buy totally distorted views of history only to become easily led by propaganda.

Msharmony

Absolutely, we uphold the Constitution by creating legislation (law). In order to do that well, one must consider more than just the single line item of one amendment.

Motown

It was the intent of the original Federal government to remain small by giving regulatory control to the State’s care. The ‘small’ federal government did not have, could it afford , and did not want to have control of a single military – hense State Militia’s, trained and governed by the State.

The State could not afford to arm and maintain a paid militia, so every ‘man’ (who could afford a musket) was required to have their own. With all that information the 2nd amendment make more sense, doesn’t it.

However, as time went on it became clear that a controlling agent was necessary in order to mount combined militia efforts, especially when a certain faction of the population decided they didn’t like the popular vote and took arms against the federal government. And so the federal government realized that it had to get involved.

That makes sense as well – we can’t have citizens bearing arms against our governments (state or federal) just because a certain faction is against … abortion… gay marriage…fracking… .

We currently have many pathways to change what we don’t like and they require a huge presence of the population in order to sway opinion and change laws.

Privately owned guns, at this point, can and should be regulated. That is not to say that they cannot be had, but in order to have ‘allowable’ weapons should require proof of responsibility (well regulated).

Because the PEOPLE are supposed to be in charge, NOT their crooked and tyrannical government. The INTENT of the second Amendment was to give the people the power to stand and make a competent defence against ANY enemy foreign OR DOMESTIC. Consequently, the people have a DUTY to be a well-regulated militia and therefore the RIGHT to possess weapon equivalent to any a soldier in any modern army might use against them. Trying to limit their acquisition of such weaponry is a denial of their RIGHT to do their DUTY. THAT is TREASON against the American people. That it is committed by their own government stands as proof that they should be arming themselves to the teeth; it is their only defence against a tyranny that gets worse by the day.



Exactly!…Standing armies are a potential enemy of liberty, which must have as a deterrent to domestic aggression one helluva lot more than mere handguns and rifles. The people have a duty and a right to arm themselves with equivalent weapons, if only to act as a deterrent.



When the alternative might be rolling over and waiting for an eventual bullet to the head when your "usefulness" to the state has ended, I'd say that even going down fighting with no hope of winning is preferable. Certainly the Jews of Europe found out the hard way that "not making a fuss" did NOT work in their interests.



That in the face of armed rebellion, the rational course for a government to take is to address the rebels' grievances with understanding, negotiation and compromise. I believe Jefferson wrote something about this in his letters.



Never say never, and even an old blunderbuss is better than nothing at all; though I would agree in one sense, the american people have failed themselves BIGTIME, in allowing their government to get totally out of hand and in not maintaining a strong civil militia over the last couple of hundred years.

It is very hard to get an army to actually turn around and shoot their family, froends & relatives. Only the most heartlessly programmed and conditioned of forces, similar to Hitler's SS can be made to do it. In most cases this is handled by ensuring that those who wouldn't follow such unconscionable orders are ousted from the forces, or perhaps deployed far away, where they can't do anything about the situation at home. Your tyrannical leaders know enough about history that they have accounted for this "contingency", so the very real hazard of your own army shooting American citizens exists. Do you want them to be utterly defenceless?



Yes; they are different because the American citizenry didn't maintain a well-regulated militia. They foolishly offloaded their duty onto a government that can no longer be trusted to protect their rights and liberties (as clearly demonstrated over the last 150 years or so) I would favour that rather than amending the amendment, the American people should do their duty and rebuild a strong civil militia. Switzerland can serve as an example to follow in that regard.



…about as many kinds as their enemy had. The only thing that's changed over the decades is that the civil militia "dried up" and gradually disarmed itself to the point now that what could have been a legitimate deterrent to tyranny is now something of a joke. If you'd like to make the joke funnier, then let the legislators continue to erode whatever remains of that deterrent…Then watch what happens when you realize the joke was on the American people all along.



Oh?…What WAS the constitution written for then?



I was kinda shocked by that myself. I'm used to seeing people "asleep", but it appears that much of the US population is virtually comatose. Can't they see they are following a charismatic dictator a la Hitler??

This is but one of the many problems that plagues this country.....you cannot I repeat CANNOT have freedom if someone else can take that freedom away from you simply because you are on the losing end of a vote. Yet this is exactly what we have in this country now. And when a government gets so big.....that they can control the rights of anyone who may oppose them in this way.......well it's time for them to be taken down.

That is the reason, the REAL reason for the attack on our guns, because they know that so long as we have them, they can still be fought against and without them their desire to take over can be fulfilled without hardly a challenge. It is the last line of defense against their power. We must not give that power away or we will sorely regret it.

"Reread that pesky first clause of the Second Amendment. It doesn't say what any of us thought it said. What it says is that infringing the right of the people to keep and bear arms is treason. What else do you call an act that endangers "the security of a free state"? And if it's treason, then it's punishable by death.
I suggest due process, speedy trials, and public hangings."
-L. Neil Smith

____________________

December 29, 2012
Sam Colt and the Law of Self-Preservation
By Glenn Fairman

"God made man but Sam Colt made them equal."

It is said that the 2nd Amendment follows hard upon the 1st so as to serve as its bodyguard -- providing the added incentive of coercive force by a wary citizenry to guarantee that those initial cherished liberties, expounded by our Founders, did not go the way of the 10th Amendment. The 2nd Amendment, interpreted as the right to bear arms by a free people, has not escaped that yawning chasm that has opened up between the political Right and Left, and the rationale behind this stratification falls along the same familiar tensions of individual vs. collective. The nature of men, having proved insufficient in wisdom for the eradication of evil, must then paradoxically utilize the equalization of deadly force to not only suppress the jaundiced glint in our neighbor's eye but the tyranny that arises when men esteem the chimera of ordered equality over liberty.

Of all laws that are deemed to have their origin in nature, the Law of Self-Preservation is indeed the most fundamental. Each person, ceteris paribus, has been deemed to have an a priori right to guard the sanctity and value of their life through any means necessary, assuming their attitude is one of general peace with men and not of the character of brigands. The friction arises with the inherent inequality of humanity, evidenced in their disparate size, strength, and stature. Now, while defensively brandishing a knife or cudgel poses a strong inducement in mounting one's stout defense of life or property, the use of a firearm has irrevocably changed the dynamic relationship between both predator and victim. Since criminals, from the dullest to the most sophisticated, are deeply concerned with maintaining both their own freedom and their "skin," more than a passing thoughtful consideration is generally weighed within a criminal's nefarious equation when deciding whom he shall next fall upon.

Assuming that the above statement is true, it would seem logical that municipalities or states whose concealed and open carry gun laws were the most relaxed would be the same areas which would have the lowest rates per capita of crimes either committed with force, or through the threat of deadly force. Therefore, should we be surprised that national statistics bear this position out? Conversely, regions that have severely forbidden either the sale of handguns or the lawful concealment thereof should reflect elevated levels of crimes against both property and life. And generally, we find that this premise, especially true in the major urban centers, to be consistently affirmed.

Accordingly, the current murder and violent crime rates in the Washington DC, Chicago, Detroit, Los Angeles, New York, Boston, and Philadelphia areas are astronomical, despite having hardened laws against concealed carry. These misdirected laws have indeed the net effect of proscribing their citizenry from effectively protecting themselves from criminals--miscreants who care not a whit for the asphyxiating legal technicalities that burden and condemn honest citizens. And as governments have increasingly sought to regulate the sale, transportation, and use of handguns and "assault rifles," they have increasingly begotten a nation of sheep by laying bare their population's throats to packs of increasingly dangerous and feral werewolves. Can it be any longer doubted that the same misplaced compassion that would outlaw firearms has willed these darkened hearts through government's calculated legislation of filial destruction and subsequent moral anarchy?

In the concrete jungles of our urban cities or in our seemingly tranquil suburbias with their flaccid social disintegration, many Progressive-minded levels of government have made the considered decision that in lieu of a debauched and malicious portion of its citizenry, it is far better to effectively disarm their constituent fiefdoms in order to show them that superficially they have their best interests at heart. All the while, and with their fingers testing the winds, those same politicos are deftly side-stepping the fact that those cretins with pernicious intent will handily acquire guns elsewhere, or commit their menacing acts with a baseball bat or a lawnmower blade if necessary.

We now see in Great Britain, a country that has elevated to the status of fetish the disarmament of its society, a towering crescendo in property and violent crimes, as men and women even possessing rifles and shotguns are fearful of using them for fear of being charged for killing or maiming thugs in self-defense. Within the milieu of such a nation of rabbits, the fabric of trust and safety erodes and sends a subliminal message to society that emboldens the brazen and terrifies the weak and defenseless.

America's 2nd Amendment, once thought to be the most secure of our organic rights, has come under assault by forces that believe that the monopoly on significant coercive force should be limited to the agents of the State; and as Dennis Prager has wisely said: "As the State grows larger, the individual in fact grows smaller." Our government exists to guarantee our lives, liberties, and our properties. Not only has it proven itself insufficient to this foundational task, but it has actively conspired to disrespect our personal sovereignty and safety, having wandered far afield of its fundamental mandate. Meanwhile, tireless energy is spent attempting to instead equalize and homogenize us---mandates that had never once entered into the minds of the Founders.

Perhaps the best indicator of where the 2nd Amendment is the booming sale of handguns; this barometer is rooted in the anxiety and trepidation that Americans feel for both the safety of their families in perilous economic time, while it is a hedge against the predations of a regime that has forgotten its minimalist confines and spilled over into the imperial, the unilateral, and the arbitrary. Gun manufacturers have mockingly named Barack Obama as their Man of the Year for his contribution to a veritable tsunami of firearm sales. This, in itself, might evoke a good belly laugh if the stark implications of it weren't so damn depressing.
http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/12/sam_colt_and_the_law_of_self-preservation.html

Good article.

Cpl. Joshua Boston, United States Marine Corps sends letter to Feinstein.

http://ireport.cnn.com/docs/DOC-902515

how long do you think that will stay up in today's Witch-hunt on Firearms?
And moreover that he is right on point!

The witches of Salem never would have burned if they'd been "packin' heat."

The big problem with modern witch hunts is that the "witches" just might have smartened up over the years and the hunters could easily find themselves outnumbered....I hope so anyway.

Could you imagine the impact of an "armed" million man march on DC?

Simple banner would do.....

We'll give up our guns when politicians give up their jobs and benefits

or

We'll follow your orders when you follow your oaths!