|
|
Post by 101ABN on Oct 9, 2005 21:48:07 GMT -8
"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. "
|
|
|
|
Post by im4valhalla on Jan 7, 2006 18:42:49 GMT -8
If only the left understood that.
|
|
|
|
Post by tits on Jan 7, 2006 21:36:59 GMT -8
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Today's paper had an article about a California college prohibiting a Christian based organization from campus. The article stated that the organization had in its charter some Christian moral guidelines and "Members must be Christian." The school's charter prohibits religious groups from speaking about their faith and denies biased "hate speech" organizations. The statement "Christian" was considered biased and the statement on sexual morals excluded homosexuals and was therefore consider "hate speech." A similar case is to go to the SCOTUS this year.
Based on the 1998 4th District Appellate Court, the Peck v. Upshur County Board of Education, school districts have the right to prohibit the "Distribution" of religious materials; however, religious materials may be "made available."
It should be noted that a school district would be free to adopt a policy which prohibits any outside individual or group from distributing materials, or making them available, to students on school grounds. If a district does adopt such a policy, the district in effect is deciding not to create an open forum. However, if an open forum is created, then any group who wishes to distribute materials, or make them available, must be allowed to do so, as long as the guidelines are followed. For example, if an unconventional religious group wanted to make information about the group available to students, the group would have to be given the same privilege provided to a group wishing to make Bibles available.
TALK ABOUT BEING PISSED, SOMETHING HAS GOT TO GIVE. Even the Brits are now saying that religious intolerance in America has gotten dangerous.
|
|
|
|
Post by sgt0311usmc on Apr 8, 2006 15:25:19 GMT -8
VERY clear pro-private-gun-ownership explanations in "The Federalist Papers" (specifically for self-defense) aside; I see 2 points:
(Follow me here ...) Imagine yourselves standing around (powdered wigs 'n' all), writing the constitution. You just kicked the British out, but, not only are they strong enough to maybe return, the french & spanish are making their moves as well. So, first you write a Constitution, defining the government & delineating their powers; and how that government will be emplaced.
Then, you think about it, and realize that just like with the Magna Carta, you need to SPELL OUT the rights of the individuals, to ensure that that government can't stomp all over the electorate. You're making SURE that the government that you just outlined, and it's subjects, will understand the relationship between the individual, and the ... "leaders". So, you start to list the amendments.
So, what do you want to guarantee to to the individual? OK, How about:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Hmmm. Looks like a mess there. (MAYBE they figured that just one could cover all the main points).
Let's summarize it: no "state religion" + people can get together (peaceably) and verbally, or in writing, shoot their mouths off about pretty much any idiot idea that pops into their heads, and even yell at the government.
So ... they can lip-off & make asses out of themselves ... Hmmm - That's gonna piss people off - Government officials are gonna get pissed, and want to send the law, or military to shut them up .... THINK maybe we wanna provide them the means of protecting their rights.
We better write us a second 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. "
Why the mention of the militia? Well, they're NOT going to openly advocate violent overthrow of the government that they're in the process of setting-up (amongst other things, there's STILL a large Tory population around); and, it probably never even occurred to them to bother mentioning hunting or Indians - the point would be redundant. So, they just mentioned the militia (which was separate form the concept of a national army - Militia being "All males of age and firmness as to be capable of bearing arms in defense..."; "Army" being - a formal enlistment/drafted full-time occupation), because it included all late-teens>>Men, and didn't reference any particular (foreign, or domestic) foe.
Step one: basic personal liberties of speech, religion & complaining about the gov't (amongst other things);
Step two: HOW the individual enforces & protects that right;
Step 3; whatever else comes to mind ...
The second issue is this: You'll notice that ALL of the other amendments (not just the other first 9) have ALL been repeatedly legislated, tested & interpreted to EXPAND the powers of the individual amendments - all, except the 2nd. The 2nd has over 20,000 additional state, local & federal laws that LIMIT the 2nd in some way.
In fact, when clinton issued his executive order banning 2nd amendment rights to those who are accused of domestic abuse - he was clearly in violation of the constitution. The 2nd is not some legislated state or federal right - it's a CONSTITUTIONAL right. And, modifying the constitution, especially in denying a right to individuals - ESPECIALLY one who has NOT been convicted of a crime. (And, NO, I don't want wife-beaters having guns; But - this hasn't prevented one killing - this is just one more ORDER that is designed to deny rights to the us in general - what will the next one be?)
Maybe it's time to "incrementalism" back at the left - increase the rights; find old, bad laws and support new laws that reverse the old; watch the news & support someone bringing suit against the government for denial of their rights (ie - under the clinton order - OBVIOUSLY, the wrong candidate will just make the case for the opposition).
Just my 2 cents.
|
|
|
|
Post by AmericanEngineer on Jun 21, 2006 21:15:31 GMT -8
I think People get confused by the 18th century words in this amendment. Regulated means well trained and Militia was the average person or farmer, not a military force.
mi·li·tia
n.
1. An army composed of ordinary citizens rather than professional soldiers.
2. A military force that is not part of a regular army and is subject to call for service in an emergency.
3. The whole body of physically fit civilians eligible by law for military service.
reg·u·late
tr.v
To put or maintain in order: regulate one's eating habits.
When read that way, it makes it very clear:
"A well Trained (maintained) civilian force, being necessary to the security of a free state, ...."
This isn't the first debate over older style speech. Privacy in the 18th century meant you were going to the Privy. (outhouse)
The proper term for the modern definition of privacy was security.
|
|
|
|
Post by MrDoublel on Jun 22, 2006 5:27:05 GMT -8
Great, bring in a engineer and he gets all engineericalified with words and stuff...  |
|
|
|
Post by AmericanEngineer on Jun 22, 2006 14:08:18 GMT -8
Great, bring in a engineer and he gets all engineericalified with words and stuff... Perhaps so, but I was showing that the citizen was meant to own firearms and to practice with them in case of invasion. |
|
|
|
Post by FightingFalcon on Jul 8, 2006 21:56:01 GMT -8
Actually, no.
The 2nd Amendment was put in there to protect against tyranny in government. Even someone with a basic understanding of our revolution would understand this.
Freedom is never guaranteed. Each and every generation must defend it from all enemies - external and internal. Or, as Patrick Henry said:
"Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined...The great object is that every man be armed. Everyone who is able might have a gun." Patrick Henry.
|
|
|
|
Post by AmericanEngineer on Jul 8, 2006 23:20:57 GMT -8
Virginia Declaration of Rights, 1776 XIII That a well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defense of a free state; that standing armies, in time of peace, should be avoided as dangerous to liberty; and that, in all cases, the military should be under strict subordination to, and be governed by, the civil power. Invasion was indeed a concern. Was it not militias that were fighting the British in many places  |
|
|
|
Post by peterd on Sept 22, 2007 9:22:28 GMT -8
This is all fine. However, if government stops protecting their citizens, then militia will step in. It may cause anarchy, but we are heading that direction. Classic case is to have or not to have open borders. This is the issue on minds of many US citizens.
|
|
