Author Topic: USA, srsly?? bra holsters??  (Read 11725 times)

Something about this sounds like a damage control.  You just spoke so avidly about owning guns as a right and as a device for repelling tyranny.  Now you're being awfully contrary.
Yeah its both, the 2nd amendment is a lot more than just appears to the eye

Yeah its both, the 2nd amendment is a lot more than just appears to the eye
Do you understand the matter of taking things word by word, and then a Supreme Court nodding its head and then interpreting it? Please understand the way in which our Constitution is the supreme, literal law of the land.

It can't be both. Either the Supreme Court wakes the forget up and says what the Constitution says it is, or the militia part is x'd out through an amendment.

When you say "the 2nd amendment is a lot more than just appears to the eye" I am seriously disgruntled by the future of our society. That's called opinion and open interpretation, not what the Constitution actually says. No proper and necessary clause is tacked onto the end of the Bills of Rights, my friend.
« Last Edit: February 23, 2016, 01:56:34 PM by Swat 3 »

If the US does ban guns, they're going to have to compensate individuals for the confiscation. Money is going to have to flow (And it will be very VERRRY expensive)

Good thing that scenario is unlikely

um
to actually shoot a gun you need to rooster it so the bullet is in the chamber, i don't get why because people in movies rooster guns it's not actually something you do
Have your ever actually fired a gun?
The fact that you think roostering a gun means chambering a round tells me no. roostering means pulling the hammer back. Quite a different thing.

If you have a single action gun, then you need to manually pull the hammer back before every shot, not just the first. A dual action gun brings the hammer back for you when you pull the trigger. You can manually rooster the hammer, but you don't need to.
I'd assume some chick just carrying a gun in her bra would have the latter, as it would be less work for her

roostering means pulling the hammer back.
plot twist its striker-fired :cookieMonster:

If the US does ban guns, they're going to have to compensate individuals for the confiscation. Money is going to have to flow (And it will be very VERRRY expensive)

Good thing that scenario is unlikely
I'm not sure if the US government has that obligation.  The Constitution established the elastic clause to say that whatever needs to happen can, and in some cases, will happen.



Yeah its both, the 2nd amendment is a lot more than just appears to the eye
Swat 3 has articulate the matter with decent accuracy, moderate length, and appropriate concern.  Additionally, it's the Supreme Court's job to interpret the laws.  This supersedes the states, and certainly supersedes individual opinions such as yours as granted in the supremacy clause.  Breaking up the second amendment, it says that first of all, the purpose of gun ownership is contingent upon the security of free states (referring to the states that comprise the US) that is to rely on the use of militias.  The tradition of militias lasted through the mid 19th century, but then became obsolete as the United States Army became centralized in the later part of the century.  By the 20th century, militias are obsolete.  Programs such as the National Guard take over this niche, but they serve the federal government, not the state governments.  Due to conditions in the second amendment, the amendment, when the militia becomes obsolete, this amendment becomes null, also becomes obsolete.  From a personal standpoint, the second amendment needs to be revisited and revised to fit meaningful objectives with the needs of today in mind.  The latter half says that the right to bear arms shall not be infringed, which is a strong statement.  It can be interpreted three ways—A) Individuals are given the conditional right to bear arms given that they are registered or enlisted with the state militia, B) that the amendment was designed to guarantee the right to bear arms until the amendment had ran its course and became obsolete, pending a revision, or C) That the United States Army is illegitimate and that militias were the true intended protectors of the nation and the states (This has proven obsolete and dangerous during the civil war, which prompted the need for union and the depreciation of militias).  Pairing the latter with the elastic clause in Article I, it implies that the federal government is at liberty to determine what the fate of an individual's right to firearms is once the second amendment "expires".  However, the government has been lenient as of late to define the role of the second amendment and in its enforcement.

You're right that it is more than meets the eye, but in order to make that statement, you must strictly work within the parameters of the constitution, not adding any language or interpretations from outside of it, and also take supreme court decisions on the matter of concern as law, because the supreme court is granted the power to define this as law.
« Last Edit: February 23, 2016, 04:13:39 PM by SWAT One »

ok like I swear shamester is either 12, handicapped, or both
like everything he posts is a special brand of stupid


ok like I swear shamester is either 12, handicapped, or both
like everything he posts is a special brand of stupid



Also my 18th bday is next week so, also i am honestly too lazy to type on this iPad as much as swat did.  I also have an american government class where we always are talking about the 2nd amendment and i am lazy to type out what the teacher is telling us.  So calling me handicapped isn't using the right context here, you should call me lazy.  Also, if you wanna drama me about my posts go right ahead bud, please don't start that here, this topic isn't about how much people hate me (and believe me there are a lot of them) its about guns in the USA.

SWAT-ONE's response is probably more intelligent than anything ill ever type and you'll so gg to him.  I understand that militias are out of style now-a-days and that i am talking from the past.  A militia today is a joke, i was just explaining the origin of the amendment, not how it is today.  So yeah, i'll just be on Swat-one's side.

Case in point:The amendment states not "to repel tyranny", not "to keep future national forces under control", not "for the sole purpose of private ownership", but for the penultimate purpose of maintenance of militias for the ultimate purpose of security within states within the federal system.  At this time, the "US Military" was non-existent or not powerful enough to have as much power as the militia.  In this time, a militia was superior since states could better draw support from their local towns.  Now things have changed, and militias are obsolete or a weak justification of insurrection at this stage our nation is at, no matter how pure the ideals may seem.  You can very well drop the "it's to ward off tyranny" argument because you clearly don't know what your dear second amendment says.  Why would the federal government undermine its own power by allowing militias to cause dissension?

Here's a good read on the history of this debate.
A good read indeed, the sentence diagram of the 2nd Amendment is useful as well.

>Why would the federal government undermine its own power by allowing militias to cause dissension?

To quote Mao Zedong, although I'm sure he's not the first to express this sentiment, political power grows out of the barrel of a gun. In other words, all power is derived from the use of, or implied use of force. To grant one specific group (in this case, the government) a monopoly on power has many dangerous precedents. I will avoid jumping to alarmist conclusions, but wouldn't a government acting in the interest in its citizens not be concerned with the personal ownership of firearms?