|
Replies: 43
| visibility 2371
|
CU Guru [1061]
TigerPulse: 88%
Posts: 1293
Joined: 7/9/21
|
Second Amendment
1
Jul 14, 2024, 4:25 AM
|
|
The Second Amendment of the United States Constitution states ….
“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.”
|
|
|
|
 |
All-In [47825]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 31271
Joined: 8/11/15
|
Your point?***
Jul 14, 2024, 7:51 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Associate AD [845]
TigerPulse: 97%
Posts: 646
Joined: 10/9/19
|
Re: Second Amendment
1
Jul 14, 2024, 8:28 AM
|
|
So you're saying the shooter was a member of some nefarious "well regulated militia"? Asking for a friend.
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Guru [1061]
TigerPulse: 88%
Posts: 1293
Joined: 7/9/21
|
Re: Second Amendment
Jul 14, 2024, 8:58 AM
|
|
Apologize to your friend for making stuff up.
Tell your friend, she should get better sources of information instead of people that just randomly attempt to interpret the second amendment.
Tell your friend to read the second amendment.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-TigerNet [13089]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 8855
Joined: 10/18/16
|
Re: Second Amendment
1
Jul 14, 2024, 10:19 PM
|
|
The Supreme Court (not this one) made that call years ago by saying the right to bear arms does not only pertain to a militia but to individuals as well. They jailed a Mother and Father in Michigan because their son took a gun from his Dad and used it at a school shooting. Let's see what happens in Pennsylvania. If you own, you have to be responsible and the shooter yesterday didn't own that rifle.
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Guru [1061]
TigerPulse: 88%
Posts: 1293
Joined: 7/9/21
|
Re: Second Amendment
Jul 14, 2024, 9:04 AM
|
|
Whether the shooter was part of a militia, or if he was part of “the people”, either way the shooter was not “well regulated” by the secret service, ATF, SCOTUS, the federal government, the state government or anybody that had the jurisdiction to implement the words “well regulated”.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [2526]
TigerPulse: 93%
Posts: 2600
Joined: 1/7/00
|
We're the only country in the dveloped world where this type of thing is normal.***
Jul 14, 2024, 10:17 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Asst Coach [737]
TigerPulse: 88%
Posts: 826
Joined: 10/29/10
|
Re: Second Amendment
Jul 15, 2024, 5:28 AM
[ in reply to Re: Second Amendment ] |
|
Well regulated meant well prepared. Learn about the 2nd amendment, and quit lecturing. They fortunately wrote plenty on the subject, and we don't need to sit around while historically ignorant and debate what they meant.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Athletic Dir [882]
TigerPulse: 66%
Posts: 1287
Joined: 10/19/21
|
Re: Second Amendment
Jul 19, 2024, 9:57 AM
|
|
Well prepared, well trained. They actually didn’t write a lot on the topic, but it’s discussed in one of the Publius letters to the NY newspaper, the items we call Federalist Papers. We also have draft versions of the amendment, that all states include more words. It clearly meant a militia - in the sense that all able-bodied white men were in the militia.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-TigerNet [13448]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 9945
Joined: 1/23/06
|
How else can we save our democ errr republic?
Jul 14, 2024, 10:42 AM
|
|
Well regulated by whom?
I know in your utopian ideals it’s the govt itself, but does that sound like something the founding fathers would write? Keep and bear arms for protection against the govt… but also the govt should regulate you?!?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [2526]
TigerPulse: 93%
Posts: 2600
Joined: 1/7/00
|
Ummm, well, our founding fathers did write that...
1
Jul 14, 2024, 1:53 PM
|
|
"Well regulated" requires regulation by a government somewhere.
We have the most gun deaths of any developed nation. And we pretend that guns aren't a part of the problem.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-TigerNet [13448]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 9945
Joined: 1/23/06
|
And thats where you got it wrong
5
5
Jul 14, 2024, 3:36 PM
|
|
Just the thought that you need “a government somewhere” to keep you in check is dangerous.
A tyrannical govt has proven to be the most dangerous threat in all of human history. And guess what almost everyone of them did… disarm their citizens.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [2526]
TigerPulse: 93%
Posts: 2600
Joined: 1/7/00
|
Re: And thats where you got it wrong
Jul 19, 2024, 4:02 PM
|
|
But "well regulated" by definition means that government needs to regulate guns.
It's not debatable really. And SCOTUS has said that regulation is not prohibited by the 2A.
I don't think our government is going to disarm the citizenry. But they need to start treating this like a public safety issue. Right now, gun laws & regulation is way too lax, too many loopholes.
And we pay for it as a nation with so many gun deaths.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lot o points [162126]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 67949
Joined: 5/6/13
|
You think regulations only come from government???
Jul 26, 2024, 8:22 PM
|
|
And do you know what the phrase “well regulated”’meant in that era?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Associate AD [845]
TigerPulse: 97%
Posts: 646
Joined: 10/9/19
|
Re: Ummm, well, our founding fathers did write that...
1
Jul 14, 2024, 10:26 PM
[ in reply to Ummm, well, our founding fathers did write that... ] |
|
Fortunately the primary "Arms" in existence at the time the 2nd was written were single shot muzzle loaders. Personally, I have no issues with private citizens owning as many of those as they choose. It's the GD easy access to today's mass killing weapons that has bastardized the 2nd.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Asst Coach [737]
TigerPulse: 88%
Posts: 826
Joined: 10/29/10
|
Re: Ummm, well, our founding fathers did write that...
3
Jul 15, 2024, 5:33 AM
|
|
Again, you're clueless. Just as Biden is. It would really help if you learned some history. Private citizens owned warships, cannons, and puckle guns.
This idea that the 2nd amendment was only for a type of firearm is inaccurate. The more you speak the more you show your ignorance.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Asst Coach [737]
TigerPulse: 88%
Posts: 826
Joined: 10/29/10
|
Re: Ummm, well, our founding fathers did write that...
Jul 15, 2024, 5:30 AM
[ in reply to Ummm, well, our founding fathers did write that... ] |
|
You're ignorant. Well regulated then meant well prepared. Learn and read more about the 2nd amendment instead of trying to argue against it. This isn't an opinion. You may not like it, and that's fine. It's America. But there's no wiggle room on what it meant and why it was written. They wrote tons on it. You clearly haven't read any of it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [2526]
TigerPulse: 93%
Posts: 2600
Joined: 1/7/00
|
I've read plenty about the 2nd Amendment....
1
Jul 15, 2024, 9:38 AM
|
|
I'm not arguing against the 2nd Amendment. And I believe individual citizens have a right to own a gun. I own guns myself.
But the 2nd amendment was clearly written with the idea that regulation is allowed, and even preferable. This country is absolutely awash with guns, and that's why we have a bunch of gun deaths. It's also one of the reasons that our life expectation is lower than comparable nations.
And we have all these mass shootings as well, and it's become normalized. Like sure....just let anyone have an AR-15, and act surprised when they go out and start blowing people away.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-TigerNet [13448]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 9945
Joined: 1/23/06
|
Re: I've read plenty about the 2nd Amendment....
Jul 15, 2024, 10:13 AM
|
|
So what is it about ARs that you think make them non-applicable to the 2A?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Asst Coach [737]
TigerPulse: 88%
Posts: 826
Joined: 10/29/10
|
Re: I've read plenty about the 2nd Amendment....
Jul 18, 2024, 11:35 PM
[ in reply to I've read plenty about the 2nd Amendment.... ] |
|
You clearly haven't read much. If you went past the actual amendment at all you'd quickly realize it's 100% on my side of view. The entire point of the 2nd amendment was that the potential tyrannical government does not have the authority to regulate the firearms it's citizens would potentially need to resist said potential tyrannical government. Literally, it's about rights and tyranny. You don't trust your slavemaster with your freedom.
It's not about common use either. That's another mistake I see people make. Regardless of what the masses want, my rights don't change.
ARs aren't special at all, except for the fact that they're popular. Thats it. Make any argument for banning them. Go ahead. I lobe these "I'm a gun owner and support the 2nd amendment, BUT" people.
Like you're gonna get some kind of credit and seem reasonable. You don't. You sound ignorant and stupid, because you don't know what you don't know and are ignorant on the 2nd.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Athletic Dir [882]
TigerPulse: 66%
Posts: 1287
Joined: 10/19/21
|
Re: I've read plenty about the 2nd Amendment....
Jul 19, 2024, 3:06 PM
|
|
Despite what you keep repeating, the founders famously did not write much on the topic. The tons you have read were likely written hundreds of years after the founders, but it's easy to jumble it all up. You have it about 80% correct, though. A major point of the amendment was to prevent the US Army from doing what the British Army had done - confiscating weapons from the militias when there was disagreement and threat of insurrection. It was part of the argument against a standing army and that the sum of the state and local militias should be much larger than the regular army. One early draft did explicitly say "for self defense and the defense of a free state" or something along those lines. But the "defense of a free state" isn't intended for you, individually, but for the militia. The mistake of a lot of gun nuts is thinking it's about their individual right to oppose the government - that usually doesn't turn out well.
It's not a fundamental right, like the freedoms of speech, assembly, or religion that can't be abridged. You clearly lose gun ownership rights for a number of transgressions, not limited only to paying off a #### star to influence an election. Firearms are also clearly regulated by the government now with the NFA and all the amending laws. SCOTUS has repeatedly ruled that Congress can set limits. For example, the bumpstock case that overturned the Trump regulation was about the definition of a "machine" gun in the NFA. Per the decision, bumpstocks could be banned, but only by amending the NFA instead of by regulation. The "assault weapons ban" part of the Brady Bill (amending the NFA) was constitutional and consistent with the second amendment, but it expired. By the way, the "drug user" part of the Brady Bill was just used to prosecute Hunter Biden. So don't go around bragging about how much crack you smoke.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Asst Coach [737]
TigerPulse: 88%
Posts: 826
Joined: 10/29/10
|
Re: I've read plenty about the 2nd Amendment....
Jul 26, 2024, 3:02 PM
|
|
Yep, familiar with all of that. The only thing you seem to get wrong is that you value precedent over intent. I do not care what the Supreme Court has ruled. It's a stacking precedent and creeps incrementally toward slavery.
You say the 2nd was meant for the militia. Who's the militia? Its total semantics to claim its not for the individual but for the militia. The militia was any and every able bodied person.
It's also illogical to claim the government should regulate weapons when the point of owning them is to keep the government from overstepping. Thar would be admitting that if moving in small enough increments over time, there's no threshold the government can't overstep.
30 round mags, 20 rounds, 10 rounds, 1 round.
It's hilarious to me call something a right, then claim it can be taken away by people. It's either a right or it isn't. But forget all of that, let's assume you're correct. Where, PRECISELY, does the end of government constitutional regulation end and tyranny begin?
You've clearly never extrapolated this out. It's just a bias towards normalcy. "Since this is where we are now, this is about where we should be legally". Thats how people like you tend to think. But "now" changes.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [44938]
TigerPulse: 79%
Posts: 33636
Joined: 2/22/03
|
My biggest gripe with Republicans is the fascination with guns
1
Jul 19, 2024, 12:10 PM
[ in reply to Ummm, well, our founding fathers did write that... ] |
|
and zero desire to curb the horrible gun violence that plagues our country.
Not even an assassination attempt against their hero is enough to change their minds or cause them to question their stance.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Athletic Dir [882]
TigerPulse: 66%
Posts: 1287
Joined: 10/19/21
|
Re: My biggest gripe with Republicans is the fascination with guns
Jul 19, 2024, 4:00 PM
|
|
It's always been a red herring. An issue to motivate gullible voters, and put money in the pockets of the corrupt people at the head of the NRA. They have a fairly fragile coalition. I think Trump is the only morally-bankrupt person the religious faction of the GOP would support, but it's only because of the character he played on the apprentice for many of them. Others in the religious faction believe he is anointed by God. Still others actually believe he is the Beast and support him hoping he hastens the end-times. Those are the same people who support Israel now so it can be destroyed later.
It hasn't been as successful as the pivot against abortion rights they started during the Carter administration. That's a classic. Appropriate what had been a Catholics-only issue with the goal of pulling support from a Southern Baptist president, at a time when the SBC still supported Roe v. Wade and abortion rights. The goal, of course, was being able to claim religious freedom in the matters more important to them (namely keeping black kids out of their segregated schools). They transformed the SBC into not only a group of churches where abortion isn't officially tolerated at all (but still happens plenty often in private doctors offices, if not clinics), but where women have been demoted and not allowed to serve as pastors.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lot o points [162126]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 67949
Joined: 5/6/13
|
And my biggest gripe with folks like yourself
Jul 26, 2024, 11:28 PM
[ in reply to My biggest gripe with Republicans is the fascination with guns ] |
|
Is your ability to hone in entirely on an inanimate object as the source of all evils while mocking anyone who bemoans the state of our culture in this country—-a culture that increasingly desensitizes the most malleable to the significance of a life. And to really get deep into the hypocrisy you try to make an extremist nut out of someone desiring to protect themselves while you seek to replace police with therapists, and release criminals from jail with cashless bail. And all of this is done against something literally spelled out in the constitution and you criticize people literally exercising what is spelled out as a right to them in this country, because you don’t understand it why it’s in there.
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Guru [1061]
TigerPulse: 88%
Posts: 1293
Joined: 7/9/21
|
Re: How else can we save our democ errr republic?
Jul 14, 2024, 9:53 PM
[ in reply to How else can we save our democ errr republic? ] |
|
Does it sound like something they would write?
They wrote it.
Read the second amendment.
I posted the second amendment in its entirety at the beginning of this thread.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Asst Coach [737]
TigerPulse: 88%
Posts: 826
Joined: 10/29/10
|
Re: How else can we save our democ errr republic?
Jul 15, 2024, 5:35 AM
|
|
How about YOU read like literally anything else they wrote about guns. Context matters, and you're choosing to misinterpret one phrase of an amendment and stop there. Keep reading and you'll understand.
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Guru [1061]
TigerPulse: 88%
Posts: 1293
Joined: 7/9/21
|
Re: How else can we save our democ errr republic?
Jul 15, 2024, 10:46 AM
|
|
Blah blah blah.
Read the second amendment and then read what you just posted.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Asst Coach [737]
TigerPulse: 88%
Posts: 826
Joined: 10/29/10
|
Re: How else can we save our democ errr republic?
Jul 18, 2024, 11:37 PM
|
|
I have. Your comment makes zero sense. Only one person here understands it in context. Learn the context by reading. Telling me to reread something I've had memorized for decades is hilarious.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Athletic Dir [882]
TigerPulse: 66%
Posts: 1287
Joined: 10/19/21
|
Re: How else can we save our democ errr republic?
Jul 19, 2024, 10:19 AM
[ in reply to How else can we save our democ errr republic? ] |
|
It was by the states at the time. They maintained lists of all the able men in the age bracket in each community. And communities had officers in charge locally. You can search microfiche in Columbia for many of the rosters, a limited number are scanned and available online.
The founders were very much against a large permanent standing army, and intended the state militias to be the ground defense. Other Federalist papers explain that in detail. They were concerned about coups. In the first major action after the revolution, Washington sent a handful of regular army to the whiskey rebellion with thousands of state militia.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [43499]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 39080
Joined: 11/30/98
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-TigerNet [14363]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 15302
Joined: 11/2/15
|
The constitutional ignorance on this board is off the charts.***
1
Jul 14, 2024, 3:40 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-TigerNet [13448]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 9945
Joined: 1/23/06
|
thats what our democracy is all about!***
Jul 14, 2024, 8:10 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oculus Spirit [83395]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 57601
Joined: 9/13/04
|
|
|
|
|
|
Asst Coach [737]
TigerPulse: 88%
Posts: 826
Joined: 10/29/10
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [44938]
TigerPulse: 79%
Posts: 33636
Joined: 2/22/03
|
I don't see a mention of AR-15s like the one the shooter used.
1
Jul 19, 2024, 12:08 PM
|
|
Trump missed a great opportunity last night to talk about sensible gun control and the need for better safeguards to protect society.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-TigerNet [13448]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 9945
Joined: 1/23/06
|
What feature of an AR do you think is opposed to the 2A?
Jul 19, 2024, 4:09 PM
|
|
Or more broadly, what features would you like to see banned?
I, personally, am all for getting more illegally obtained guns off the street and out of circulation. That also includes cleaning up the boarders, so I feel sure that loses some support for that thought.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Asst Coach [737]
TigerPulse: 88%
Posts: 826
Joined: 10/29/10
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [30411]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 16966
Joined: 1/26/22
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-TigerNet [13875]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 6916
Joined: 12/24/15
|
Misplaced Focus?
Jul 26, 2024, 4:54 PM
|
|
Everyone is getting all hivey over AR-15 rifles.
From the 2019 FBI data, handguns were used to commit 46% of homicides.
Knives, other cutting instruments along with hands, fists and feet accounted for 15% of homicides.
Rifles were used in 2.6% of homicides and not all of these were committed with the AR platform.
There are already over 20 million AR 15 rifles in the U.S.
So banning the further sale of AR 15 rifles is quite unlikely to have much of an impact on homicides.
To have a major impact, all handgun sales would have to be banned and existing handguns confiscated . How would that work?
Day in and day out handguns are the far bigger issue and despite laws on the books, thugs have no problem illegally obtaining them.
Banning “assault weapons” is a feel good proposition and I’m certainly against banning handguns too.
I don’t have any answers, but the renewed focus on banning ARs since Trump’s shooter foolishly employed this weapon seems misplaced.
The kid would have been far better equipped using a well made bolt action rifle with good optics and a flat shooting cartridge. Those rifles are used for hunting. Should they be likewise banned?
There are no easy answers, but banning ARs is much ado about nothing.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-TigerNet [12603]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 5542
Joined: 9/12/04
|
Two threads in 10 days by the same guy that states the 2nd Amendment in his post
1
Jul 26, 2024, 5:38 PM
|
|
with no real accompanying intellectual points.
Somehow this older thread came back to life today, but I think we pretty much covered all this two days ago in SolidOrange89's second thread:
https://www.tigernet.com/clemson-forum/message/firearm-mortality-by-state-35191143
I'll throw this out there for this crowd who were quibbling over the plain language of the 2A:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P4zE0K22zH8
If saving lives is the real reason Democrats want to ban firearms (48,204 deaths in 2022) - then why don't they want to ban cigarettes (480,000 deaths EVERY YEAR) or alcohol (178,000 deaths EVERY YEAR) and spend their political clout to remove these two classes of deadly killers from society? I've not seen a single discussion or proposed legislation coming from the Democrats on these American murderers that kill at a rate 3 to 10 times more per year than firearms. Hmm...
I suspect it's because the Democrat's motivation for going after the firearms industry, handguns, and "assault weapons" (whatever the he.ll they mean by that boogie man term) is something other than just saving lives.
The epidemic of American obesity brought on by the American diet and sedentary lifestyle kill way more Americans in one year than firearms have over the last 30 years combined. But the Democratic fervor is to make gun control a top priority in their platform because....well... it's GUNS!!
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-TigerNet [13875]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 6916
Joined: 12/24/15
|
Re: Two threads in 10 days by the same guy that states the 2nd Amendment in his post
1
Jul 26, 2024, 7:30 PM
|
|
It's the shiny object in the room with the politicians talking about clips instead of magazines, confusing semiautomatic weapons with automatic weapons and having as much difficulty defining an assault weapon as defining what a woman is.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [43499]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 39080
Joined: 11/30/98
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Guru [1061]
TigerPulse: 88%
Posts: 1293
Joined: 7/9/21
|
|
|
|
|
|
Replies: 43
| visibility 2371
|
|
|
50
