Mass Shooting at DK premiere in CO!

[trish]

The modern interpretation of the Constitution and how it would be applied by the present court is relatively clear on the issue. The actual Constitution is not so clear on application. What is made clear in the Constitution is one of the founding intentions, namely the recognized state militias will in part be armed by the private expenditures of the soldiers themselves, be they drafted or volunteers. It was a cost cutting procedure. There is absolutely no evidence it was originally intended so that the citizens would be enabled to carry out an armed revolt against their own government. The explicit intent was to arm the government in part at private expense.

[SFTB]

The modern interpretation of the Constitution and how it would be applied by the present court is relatively clear on the issue. The actual Constitution is not so clear on application. What is made clear in the Constitution is one of the founding intentions, namely the recognized state militias will in part be armed by the private expenditures of the soldiers themselves, be they drafted or volunteers. It was a cost cutting procedure. There is absolutely no evidence it was originally intended so that the citizens would be enabled to carry out an armed revolt against their own government. The explicit intent was to arm the government in part at private expense.

Thomas Jefferson;
“Every generation needs a new revolution.”

“The spirit of resistance to government is so valuable on certain occasions that I wish it to be always kept alive.”

[buttslinger]

At Least sixty one percent of the House and Senate know the simple steps to take that would greatly improve the quality of life for every American, that is why they were elected. But if they did the right thing they wouldn't be re-elected. That's the catch. Catch 22.

[trish]

And you think he meant an armed revolution and armed resistance? Perhaps after he served his terms of office, eh?

[buttslinger]

The problem is not the NRA.
The problem is the NRA LOBBY.

[notdrunk]

The only thing that stopped more fatalities was that the Joker's AR-15 jammed, and he was too stupid to fix it.

Drum magazines have a reputation to jam. He would of probably done more damage if he used 30rd mags instead of a drum. Thank goodness.

[Stavros]

The modern interpretation of the Constitution and how it would be applied by the present court is relatively clear on the issue. The actual Constitution is not so clear on application. What is made clear in the Constitution is one of the founding intentions, namely the recognized state militias will in part be armed by the private expenditures of the soldiers themselves, be they drafted or volunteers. It was a cost cutting procedure. There is absolutely no evidence it was originally intended so that the citizens would be enabled to carry out an armed revolt against their own government. The explicit intent was to arm the government in part at private expense.

I am trying to understand this 2nd Amendment of yours, but it has generated a vast literature. But for the moment -is it not the case that the rationale for armed militias when the Amendment was adopted was that they would prevent the emergence of a dictorship -indeed, that were the USA to fall under the power of an autocrat/dictator that the militia would have a duty to overthrow the government in order to restore democracy? The Amendment was adopted in 1791 before the conflict with the British Empire had been resolved -indeed there followed another series of battles and what some refer to as a '2nd Revolution' in 1812- was it not the fear of a resurgent British imperial ambition that necessitated the concept of militias as a last resort against the Crown? When Parliament in 1689 restored the right to have arms it was a reaction against King James II attempt to disband Protestant militias by removing their right to bear arms. This was a key comparison the Americans made in 1791.

Second, am I right in thinking that the problem with the text of the 2nd Amendment is that it originally implied that the people armed are part of a collective -eg a Militia- but not individuals -whereas in Heller -vs-District of Columbia [2008] Justice Scalia argued precisely that all Americans are implied in the Amendment, ie that it is individual rights that are being upheld?

http://www.nationalreview.com/bench-...nion/ed-whelan

[onmyknees]

The modern interpretation of the Constitution and how it would be applied by the present court is relatively clear on the issue. The actual Constitution is not so clear on application. What is made clear in the Constitution is one of the founding intentions, namely the recognized state militias will in part be armed by the private expenditures of the soldiers themselves, be they drafted or volunteers. It was a cost cutting procedure. There is absolutely no evidence it was originally intended so that the citizens would be enabled to carry out an armed revolt against their own government. The explicit intent was to arm the government in part at private expense.

I see. Thankfully the Supreme Court does not, and has not agreed with you. You are in the distinct minority on your interpretation. So....if I can extrapolate what you're saying to other court decisions...can we surmise there is absolutely no evidence that the right to privacy was ever intended by the founders to extend to taking the life of 3 month old fetus ? Your argument cuts both ways.

[onmyknees]

I am trying to understand this 2nd Amendment of yours, but it has generated a vast literature. But for the moment -is it not the case that the rationale for armed militias when the Amendment was adopted was that they would prevent the emergence of a dictorship -indeed, that were the USA to fall under the power of an autocrat/dictator that the militia would have a duty to overthrow the government in order to restore democracy? The Amendment was adopted in 1791 before the conflict with the British Empire had been resolved -indeed there followed another series of battles and what some refer to as a '2nd Revolution' in 1812- was it not the fear of a resurgent British imperial ambition that necessitated the concept of militias as a last resort against the Crown? When Parliament in 1689 restored the right to have arms it was a reaction against King James II attempt to disband Protestant militias by removing their right to bear arms. This was a key comparison the Americans made in 1791.

Second, am I right in thinking that the problem with the text of the 2nd Amendment is that it originally implied that the people armed are part of a collective -eg a Militia- but not individuals -whereas in Heller -vs-District of Columbia [2008] Justice Scalia argued precisely that all Americans are implied in the Amendment, ie that it is individual rights that are being upheld?

http://www.nationalreview.com/bench-...nion/ed-whelan

"In recent years it has been suggested that the Second Amendment protects the "collective" right of states to maintain militias, while it does not protect the right of "the people" to keep and bear arms. If anyone entertained this notion in the period during which the Constitution and the Bill of Rights were debated and ratified, it remains one of the most closely guarded secrets of the eighteenth century, for no known writing surviving from the period between 1787 and 1791 states such a thesis." - Stephen P. Halbrook, "That Every Man Be Armed", 1984



"No free man shall ever be de-barred the use of arms."- Thomas Jefferson, proposal for Virginia's constitution of 1776.

With all due respect to Trish and others...there's little ambiguity in Jefferson's statement. I think I'll defer to his take on the issue .

[buttslinger]

there's little ambiguity in Jefferson's statement. I think I'll defer to his take on the issue .