Skip to main content

View Diary: RKBA: Illinois. About time. (355 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  I have read it (11+ / 0-)

    It's perfectly clear that the militia is intended to be made up of citizens who owned their own guns at home.  That's why it's the people who have the right to "keep and bear" them.

    Well Organized means that if the militia is called out, it will be placed under a military chain of command.
    But there is nothing in the 2nd that says that militia membership is mandatory to own a gun, or that the guns belong to the militia.

    The 2nd also says the militia is necessary, and I would argue it's hard for a militia deployed overseas to defend a state.  Thus, the second the National Guard was made part of the regular army and deployed, it ceased being a militia under the Constitution.

    So if you really care about the wording of the 2nd, you should be calling for each state to create new, non army, non deployable militias for the citizens to be part of.

    •  Yet, the words "own" "home" are not in there. (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      lyvwyr101, Johnny Nucleo, gzodik

      Do you realize that you're posting to a comment of mine that suggested the amendment needs to be read, and you just posted a comment stating it is "perfectly clear" that the amendment means something that's not anywhere to be found in them?

      This is the sort of junk that we've gotten for years: people just dump the words and start writing what they think is a good idea and expand it into rights.

      So if you really care about the wording of the 2nd, you should be calling for each state to create new, non army, non deployable militias for the citizens to be part of
      .

      Nonsense.  The state doesn't have to create a militia if it doesn't want to, much less the bogus, on paper only militia that has no purpose than to provide legal cover to owning guns.

      Christie: "I'm going to find the real bullies!"

      by Inland on Tue Jan 14, 2014 at 12:43:03 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  "Keep" and "Bear". (5+ / 0-)

        You may want to take your own advise & read the Amendment.
        (Quick Hint: It has been read accurately for centuries now)

        Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

        by FrankRose on Tue Jan 14, 2014 at 12:55:34 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  And neither means "own" or "home". (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          lyvwyr101, Johnny Nucleo

          Put down the gun rights propaganda site and pull up a dictionary.

          These aren't complicated, modern words.  

          Christie: "I'm going to find the real bullies!"

          by Inland on Tue Jan 14, 2014 at 12:58:21 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  If one has the right to keep something, where (5+ / 0-)

            would one keep it?

            If one has the right to bear something & they are in their home, where is the object at?

            Think hard, bud.

            Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

            by FrankRose on Tue Jan 14, 2014 at 01:16:59 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  At the armory, if the militia so desires. (3+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              lyvwyr101, Miss Blue, gzodik

              Funny thing about well regulated militias.  They get to decide who is in them and who gets to bear what, when.  

              Now, here's my question: if the framers meant for people to have a right to own guns, why didn't they use the word "own", a perfectly simple and well known word?  Why would they use "keep and bear"?  Why wouldn't they have used words like "possess" or "use", also words well known to English thanks to about three hundred years of written law.  And why would they include a reference to a militia, if being in or out of the militia made no difference to the right?

              Take all the time you need, since I already know the answer and you'll need some time to make up some incredible shit.  Bud.

              Christie: "I'm going to find the real bullies!"

              by Inland on Tue Jan 14, 2014 at 01:23:07 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  Yes. The Constitution included the 'right' (6+ / 0-)

                for the USA to keep weapons only in armories.
                Astute statement.

                However, as your entire premise centers around the lack of mentioning...apparently specific addresses, you may want to notice the 2A doesn't say 'armory'.

                Do try to keep your impeccable arguments consistent.

                Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

                by FrankRose on Tue Jan 14, 2014 at 01:38:44 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  Noooo...... (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  lyvwyr101, gzodik

                  The right in the constitution is to keep and bear arms in the well regulated militia.  There's no right to "own", or right to "keep arms at home" in the federal law.

                  Now, your militia would decide who was in, what they would bear, and if they would keep them at home.  And the fed government couldn't interfere.

                  But how you get from the words of the second amendment to a right to "own" guns, without being in a militia, in your house....well, Frank, you're not even trying to explain that.  Too bad.  I gave you time because I expected a really inventive pile of BS from you.  You're slipping.

                  Christie: "I'm going to find the real bullies!"

                  by Inland on Tue Jan 14, 2014 at 01:45:49 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Interesting: (7+ / 0-)

                    "There is no right to keep...."
                    Actually there is.

                    In fact not only does it say the right of the people to keep and bear arms".
                    It also says "shall not be infringed"

                    People being restricted from keeping something in their home is an 'infringement'.

                    "pile of BS"
                    You mean like being unable to comprehend the meaning of 'keep'?
                    Or are you referring to ignoring not only the English language, but also over two centuries of the application of the Amendment.

                    Don't let me stop you from expanding upon your extraordinary readings of simple English words or your interesting take on history.
                    I welcome this diversion. Reality can be so mundane.

                    Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

                    by FrankRose on Tue Jan 14, 2014 at 02:04:32 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  "own", "home" not in there. (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      lyvwyr101

                      If you think the framers just forgot to use the words, well, tough.  It is what it is and no more.  Go amend it if you want a right to own guns.

                      And we both know the two hundred years of precedent doesn't agree with you.

                      Christie: "I'm going to find the real bullies!"

                      by Inland on Tue Jan 14, 2014 at 02:42:16 PM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  You've convinced me. (7+ / 0-)

                        You know what my problem was?
                        I mistakingly believed that "the right to keep..." meant....ya know...."the right to keep".
                        Way to set me straight, brah.

                        "just forgot the words"
                        No. They remembered. In fact they made it abundantly clear.

                        "two hundred years of president doesn't agree with you."
                        Oh? Then do tell, what year was your genius 'arsenal' interpretation in effect?

                        Brilliant argument.
                        Really.

                        Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

                        by FrankRose on Tue Jan 14, 2014 at 03:51:28 PM PST

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  "Own" means "own". (0+ / 0-)

                          Other words mean other things.

                          It's not even an argument, Frank, it's English.

                          And that's why you're left being sarcastic.  Even your gun rights web sites can't help you.

                          Christie: "I'm going to find the real bullies!"

                          by Inland on Tue Jan 14, 2014 at 05:02:44 PM PST

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  Of course! How could I have been so blind? (7+ / 0-)

                            The Bill of Rights is like a fortune cookie, but instead of adding "....in bed" to the end, you add "....in an armory"

                            First Amendment: 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......in an armory

                            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....in an armory

                            Third Amendment: No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law....in an armory.

                            Fourth Amendment: The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized....in an armory

                            Please continue to expand upon this earth-shattering "in an armory" thesis.
                            I can assure you. I am most interested in hearing about it!

                            Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

                            by FrankRose on Tue Jan 14, 2014 at 05:09:22 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Good thing (5+ / 0-)

                            I can't drink milk or it would be out my nose and all over my screen!!!!

                          •  Forgot your own argument? Not surprised. (0+ / 0-)

                            The point about the armory was made because you were unable to conceive of any place arms could be "kept" besides a person's house and therefore "kept" implied storing them at your house.  Since many militia had armories in colonial times, your lack of imagination means zero.  "Keep" doesn't mean in your house.  Again, English.

                            But it's hilarious that you pretend I'm adding words.

                            there's only one person who is adding words to the amendment.  I'll give you a clue: someone who wants to own guns in his house and is really angry at being shown up.

                            Christie: "I'm going to find the real bullies!"

                            by Inland on Tue Jan 14, 2014 at 05:17:40 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Totally. (7+ / 0-)

                            Silly me I thought the "right to keep" meant "Keep".
                            Clearly I am wrong because the Bill of Rights doesn't include my home address.

                            "But it's hilarious that you pretend I'm adding words"
                            Someone is hilariously pretending.

                            "your lack of imagination means zero."
                            And your fertile imagination means the world to me.
                            You have made my night.;)

                            Thank you for this.
                            Really.

                            Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

                            by FrankRose on Tue Jan 14, 2014 at 05:50:00 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  It doesn't include "home" or "own" either. (0+ / 0-)

                            But you start at your wish, that it had your address and gave you the right to own guns, and stop there to.

                            Poor guy, the framers forgot to give him what he wanted.  What's he going to do about it? Be a dick on the Internet.

                            Christie: "I'm going to find the real bullies!"

                            by Inland on Wed Jan 15, 2014 at 04:47:17 AM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                      •  Post-Magna Carta English History (6+ / 0-)

                        Possess, does not imply "Keep" it implies that you may not be put to the gibbet for having one in... possession.  It might be the property of your Lord and Master.

                        Hold and use, does not imply "Bear" as in "bear arms in defence of the King".

                        Hold is possess.  Use is in the civilian peacetime fashion.
                        Lairds and Gentry may use arms for the taking of game, upon the lands in such fashion, as permitted by the Crown.

                        That would be wholly different than the Lairds and Gentry, and those rabble in their employ BEARING ARMS - which has that whole Bonnie Prince Charlie nuance to it.

                        The Jacobite uprising and the English oppression of same is very much a contemporary topic (1745) when discussing the framing of the Declaration and Constitution.

                        If I'm wrong, then the whole argument for the 1932 National Firearms Act and Gun Control Act of 1968, is equally moot.
                        "Ancient history.  Blah blah blah.  Dead people did this, dead people did that.  That's so last century."

                        •  No idea what you're trying to say. (0+ / 0-)

                          I have a pretty basic assertion on history: that the concepts of ownership, possession, and use were well known for several hundred years prior to the constitution, and none of those words were used.  Therefore whatever is protected by the second, it's not ownership, possession or use of arms, which is really all the gun rights people believe in.

                          Christie: "I'm going to find the real bullies!"

                          by Inland on Tue Jan 14, 2014 at 05:06:17 PM PST

                          [ Parent ]

                      •  hell of a lot easier to own your firearm than (2+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        theatre goon, jabbausaf

                        your house, then and now, dammit. The Founders were realists.

                        LBJ, Van Cliburn, Ike, Wendy Davis, Lady Bird, Ann Richards, Barbara Jordan, Molly Ivins, Sully Sullenburger, Drew Brees: Texas is NO Bush League!

                        by BlackSheep1 on Tue Jan 14, 2014 at 07:04:35 PM PST

                        [ Parent ]

                    •  You are arguing with someone (8+ / 0-)

                      You're arguing with someone who has obviously never read the federalist papers and lacks context to where the amendments came from.

                      Inland is attempting to reinterpret the amendment.  Had any court, in the last 200+ years agreed with inlands interpretation, it would be the first.

          •  Wrong (4+ / 0-)

            Keep=possess
            Bear=carry with
            SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.
            There's no equivocation there.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site