Second Amendment Misinterpreted

[Luna Tick]

The gun nuts have been misinterpreting the Second Amendment for years. It's true that the amendment guarantees the right to bear arms. However, it doesn't say anything about modern weapons like the M-16 or even the colt revolver. Those weren't invented yet. The Constitution was passed in 1789. The Second Amendment therefore only applies to arms available at that time. Americans have the right to arm themselves with flintlock muzzle-loading muskets and other arms available in 1789 and earlier, but have no right to arm themselves with anything that was invented after that year. Only members of law enforcement and the military have the right to use more modern weapons, and even then only in the performance of their duties. They have no right to take such weapons home. So you gun nuts stop misinterpreting the Constitution and make believing that you have the right to own a modern weapon like a Colt revolver. You don't. Get rid of all your modern weapons and arm yourself with vintage muskets.

[HogTrash]

This is a fine example of liberal genius :poop:

[Abbey Marie]

Oh my. Where to start?

[NightTrain]

Oh my. Where to start?

Well, let's start and end with this, shall we?

http://i585.photobucket.com/albums/ss293/NightTrain70/liberals-gun-moral-poster-liberal-d.jpg

[Luna Tick]

Yeah, shoot someone just because you disagree. That proves you can be trusted to be responsible with a weapon. I knew I could post something ridiculous and someone would react by threatening me. You fell right into my trap.

[hjmick]

Oh my. Where to start?

Why bother?

[BoogyMan]

Does that also mean that the 4th amendment only protects private property that existed in 1789? What about the 8th amendment, under your way of thinking, people are only protected from cruel and unusual punishments that existed in 1789. The idea is ludicrous as is the premise of the OP.

[HogTrash]

Yeah, shoot someone just because you disagree. That proves you can be trusted to be responsible with a weapon. I knew I could post something ridiculous and someone would react by threatening me. You fell right into my trap.I'm happy to see that at least you acknowledge that your statement was "rediculous" but what about if it was more than simply a case of "disagreement"?

What if someone actually perceived your opposition to the Second Amendment as more than just a silly statement but as a legitimate threat to the Constitution?

Millions of Americans have served in the military and have sworn an oath to protect the United States Of America and it's Constitution from all enemies foreign and domestic, with their lives if necessary?...Being a funny-boy, you most likely can't relate to these people.

Actually all Americans who are in opposition to our Constitution are in deed a threat to it, not as individuals but as a voting group that could possibly alter the document that made possible the creation of the most successful political system in the history of mankind as made obvious by the success of our nation.

Let's forget our political differences long enough to be honest with each other for a moment...Anyone who is not a complete moron knows that the Second Amendment is an acknowledgement by government of the undeniable right of the people to keep and bare arms and the never ending rediculous statements the anti-gunners make are nothing more than desperate tactics to deny people of this right.

So why don't you people just simply state that you are in fact aware of the purpose and meaning of the Second Amendment but simply believe it is no longer necessary and stop playing all these silly word games...If you ever come to realize how rediculous the sensible rational people perceive you to be, you will die of embarrasment...Ignorance is truely bliss in some cases.

[Joe Steel]

The gun nuts have been misinterpreting the Second Amendment for years. It's true that the amendment guarantees the right to bear arms. However, it doesn't say anything about modern weapons like the M-16 or even the colt revolver. Those weren't invented yet. The Constitution was passed in 1789. The Second Amendment therefore only applies to arms available at that time.

You're right but for the wrong reason. The phrase "bear arms" means "serve in the military." It has nothing to do with carrying guns. Properly construed, the Second Amendment means the the People, as collective sovereign, have the right to control the composition of the military by ensuring the ranks will be filled with common citizens.

[darin]

Guns are for Kids.

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3475/3859064823_d281291eac.jpg

[Little-Acorn]

You're right but for the wrong reason. The phrase "bear arms" means "serve in the military." It has nothing to do with carrying guns.

Count on little joe to come out with an even sillier and more bizarre "interpretation" than the OP.

Well, the subject in the title WAS "Second Amendment Misinterpreted", I guess. Does this make it one of the rare times when little joe actually sticks to the subject? :eek:

To address AWAY from that "subject", the correct interpretation of the 2nd amendment, in modern language, is:

"Since an armed and capable populace is necessary for security and freedom, the right of ordinary people to own and carry guns cannot be taken away or restricted."

[darin]

Count on little joe to come out with an even sillier and more bizarre "interpretation" than the OP.

Well, the subject in the title WAS "Second Amendment Misinterpreted", I guess. Does this make it one of the rare times when little joe actually sticks to the subject? :eek:

To address AWAY from that "subject", the correct interpretation of the 2nd amendment, in modern language, is:

"Since an armed and capable populace is necessary for security and freedom, the right of ordinary people to own and carry guns cannot be taken away or restricted."

:cheers2:

Armed and Capable Populace. Not just Armed and Capable fighting force. :)

[Little-Acorn]

Oops, that should be "guns and other such weapons", since the 2nd covers "arms", which goes beyond just firearms.

[NightTrain]

Yeah, shoot someone just because you disagree. That proves you can be trusted to be responsible with a weapon. I knew I could post something ridiculous and someone would react by threatening me. You fell right into my trap.

I thought it was fairly obvious, but since you apparently didn't get it I'll spell it out for you.

Your attempts at trolling are awkward at best; I've seen 12 year olds do a better job.

It didn't deserve any effort to respond to other than a quick 'Fuck You' picture.

Have a nice day. :finger3:

[BoogyMan]

You're right but for the wrong reason. The phrase "bear arms" means "serve in the military." It has nothing to do with carrying guns. Properly construed, the Second Amendment means the the People, as collective sovereign, have the right to control the composition of the military by ensuring the ranks will be filled with common citizens.

You are both simply wrong because you have not done your homework. The text says "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." It speaks of "the people," not the military. You really don't have a leg to stand on here.

[Joe Steel]

You are both simply wrong because you have not done your homework. The text says "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." It speaks of "the people," not the military. You really don't have a leg to stand on here.

In fact, I perfectly correct.

"People" is not the plural of person and the term "militia," properly construed, is "army of common citizens."

[HogTrash]

Count on little joe to come out with an even sillier and more bizarre "interpretation" than the OP.

Well, the subject in the title WAS "Second Amendment Misinterpreted", I guess. Does this make it one of the rare times when little joe actually sticks to the subject? :eek:

To address AWAY from that "subject", the correct interpretation of the 2nd amendment, in modern language, is:

"Since an armed and capable populace is necessary for security and freedom, the right of ordinary people to own and carry guns cannot be taken away or restricted."The Americans who showed up to form the militia's during the Rvolutionary War were not supplied weapons by the militia but brought with them their own guns from home.

The marxist indoctrinated liberals always seem to be very good at overlooking "the right of the people" part when discussing the Second Amendment...How convenient.

If our forefathers didn't intend for the Second Amendment to recognize the right of the people to keep and bear arms, why weren't they disarmed after the Constitution was adopted?

Only now when the marxist are knocking on our door does the Second Amendment become an issue because all communist countries disarm their citizens...The people's ability to resist must be eliminated.

What people need to understand is the government does not grant rights to the people.

We the people grant rights to the government, not the other way around...They work for us.

The Bill Of Rights is only a confirmation that government recognizes inherent rights that it is powerless to deny.

[Luna Tick]

Hahahahahahaha, I had you guys going. You've gotta admit my interpretation was creative. LOL. In fact, I plan to own a Saiga S12 shotgun when I can get the money together. I'm cool with the right to bear arms as long as the person isn't a dumbass about it and leaves weapons lying around where kids can get them or accidentally shoots someone.

[Little-Acorn]

You are both simply wrong because you have not done your homework. The text says "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." It speaks of "the people," not the military. You really don't have a leg to stand on here.

little joe knows this. It has been pointed out to him many times in the past, and he has never been able to refute it.

Apparently he figures enough time has gone by since he was last put in his place over this issue, that he can now start saying the same falsehoods all over again, and people won't remember how wrong he has been proven in the past. He's always fishing for that one more uninformed recruit.

[HogTrash]

Hahahahahahaha, I had you guys going. You've gotta admit my interpretation was creative. LOL. In fact, I plan to own a Saiga S12 shotgun when I can get the money together. I'm cool with the right to bear arms as long as the person isn't a dumbass about it and leaves weapons lying around where kids can get them or accidentally shoots someone.Good one LT!.....You had me goin. :lol::laugh2:

[CSM]

You're right but for the wrong reason. The phrase "bear arms" means "serve in the military." It has nothing to do with carrying guns. Properly construed, the Second Amendment means the the People, as collective sovereign, have the right to control the composition of the military by ensuring the ranks will be filled with common citizens.

Pure unadulterated bullshit...

[cat slave]

It sure is! Big time! Garbage! Spoken like a true leftist.

[BoogyMan]

In fact, I perfectly correct.

"People" is not the plural of person and the term "militia," properly construed, is "army of common citizens."

Wrong again, JS. People means just that, people. Sane people are able to see this. Liberals? Not so much.