Kansas Crimson

and “arms” today are entirely different than those of 1791

keep swinging

KUTradition wrote: ↑Mon May 01, 2023 3:40 pm and “arms” today are entirely different than those of 1791

keep swinging

Also intentional. The founder fathers understood technology would change. And didn't want citizens to be limited to black powder muskets for all of eternity

The reason the 2nd amendment was worded the way it was, is to stand the test of time. So american citizens would always have the means to stand up to tyrannical government overreach. That was what they gave their lives to fight against when this country was founded. And tyrannical government overreach is what we deal with today too

Which coincidentally, that tyrannical government is trying to slowly convince you that the 2nd amendment has limits, isn't necessary etc

It is always the other tyrant.

it seems more likely that the founding fathers wrote with a certain level of ambiguity so that congress and the SCOTUS could adapt to changing times and changes in societal behavior…

…as has been the case with the rest of the Constitution

randylahey wrote: ↑Mon May 01, 2023 1:49 pm What percent of America knows or understands this country's constitution is the next necessary statistic

You STILL haven’t told me how the First Amendment applies to Twitter.

randylahey wrote: ↑Mon May 01, 2023 3:20 pm Individual gun owners are not a militia. Youre stretching that to suit your needs

This is not the own you think it is.

jfish26 wrote: ↑Mon May 01, 2023 4:15 pm

randylahey wrote: ↑Mon May 01, 2023 3:20 pm Individual gun owners are not a militia. Youre stretching that to suit your needs

This is not the own you think it is.

It was a simple statement. Thats all. The fact you said that.. tells me it was the reality check yall needed

jfish26 wrote: ↑Mon May 01, 2023 4:14 pm

randylahey wrote: ↑Mon May 01, 2023 1:49 pm What percent of America knows or understands this country's constitution is the next necessary statistic

You STILL haven’t told me how the First Amendment applies to Twitter.

Because the government was involved with what was being censored

randylahey wrote: ↑Mon May 01, 2023 3:43 pm

KUTradition wrote: ↑Mon May 01, 2023 3:40 pm and “arms” today are entirely different than those of 1791

keep swinging

Also intentional. The founder fathers understood technology would change. And didn't want citizens to be limited to black powder muskets for all of eternity

This also is not the own you think it is. If you’d like to open up the Constitution to be interpreted with the benefit of analysis of the founders’ intent in context (as opposed to the words on the page), you’ll find that many/most of your pet “but the Constitution sez” issues…run into quite a LOT of trouble.

randylahey wrote: ↑Mon May 01, 2023 4:18 pm

jfish26 wrote: ↑Mon May 01, 2023 4:14 pm

randylahey wrote: ↑Mon May 01, 2023 1:49 pm What percent of America knows or understands this country's constitution is the next necessary statistic

You STILL haven’t told me how the First Amendment applies to Twitter.

Because the government was involved with what was being censored

Lol. Still wrong. Try again.

randylahey wrote: ↑Mon May 01, 2023 4:18 pm

jfish26 wrote: ↑Mon May 01, 2023 4:15 pm

randylahey wrote: ↑Mon May 01, 2023 3:20 pm Individual gun owners are not a militia. Youre stretching that to suit your needs

This is not the own you think it is.

It was a simple statement. Thats all. The fact you said that.. tells me it was the reality check yall needed

So let’s play the tape forward. Are you saying that the “well-regulated militia” portion of the Second Amendment is irrelevant to the scope of an individual citizen’s rights?

The founding fathers never intended for the federal government to have a standing army. The idea was citizens could own guns, for their own self defense, that government would be limited. The states would come together, if necessary, against any foreign foe that threatened the states

What makes you think that the Founding Fathers were infallible in regards to keeping and bearing arms? These were the same people who thought only white, rich, men could vote and non-whites weren’t even whole people. So, could they have been equally wrong about the 2nd Amendment?

randylahey wrote: ↑Mon May 01, 2023 4:29 pm The founding fathers never intended for the federal government to have a standing army. The idea was citizens could own guns, for their own self defense, that government would be limited. The states would come together, if necessary, against any foreign foe that threatened the states

In other words, the 2nd Amendment is unnecessary today. Thank you!

Well regulated militia refers to the armed citizens of a free country. Who all owned guns, not to commit random acts of violence like the fragile mentally broken population we have today, but to defend themselves and their country against enemies foreign or domestic

zsn wrote: ↑Mon May 01, 2023 4:30 pm

randylahey wrote: ↑Mon May 01, 2023 4:29 pm The founding fathers never intended for the federal government to have a standing army. The idea was citizens could own guns, for their own self defense, that government would be limited. The states would come together, if necessary, against any foreign foe that threatened the states

In other words, the 2nd Amendment is unnecessary today. Thank you!

Absolutely not lol you are even dumber than I thought if that is the conclusion you came to. The 2nd amendment is the most important its been since king George. Our biggest threats to freedom come from our own governing body

Unfortunately it only took a couple centuries of corrupt power hungry politicians to turn this country into something far more corrupt than what we rebelled against

randylahey wrote: ↑Mon May 01, 2023 4:31 pm Well regulated militia refers to the armed citizens of a free country. Who all owned guns, not to commit random acts of violence like the fragile mentally broken population we have today, but to defend themselves and their country against enemies foreign or domestic

Are you saying that the “well-regulated militia” portion of the Second Amendment is irrelevant to the scope of an individual citizen’s rights?

jfish26 wrote: ↑Mon May 01, 2023 4:34 pm

randylahey wrote: ↑Mon May 01, 2023 4:31 pm Well regulated militia refers to the armed citizens of a free country. Who all owned guns, not to commit random acts of violence like the fragile mentally broken population we have today, but to defend themselves and their country against enemies foreign or domestic

Are you saying that the “well-regulated militia” portion of the Second Amendment is irrelevant to the scope of an individual citizen’s rights?

No. An individuals right to bear arms has absolutely nothing to do with a militia. Both are guaranteed rights. Individuals have the right to bear arms without being a part of a militia. And individuals have the right to form well regulated militias