-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Biden's ATF Says Gun Owners Have 120 Days To Comply With
- Thread starter Conan
- Start date
Thats sick. Sell them legally for 10 years (common use) and then, without passing any laws, change your opinion because of an anti gun president and turn millions of law abiding citizens into criminals. Not because of a law, but because of an opinion, which was not the opinion for the last 10 years or so. There are untold millions out there. And they know it. It will take years to get through the courts, but there is a good chance it will be reversed.
Thing is, the policy isn't making them illegal. It is treating guns with the modification as if they were manufactured that way.
(I'm pro 2nd Ammendment, but I do believe there should be restrictions on types of guns allowed without having to register).
This is ridiculous, I thought the purpose of the 2A was so that the People could defend themselves against tyranny. Like the colonists did against the tyrannical British Government.
Quibbling over braces and barrel length is just stupid.
The ATF and NFA should be disbanded and shut down as unconstitutional.
The People should have access to fully automatic weapons, just for starters. What’s a militia without automatic weapons these days?
Militia assumes military grade weapons.
They should also have, grenades, rocket launchers and MANPADS , All those ordinary military bearable arms an effective militia should have.
Every town should have well stocked Arsenals, and rations, and a well regulated training system.
Quibbling over braces and barrel length is just stupid.
The ATF and NFA should be disbanded and shut down as unconstitutional.
The People should have access to fully automatic weapons, just for starters. What’s a militia without automatic weapons these days?
Militia assumes military grade weapons.
They should also have, grenades, rocket launchers and MANPADS , All those ordinary military bearable arms an effective militia should have.
Every town should have well stocked Arsenals, and rations, and a well regulated training system.
If the purpose of the 2nd Ammendment is for citizens to protect themselves against tyranny then they should indeed have weapons (a quality of weapons, and tactical training) comparable to the military. They need armed drones, tanks, and attack helicopters...among other things.
But we need to clarify a couple of things - the first being whether the 2nd Ammendment applies to individual citizens or militias.
Under the Constitution the able bodied citizens are the militia.
The Supreme Court already ruled the right to bear arms was the individual citizens Right.
Militias don’t have rights, people do, and they form the militias.
The people formed the militias using their own weapons. They weren’t issued weapons.
The 2A says that a well regulated militia is necessary for the preservation of a free state. ie it’s a defence against national tyranny.
The militia being a defence against national tyranny can not at the same time be under the control of the national government.
“ well regulated “ doesn’t mean well regulated and controlled by government. It meant well organised and effective.
When the US Constitution was written a "militia" was all able-bodied white men, aged 18 to 45, that were obligated to serve in defence of a State.
If that is the definition we use, then the 2nd Amendment does not apply to those of us who ate over 45 years old.
And it was well regulated by the government, just not the federal government.
Is that what you are saying - the 2nd Ammendment doesn't apply to us older folks but is strictly defined by the definition of "militia" used by our forefathers?
That’s not for me to decide. The Supreme Court has been on an originalist path though.
Where the Supreme Court drew the line for tyranny though was if the government did not provide free and fair elections or trial by jury.
We cannot appeal to the US Constitution referring to individuals with the 2nd Ammendment based on its definition of "militia" and ignore its definition of "militia" at the same time.
You are right that the US Constitution referred to "militia" as able-bodied citizens, but you leave out an equally important part (able-bodied white men between 18 and 45 years old obligated to defend a State as a regulated military force).
But times have changed. Perhaps the 2nd Ammendment needs to be revised to fit today.
The first chance the 2A is “ revised “ is moment it gets taken away permanently.
It is a very unique recognition of human Right in human history, that no one in the rest of the world enjoys.
Yea, there are only 3 countries (including the US) where citizens have a right to guns.
But the problem is that, per your definition, tge US Constitution does not actually provide its citizens these rights but instead provides the rights to the States (the founding fathers limited it to "militia"....i.e., aged 18 to 45 year old white men who are obligated to defend their State).
If you are right, then the 2nd Ammendment only applies insofar as States can mandate military service.
That's what I mean by revising being needed.
I'm 54 years old, so if you are right then I have no 2nd Ammendment rights. But I like my guns.
Your right to bear arms is not contingent on you being able to fight in the militia, it’s contingent on you being a citizen, one of the people.
“The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed “
No, you already established who can bear arms when you mentioned the first part of that sentence.
Now you are offering only a part of a sentence. That is not true to the Amendment or the founding father's intent.
The first part of that sentence (tge part you dropped off) is: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State".
This gives two important parts that form a context.
1. A well regulated militia.
You already established that this is the context speaking of citizens. And it is white men aged 18 to 45 who have an obligation to defend their State State. And it's regulated by the State for the purpose of defending the State.
2. Why do these men have a right to bear arms? Because it is "necessary to the security of a free State".
No. Completely flawed understanding.
Supreme Court already ruled that it was an individual citizens Right, you do not cease to be citizen when over 45 years of age.
This is my point.
Do we go back to the original intent (a right for the purpose of maintaining a militia to secure free States)? If so, then it doesn't apply (we have no free States, no obligation to defend the States, etc.).
What the SCOTUS did was reinterpret the 2nd Ammendment to fit in a more contemporary setting.
My point is that you made a mistake to go back to the original intent (the original use of "militia") as it no longer applies. What applies is the SCOTUS decision that the 2nd Ammendment is applicable to individual citizens regardless of the original purpose (maintaining a regulated militia for tge security of free States).
The problem is SCOTUS decisions are not necessarily secure. They can be reversed (like Roe vs Wade).
Only three of the first ten amendments include the phrase, "the right of the people", 1st, 2nd and 4th. That phrase has been interpreted by those far wiser than I to be an expansive reading. In the case of 2A, that would work against the "applies only to militia" interpretation.
The problem is the purpose of the Ammendment.
The right of the people shall not be infringed.