Political Comics, Memes, Jokes, etc.

[GMDino]

[GMDino]

[Rotobeast]

(06-14-2016, 09:57 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: ..

[Belsnickel]

[GMDino]

[SunsetBengal]

..

[SunsetBengal]

..

[SunsetBengal]

..

[Belsnickel]

(06-15-2016, 01:39 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: ..

Shintoism is some serious shit, apparently.

[SunsetBengal]

..

[GMDino]

[Bengalzona]

[Bengalzona]

[GMDino]

[fredtoast]

(06-14-2016, 09:57 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: ..

Actually according to the words of the Constitution it is to insure a well regulated militia.

But guns rights advocates never mention that because they don't want to belong to a well-regulated militia.

[Belsnickel]

(06-16-2016, 12:55 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Actually according to the words of the Constitution it is to insure a well regulated militia.

But guns rights advocates never mention that because they don't want to belong to a well-regulated militia.

Yeah, context is key. It was intended for the major ground force in the country to be for defensive purposes and be made up of the populous. They never intended for a standing army, which is why they give permission for a standing navy but only allow an army to be approved for two years at a time. Reliance on a militia AND the ability to rise against a tyrannical government were the aims, but in modern context with the way we handle our military the intent of the SA just doesn't apply in the same way.

[Belsnickel]

[Bengalzona]

(06-16-2016, 01:24 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Yeah, context is key. It was intended for the major ground force in the country to be for defensive purposes and be made up of the populous. They never intended for a standing army, which is why they give permission for a standing navy but only allow an army to be approved for two years at a time. Reliance on a militia AND the ability to rise against a tyrannical government were the aims, but in modern context with the way we handle our military the intent of the SA just doesn't apply in the same way.

The original intent was that the militias would be sponsored and organized by the individual states, not private armies. The bias was against having a federal army. But that bias was quickly thrown out when it was found that state militias were generally inadequate to respond to foreign (and sometimes domestic, see Shay's Rebellion) threats and that a full-time professional force was required.

That doesn't mean that there wasn't a recognition for the need for individuals to keep their own arms. We were a frontier nation and the threat from Indians on individuals and small settlements was real and ever-present. The thought of taking arms away from individuals settling the frontier would have been insane at that time. And that, of course, should be the primary evidence that the Second Amendment was never about protecting individuals' rights to arms. It was concerned solely with states having the rights to maintain their own militias.

[Brownshoe]

(06-16-2016, 12:55 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Actually according to the words of the Constitution it is to insure a well regulated militia.

But guns rights advocates never mention that because they don't want to belong to a well-regulated militia.

What does the second half of the 2nd amendment mean to you?

"the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

sounds to me that it's talking about the people, and not the militia in the second part.

[Benton]

(06-16-2016, 04:22 PM)Brownshoe Wrote: What does the second half of the 2nd amendment mean to you?

"the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

sounds to me that it's talking about the people, and not the militia in the second part.

It supports what Fred and Matt have both said if you read the whole sentence.

Quote:The Second Amendment of the United States Constitution reads: "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."

The intent was to not have what we have now: a large army that we constantly put to use at the cost of taxpayers, or to be used as a tool to keep taxpayers under the government's control. If the individual states got into a conflict or had to handle a situation, that was up to the state (and its militia). The Continental Army was small and supplemented by militias. After the Treaty of Paris, it was disbanded because it wasn't needed, there were militias. The initial attempts to form the current Army after the war were rejected multiple times because the states feared that a central army that was too large might be used against individual states that objected to federal regulation.

I support gun ownership, but the 2nd Amendment is more about rights to protect yourself from centralized government more than it is individual rights.protect yourself.