Our Constitutional Rights

[Konocti's Wigwam]

With the open carry laws now, who carries a knife?

I do.

I have a thin, light flipper, as my EDC. Can be used to skin game also, in a pinch.

 

[Konocti's Wigwam]

I want a switch blade with a silencer !!

Funny you mention a silencer, I would also like to use one. There is a case that could possibly reach the SCOTUS. The house of cards is falling before our very eyes...

 

[c3d4b2]

How we got here, in my opinion, was easy living, taking for granted that someone was taking care ......

One of my professors made the argument one of the causes of the downfall was when the Senate switch from being elected by the state government's to being elected by a popular vote.

 

[jds holler]

One of my professors made the argument one of the causes of the downfall was when the Senate switch from being elected by the state government's to being elected by a popular vote.


View attachment 1584090

Every time we see that map, we should remember that it would be even more dramatic if it showed the red vs blue status of the individual counties. For instance here is a pic of our beloved Oregon. jd

 

[dryhumor]

If you can't pass that exam, you shouldn't be able to exercise your second amendment rights either.

Immigrants study for hours to pass the exam. US students should/could pass it pretty easily.

Of course, the schools would have to start teaching civics again…..

 

[338 Mollett]

From a philosophical angle , we are getting exactly what the constitution was drawn up for and that is freedom . Freedom to screw every thing up known to be once held sacred . If the people want a government that does not abide by the constitution is this not the will of the people . The majority of our population wants a corrupt amoral government or tolerates it , what can ya do ? These papers were written to protect the people from governments but says nothing about protection from themselves . I don,t think the founding fathers had any idea We the people would be so lawless and Godless . Trump will be just a temporary band-aid that is IF he wins .

 

[jds holler]

Immigrants study for hours to pass the exam. US students should/could pass it pretty easily.

Of course, the schools would have to start teaching civics again…..

Yeah just approach the average adult on the street and ask him/her what the three branches of our government are.

"Ummmm, Department of Equity and inclusion??" -- Greenpeace? --
jd

 

[dryhumor]

From Article 1, Section 8. Congressional responsibility.

Doesn't the 2nd amendment give us the ability to form militias?

Which carries the weight? The Article or the Amendment. One over the other or both equally. Which “State”, the whole (country) or the one? The states, individually, are tasked with appointing Officers and training the militia. Yet, Congress is tasked in organizing, arming, and disciplining. Congress can call up the militias to be “employed” by the United States. Is that employed by use, or employed with pay, or both? Does a militia need be a public entity or could it be a private entity? Has militia evolved to mean National Guard, or is it truly militia, as in citizen soldiers? And why couldn’t a militia be considered to be those released from active obligated duty, but whose oath to defend has not and will not ever expire.

Fodder for hours of lively discussion to be sure.

 

[Fuj]

I don,t think the founding fathers had any idea We the people would be so lawless and Godless.

Since the document was laid down in compromise, I think they did.
"We The People" would actually be the signers of the document, and
not all believed in god. The Constitution itself does not mention god
for a reason. Not sure if it was from Washington telling his commanders
to leave their men alone about any religious or non beliefs, but it carried
to our rights about religion. Not believing does not make a person bad.
Just ask Thomas Paine, Thomas Jefferson, and Ben Franklin on that subject.
I read too many times, where someone says, "god given rights". It's just
not in the constitution as laid out by the framers, then signed and ratified.

 

[jds holler]

--------,the right of THE PEOPLE to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

jd

 

[Fuj]

Which carries the weight? The Article or the Amendment. One over the other or both equally. Which “State”, the whole (country) or the one? The states, individually, are tasked with appointing Officers and training the militia. Yet, Congress is tasked in organizing, arming, and disciplining. Congress can call up the militias to be “employed” by the United States. Is that employed by use, or employed with pay, or both? Does a militia need be a public entity or could it be a private entity? Has militia evolved to mean National Guard, or is it truly militia, as in citizen soldiers? And why couldn’t a militia be considered to be those released from active obligated duty, but whose oath to defend has not and will not ever expire.

Fodder for hours of lively discussion to be sure.

Some of the discussion should be about a Supreme Court decision
of 1886 which heavily muddied the waters with the respect to the
term "Militia". Plain and simple. It's all about control and who want's
that control......Here is a snippet if you want to dig further.

 

[Konocti's Wigwam]

From Article 1, Section 8. Congressional responsibility.

View attachment 1584233

View attachment 1584245

Which carries the weight? The Article or the Amendment. One over the other or both equally. Which “State”, the whole (country) or the one? The states, individually, are tasked with appointing Officers and training the militia. Yet, Congress is tasked in organizing, arming, and disciplining. Congress can call up the militias to be “employed” by the United States. Is that employed by use, or employed with pay, or both? Does a militia need be a public entity or could it be a private entity? Has militia evolved to mean National Guard, or is it truly militia, as in citizen soldiers? And why couldn’t a militia be considered to be those released from active obligated duty, but whose oath to defend has not and will not ever expire.

Fodder for hours of lively discussion to be sure.

I don't buy into Congress assigning militias to arm. We have been provided that right and don't need the Government to handle that for "we the people".

"being necessary to the security of a free State"

The above pretty much gives us the ability to stop our Government from stepping in. When the Government steps in, we don't have a "free State". AFAIK, nobody asked the Government to handle that for "we the people". You only back up the fact that we have the right to form militias so provide us the security of having a free State.

Your argument only solidifies for "we the people" to govern our own 'free State'.

 

[joshb]

--------,the right of THE PEOPLE to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

jd

Yup! It’s really clear, simple language. Then the Politicians and lawyers got involved.

 

[Konocti's Wigwam]

Ok, so what happens if suppressors are taken off the ATF all together?

What happens if machine guns, or better yet, any type of firearm which the ATF currently controls, are taken away from them? Do we even need the ATF? They only tax "we the people", and currently use that as an excuse to tax us. However, the Government is not supposed to tax "we the people". If you live in one of the 9 states that do not allow NFA items (i.e., California, Delaware, D.C., Hawaii, Illinois, NY, MA, NJ and RI), this could be great news! We the people are paying to have the ATF impose taxes on us.

I have long said, I would love to use a suppressor, and I'm pretty sure there's nobody that shoots a firearm for whatever reason, to not want to use a suppressor given the choice. Yet we don't have that choice in all States, even if we did pay for the unconstitutional tax stamp imposed on such.

DISCLAIMER: if you don't care for the Armed Scholar, don't watch this, simple enough.

 

[dryhumor]

I don't buy into Congress assigning militias to arm. We have been provided that right and don't need the Government to handle that for "we the people".

"being necessary to the security of a free State"

The above pretty much gives us the ability to stop our Government from stepping in. When the Government steps in, we don't have a "free State". AFAIK, nobody asked the Government to handle that for "we the people". You only back up the fact that we have the right to form militias so provide us the security of having a free State.

Your argument only solidifies for "we the people" to govern our own 'free State'.

That wasn’t really an argument. That was what the articles and amendments state on their own. My questions concerned the undefined grey areas. There’s always someone with money and an agenda to challenge everything that appears in any way vulnerable.

Look at the recent democrat idea put forth concerning term limits for the SCOTUS and also put more in place than normally occurs. I can’t imagine how f’d up that would be. Well, actually I probably could. The conservative court has been favorable to ALL Americans. A liberal majority; might as well turn out the lights, the party’s over.

My take is that the Constitution makes it pretty clear that the People control their destiny. The elected politicians work for the People, at their pleasure, and any elected official can be voted out of office.

The power has always been with the People, though many foolishly give it away….

 

[Jayplace]

--------,the right of THE PEOPLE to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

jd

You've taken a phrase of a sentence and made it a standalone statement. Taken in its entirety, it's not that absolute.
Over the years, modifications have been deemed necessary to protect the masses from each other due to acts of evil and / or technology..

Times change. When the phrase was written, the people had muskets.

 

[ronsatspokane]

From Article 1, Section 8. Congressional responsibility.

View attachment 1584233

View attachment 1584245

Which carries the weight? The Article or the Amendment. One over the other or both equally. Which “State”, the whole (country) or the one? The states, individually, are tasked with appointing Officers and training the militia. Yet, Congress is tasked in organizing, arming, and disciplining. Congress can call up the militias to be “employed” by the United States. Is that employed by use, or employed with pay, or both? Does a militia need be a public entity or could it be a private entity? Has militia evolved to mean National Guard, or is it truly militia, as in citizen soldiers? And why couldn’t a militia be considered to be those released from active obligated duty, but whose oath to defend has not and will not ever expire.

Fodder for hours of lively discussion to be sure.

Consider the fact that absent armed citizens there is no Militia and you have your answer. The Militia is made up of citizens under their own arms. Often times in years past the arms possessed by the citizen were far more advanced than those brought to the field by the standing armies.

 

[ronsatspokane]

You've taken a phrase of a sentence and made it a standalone statement. Taken in its entirety, it's not that absolute.
Over the years, modifications have been deemed necessary to protect the masses from each other due to acts of evil and / or technology..

Times change. When the phrase was written, the people had muskets.

And cannon. People own Cannon's today even. You can buy a Howitzer if it suits your fancy and you have the budget to feed it. That aside, muskets were the most advanced weapons available prior to rifled barrels and prior to repeating arms. At every step the citizen owned more advanced weapons that the standing armies. And there were times where no standing army existed. The citizen: first to adopt rifled barrels, first to adopt repeating arms. Currently the number of repeating arms with rifled barrels in the hands of private citizens out numbers the arsenal of the US government. By a considerable margin. Estimated that 4.5 million exist between all branches of the armed services. In the hands of private citizens: 393 million.

Times have indeed changed, for the better. My grandfather (a WWII vet) owned one gun, a Remington pump in 30-06. His children owned considerably more. His grandchildren (me) have taken that to a level never seen in the annals of human history. Citizens now have the disposable income required to amass their own collection of fine firearms.

 

[joshb]

You've taken a phrase of a sentence and made it a standalone statement. Taken in its entirety, it's not that absolute.
Over the years, modifications have been deemed necessary to protect the masses from each other due to acts of evil and / or technology..

Times change. When the phrase was written, the people had muskets.

Times change but history repeats. The founders had just fought their way out from under an oppressive government that, oh by the way, tried to restrict their access to arms. I read it the way it was meant at the time it was written: free access to arms.

 

[338 Mollett]

Not believing does not make a person bad

Not my place to pass judgement on that . BUT ! When the extremes of the Godless try to influence and take away the innocence of children freedom of religion has gone too far !