Sen. Murphy fears Supreme Court may rewrite Second Amendment

[Brian Kegerreis]

https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/4725551-supreme-court-bump-stock-ban/ 

It doesn't need to be rewritten. It juat needs to be followed. 

A well regulated militia being necessary for a free state the right if the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. 

The Bill of Rights collectively and individually are meant to further restrict the power of the fDederal government. That's why the militia clause was included. The Constitution had given power to Congress to regulate the militia. This power was preserved by the 2nd amendment while at the same time preserving individuals' rights to keep and bear arms. 

[kan...@aol.com]

I haven't seen any well regulated militias in my lifetime. And probably in several lifetimes

The militias have been replaced by a standing military. 

The  Second Amendment is moot. It no longer has any meaning in the current reality

"A  well regulated militia being NECESSARY" no longer is true. They are NOT necessary. Ergo, everything that follows in 2A has ZERO meaning. 

And boy do I realized that this will never occur. However, I can read; and I've read 2A as many time as any reasonable person

Since "Well regulated militia" no longer applies and is not necessary, the rest follows a not in force. 

I just thought of an interesting example:

The Voting Rights Act had parts stripped away, by THIS Supreme Court. Why? Because its applicability was deemed no longer necessary. This was of course stupid beyond reconning. Point is that elements of federal law can go away when no longer needed. And since militias are no longer necessary, the right to keep and bear arms no longer should be free from infringement. 

Let's rewrite 2A like this;

"The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed because a well regulated militia is necessary for a free state" Read as such, it's clear that the entire notion has disappeared. 

I won't be holding my breath, either that it will happen or that ANY gun nut will agree. 

[David Fairchild]

Standing armies are expressly forbidden by the Constitution. The fact there is one typifies the need for the 2A more than ever. 

"To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;" -   Article I, Section 8, Clause 12

[GMoney]

On Tue, Jun 18, 2024 at 10:40 AM David Fairchild <dfairc...@gmail.com> wrote:

Standing armies are expressly forbidden by the Constitution. The fact there is one typifies the need for the 2A more than ever. 

"To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;" -   Article I, Section 8, Clause 12

Don't they just get around that by re-appropriating every 1 year, 11 month and 30 days?

Which would make it....strictly speaking.....constitutional.

[Brian Kegerreis]

Thank you Dave, that's just one of many reasons why the 2A is so important. Frankly if it wasn't so important the statists wouldn't be trying so hard to subvert or eliminate it. 

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Kansas City Diversity Coalition" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to kansas-city-diversity...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/kansas-city-diversity-coalition/38af2c3d-9c3b-4cc6-acf9-08d97e9eb6d8n%40googlegroups.com.

[kan...@aol.com]

Brian, you have a whole quiver full of excuses for 2A, NONE of which the FF's had in mind when it was written. 

Since there WASN'T a standing army at the time, the existence of one today gives no cover to 2A. 

Dave, you should know better. Clearly 2A doesn't derive its existence from our current military. And since the US military has NEVER even hinted at conquering American citizens should probably derive comfort from that. However, there always exist a subset of paranoid crazies who think otherwise. And since their manufactured excuse for 2A is the ability to take on the US military, of course they want the right to keep ANY type of weapon. Small arms alone won't do it. 

See how clever circular reasoning gets you what you want? 

As for BK's statist bullshit, the reason that 2A needs to be examined more carefully is the same reason that the entire USC requires examination. And since a simple reading like mine calls plenty  into question, I think there is  plenty to examine. 

Note for easy reading that 2A says nothing about protecting people from the US military or African crocodiles. It says that the right to be armed arises from the NEED for a REGULATED militia. The "need" and the "regulation" just don't exist any longer.