The Clown in Chief

letzrockexpress

Veteran Expediter
That statement is an oxymoron. If it's in flux, then it's constantly being altered or changed, since flux literally means constant change, passage or movement.

Whatever my statement is it is not an oxymoron. Has the Constitution not been changed over the years? If it changed even one time then it is in flux. Flux can mean constant change or ever changing. Depending on the context you could say that document is ever changing. At the very least it is open to interpretation. If it were not we wouldn't have much need for the Supreme Court.

I think it's been clearly demonstrated that's not the case. Some parts of it is absolute, some parts aren't. Nevertheless, the phrase "shall not be infringed" is an absolute on every given day and does not meet your "unfettered or unrestricted" contention.

That depends on your definition of clearly...

Yes it was, but then again there are lots of phrases that were part of the original version that was not ratified by the states. The states refused to ratify the above version with a capital "M" Militia and a capital "S" State because capital letters denoted specific proper name meaning.

Correct though not really the point here.

No it didn't. It established the US National Guard as the chief body of organized military reserves in the United States and codified when the National Guard can be called into federal service.

The Act organized the two types of militia that could be called into federal service and who is eligible (age limits) to enlist or be appointed as an officer.

Of course the right to bear arms doesn't end at 45 (or 65 for former members of the regular military). Why would it? The right to keep and bear arms isn't dependent on being a member of the military or a militia. Never has been, and likely never will be.

It's only been in the past 50 years or so that gun control advocates have tried, in vain, to use the phrase, "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state..." as being the requirement to keep and bear arms. But since it's clear from the Federalist Papers and the intent of English Common-Law that the right of self-defense and self-preservation and resistance to oppression is a natural right, there is no question that the framers of the Constitution had no intention whatsoever of making the right to keep and bear arms predicated on militia membership. The courts have ruled resoundingly and unambiguously on this issue, which shouldn't be surprising since it is so clearly self-evident that anyone has the natural right to defend themselves against attack or oppression. It's a right that doesn't expire with age, nor is it a right that manifests itself only once you reach 17 years old.

It is ambiguous nonetheless. It says the "rights of the people shall not be infringed" but that is likely because, as George Mason once described, the militia is "the People in a certain capacity".That capacity is to repel invasions, suppress insurrections, and enforce the law. In this day and age, if I saw, let's say, a person attempting to break into my neighbor's house and I approached this individual with a hand gun, I know I would likely be arrested. Again, I'm talking about someone else's property, not my own. I imagine I could argue that I was enforcing the law under the guises of being a militia member because I am of the People. I wonder how that would turn out?
 

letzrockexpress

Veteran Expediter
Then you are opposed to all current and proposed gun control laws, UNLESS, they are put in by either an amendment or a Constitutional Convention. By opposed I mean as a point of law, NOT, your personal feelings on whether or not you agree with them.

Hey I'm just asking questions and calling it as I see it...Maybe I want to see a Constitutional Convention convened.
 

layoutshooter

Veteran Expediter
Retired Expediter
"In this day and age, if I saw, let's say, a person attempting to break into my neighbor's house and I approached this individual with a hand gun, I know I would likely be arrested."


It would depend on the state or local division in which you live. In the township/county I live in APPROACHING that individual and holding him/her/it until police arrived would not be a problem. I would use a shotgun though, more effective. There are numerous examples, throughout the country, of armed citizens stopping crimes either by detention or the use of force.
 

letzrockexpress

Veteran Expediter
Why don't you try then? In the mean time, ALL should abide by the Constitution.

Been there done that. Really I have. Nothing to do with the Second Amendment though. I don't have anything against the Second Amendment as it stands anyway. If it can't be tested or questioned, what good is it?
 

layoutshooter

Veteran Expediter
Retired Expediter
Been there done that. Really I have. Nothing to do with the Second Amendment though. I don't have anything against the Second Amendment as it stands anyway. If it can't be tested or questioned, what good is it?

What good is it? It enumerates my basic human right of self defense. I have the RIGHT to defend my family, home and country, from all enemies, both foreign and domestic, by what ever means that I see fit. THAT is what good it is. It will get tested if someone breaks into my home when I am here or attacks my wife or I when on the street. That will be a good test. When it comes down to it. The rights of the People are paramount. NO government entity can grant, restrict or remove rights. Right do NOT come from government and the People have the RIGHT to control their lives, including their government. My RIGHT to own and carry arms is just one tool in enforcing that right.
 

letzrockexpress

Veteran Expediter
What good is it? It enumerates my basic human right of self defense. I have the RIGHT to defend my family, home and country, from all enemies, both foreign and domestic, by what ever means that I see fit. THAT is what good it is. It will get tested if someone breaks into my home when I am here or attacks my wife or I when on the street. That will be a good test. When it comes down to it. The rights of the People are paramount. NO government entity can grant, restrict or remove rights. Right do NOT come from government and the People have the RIGHT to control their lives, including their government. My RIGHT to own and carry arms is just one tool in enforcing that right.

That's the point. Did you ever hear the expression" You're only as good as your weakest link'? If you don't test something you can't know how strong it is...
 

layoutshooter

Veteran Expediter
Retired Expediter
That's the point. Did you ever hear the expression" You're only as good as your weakest link'? If you don't test something you can't know how strong it is...

Nobody has had the stones to try it yet! :cool: Obama is our weakest link. Followed by Biden, the house, then the senate, the SC etc etc.
 
Top