maine

[BostonEd]

Yes. If you read what the founders said about it at the time it’s clear what they meant.

By definition, having to look at what someone said about something written is interpretation.

And, actually, I did look into the original intent. The second amendment was added at the last minute. It was meant to appease the southern states, who wanted to make sure that they could organize armed militias to track down runaway slaves. The southern states were concerned that if there was just a federal army, which would consist of both slave-holding and non-slave-holding states, that army could not be called upon to track down and capture escaped slaves. So if you look at "what the founders said about it at the time", I don't see anything that says it should be interpreted as "anyone can buy any firearm at any time."

 

[tx911]

By definition, having to look at what someone said about something written is interpretation.

And, actually, I did look into the original intent. The second amendment was added at the last minute. It was meant to appease the southern states, who wanted to make sure that they could organize armed militias to track down runaway slaves. The southern states were concerned that if there was just a federal army, which would consist of both slave-holding and non-slave-holding states, that army could not be called upon to track down and capture escaped slaves. So if you look at "what the founders said about it at the time", I don't see anything that says it should be interpreted as "anyone can buy any firearm at any time."

The entire bill of rights was added last minute, to appease the widespread fear amongst the colonists of any form of centralized government. They were afraid the federal government would be guilty of the same grievances they had against the crown, except in their own backyard. I'm not aware of it having anything at all to do with slavery.

“The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes…. Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.” – Thomas Jefferson, Commonplace Book

 

[Ms.Minnie]

By definition, having to look at what someone said about something written is interpretation.

And, actually, I did look into the original intent. The second amendment was added at the last minute. It was meant to appease the southern states, who wanted to make sure that they could organize armed militias to track down runaway slaves. The southern states were concerned that if there was just a federal army, which would consist of both slave-holding and non-slave-holding states, that army could not be called upon to track down and capture escaped slaves. So if you look at "what the founders said about it at the time", I don't see anything that says it should be interpreted as "anyone can buy any firearm at any time."

Please supply your source or sources of reference to come to this conclusion.

 

[dcassetta]

Well, this is the million-dollar question. If I had the answer, I would be a pretty amazing person.

As to the people who are hired to enforce the laws that say they won't, fire them. They are not doing the job they were hired to do so it seems pretty easy to me, fire them.

As to the elected officials who say they won't carry out the laws, vote them out of office. Of course, this becomes a problem because there are always going to be those who vote for them regardless of how bad a job they are doing (maybe THEY think they are doing a good job). That is something we don't have any real control over. The only thing we can hope for is that those voters start to wake up, open up their eyes and see things for what they truly are. There are laws on the books now at a federal level that our elected officials are not enforcing that are putting all of us at great risk. Let's all just hope and pray that we don't have another terrorist attack on our soil due to those elected officials not carrying out the laws they swore to uphold.

As far as who is in charge, I would say we the people are. We just have to stand together as a united front and MAKE those people who are hired or elected do the jobs they signed up for.

This is probably too political at this point.

I do think there is a difference between disagreeing with how elected or appointed officials are doing their job, and elected or appointed officials stating directly that they will not enforce a law. Perhaps I have missed it, but I have not seen a federal elected official directly state that they will not enforce a law. I have seen statements from a number of local officials, primarily sheriffs and police chiefs, saying they will not enforce a law. For some of them, it is due to a lack of time and/or manpower. But, for some, they state they personally do not agree with a law, so will not enforce it.