2nd Amendment Unapologetic Meaning

[westwall]

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.

• "a free State" = not a tyranny
• "A well regulated Militia," is stated here to indicate it is assumed to arise given the right of the people to bear arms, and it is necessary to ensure a free state. It is not stated as a requisite to the right to bear arms.
• "right of the people to keep and bear Arms" there is no restriction on the types of arms here.

The guarantee of the right is intended for fighting/preventing a tyrannical government through the presence and actions of militias. Militias serve this purpose through the potential for widespread guerilla warfare. At the time, arms included canons. Given the intent is to allow for militias that could fight tyrannical governments, this right currently includes such things as conventional weapons, brass knuckles, rocket launchers, fully automatic machine guns, tanks, and all restrictions on such are in violation to the US Constitution.

It would not be expected that militias, guerilla groups, would have nukes. One way to look at what a militia might have, and, thus, what is included in the right to bear arms, is, "what arms are provided to fighting soldiers in the military". This notion reflects power-in-people-numbers, and, in this way, it is intended that militias could overthrow a tyrannical government if their numbers were large enough - given a tyrannical government would cause widespread rebellion by militias. Nukes are not a power-in-people-numbers weapon.

Frivolous Arguments
"But tanks/rocket launchers/automatic machine guns are dangerous "
So are cars, but more so is stupidity and ignorance. There is no constitutionality for the US government to restrict one's actions based on the potential danger to others.

"Rocket launchers could kill a lot of people"
So can bombs which require very little knowledge and cost. Rocket launchers are substantially more difficult to construct.

"A tank could kill a lot of people if it fell into the wrong hands"
Do you have any idea how much a tank costs to construct? Tanks are exceptionally expensive, and whoever owns one would probably take efforts to secure it.

"Higher lethality weapons would mean more massacres"
Apart from government or George Soros funded terrorism, massacres, especially in an un-restricted armed society, would rarely occur.




capego.icu

Blah blah. You know that's a recent interpretation right? Less than a decade old in fact.

No, it isn't. That is the ORIGINAL interpretation. Well Regulated is a term that means "in good working order" which is why you also see it emblazoned on clocks made from that era. Kind of stupid to think that you needed a law to control clocks. Don't ya think?

 

[Crepitus]

Blah blah. You know that's a recent interpretation right? Less than a decade old in fact.

View attachment 202890

Posting rwnj propaganda is not a response to my post.

I have to assume that means you are stumped.

No response to what I posted means you are stumped.
If Trump is Hitler now would be the time to push for repeal of the second amendment wonderful idea.

Lol, you know that imitation is the sincerist form of flattery right?

It's nice to have a new fan.

I said nothing about repealing the 2nd. I asked if you knew that your interpretation of it was fairly recent.you replied with rwnj stupidity.

Fan? I have a couple in tthe ceiling that moves hot air are you saying you want to be my fan?

Sigh.

Conservatives are really bad at come-backs.

 

[Crepitus]

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.

• "a free State" = not a tyranny
• "A well regulated Militia," is stated here to indicate it is assumed to arise given the right of the people to bear arms, and it is necessary to ensure a free state. It is not stated as a requisite to the right to bear arms.
• "right of the people to keep and bear Arms" there is no restriction on the types of arms here.

The guarantee of the right is intended for fighting/preventing a tyrannical government through the presence and actions of militias. Militias serve this purpose through the potential for widespread guerilla warfare. At the time, arms included canons. Given the intent is to allow for militias that could fight tyrannical governments, this right currently includes such things as conventional weapons, brass knuckles, rocket launchers, fully automatic machine guns, tanks, and all restrictions on such are in violation to the US Constitution.

It would not be expected that militias, guerilla groups, would have nukes. One way to look at what a militia might have, and, thus, what is included in the right to bear arms, is, "what arms are provided to fighting soldiers in the military". This notion reflects power-in-people-numbers, and, in this way, it is intended that militias could overthrow a tyrannical government if their numbers were large enough - given a tyrannical government would cause widespread rebellion by militias. Nukes are not a power-in-people-numbers weapon.

Frivolous Arguments
"But tanks/rocket launchers/automatic machine guns are dangerous "
So are cars, but more so is stupidity and ignorance. There is no constitutionality for the US government to restrict one's actions based on the potential danger to others.

"Rocket launchers could kill a lot of people"
So can bombs which require very little knowledge and cost. Rocket launchers are substantially more difficult to construct.

"A tank could kill a lot of people if it fell into the wrong hands"
Do you have any idea how much a tank costs to construct? Tanks are exceptionally expensive, and whoever owns one would probably take efforts to secure it.

"Higher lethality weapons would mean more massacres"
Apart from government or George Soros funded terrorism, massacres, especially in an un-restricted armed society, would rarely occur.




capego.icu

Blah blah. You know that's a recent interpretation right? Less than a decade old in fact.

No, it isn't. That is the ORIGINAL interpretation. Well Regulated is a term that means "in good working order" which is why you also see it emblazoned on clocks made from that era. Kind of stupid to think that you needed a law to control clocks. Don't ya think?

Uh huh, sure
And you were there to ask the framers what their original meaning was?

 

[Darkwind]

Like I said, militia's have defeated the strongest militaries in the world,

No mitia would defeat the us military, in force. Stop being absurd. You discredit yourself with this nonsense.

Do you comprehend what you read at all?

The US military would NOT be in play

It is about the people and their right to defend

Which is a separate discussion from the second amendment, as that was the snot it's intent or meaning. So you have no constitutional providence here, and you are forced to support your belief using your own arguments instead of deferring.

What? The entire purpose of the 2nd is to defend against a tyrannical government.

 

[Darkwind]

In addition, the predicate that we should only stand up against tyranny if we can win is the view a coward would

Which is not my view at all. I am saying you delude yourself to think you will "defeat tyranny" with your penis extenders. Tyranny, if it occurs (watch closely, a wannabe tyrant is in the white house) will be defeated with ideas and democratic process. Else it will not be defeated at all.

It is your view and you just expressed it yet again.

Like I said, militia's have defeated the strongest militaries in the world, but they would not have to fight the US military if government became tyrannical. The men and women who serve in our Armed Forces understand the nature of legal orders and are some of the most intelligent people on the planet.

I appreciate your analysis, but it is fundamentally wrong. These days, that a federal employee swears an oath to the constitution does not indicate they will follow it. And, good intended young men can be easily mislead into wrong actions (gulf of tonkin) and there are always sizeable subsets who will outright do evil deeds (waco). Arguing against militias in favor of the US military is either ignorant or malicious.

The problem with your argument would be one in which the rank and file, along with the officer corp, were kept in ignorance. Have you served?

I have.

There is a continuing and rigorous training program in the duties of the armed forces, the nature of legal orders, and the meaning of the oaths that were sworn.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

The same people that claim the US military is by far the greatest in the world and can't be defeated, are the very same people that will tell you they could defeat the US military with only semi-automatic rifles and 'true grit'.

Uh huh.

Don't spam my thread. Apparently you didn't read my OP. I've included tanks and rocket launchers.

So you are advocating that the general public be allowed to own tanks and rocket launchers and everything else up to nuclear weapons?

They already can with the right permit.

 

[westwall]

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.

• "a free State" = not a tyranny
• "A well regulated Militia," is stated here to indicate it is assumed to arise given the right of the people to bear arms, and it is necessary to ensure a free state. It is not stated as a requisite to the right to bear arms.
• "right of the people to keep and bear Arms" there is no restriction on the types of arms here.

The guarantee of the right is intended for fighting/preventing a tyrannical government through the presence and actions of militias. Militias serve this purpose through the potential for widespread guerilla warfare. At the time, arms included canons. Given the intent is to allow for militias that could fight tyrannical governments, this right currently includes such things as conventional weapons, brass knuckles, rocket launchers, fully automatic machine guns, tanks, and all restrictions on such are in violation to the US Constitution.

It would not be expected that militias, guerilla groups, would have nukes. One way to look at what a militia might have, and, thus, what is included in the right to bear arms, is, "what arms are provided to fighting soldiers in the military". This notion reflects power-in-people-numbers, and, in this way, it is intended that militias could overthrow a tyrannical government if their numbers were large enough - given a tyrannical government would cause widespread rebellion by militias. Nukes are not a power-in-people-numbers weapon.

Frivolous Arguments
"But tanks/rocket launchers/automatic machine guns are dangerous "
So are cars, but more so is stupidity and ignorance. There is no constitutionality for the US government to restrict one's actions based on the potential danger to others.

"Rocket launchers could kill a lot of people"
So can bombs which require very little knowledge and cost. Rocket launchers are substantially more difficult to construct.

"A tank could kill a lot of people if it fell into the wrong hands"
Do you have any idea how much a tank costs to construct? Tanks are exceptionally expensive, and whoever owns one would probably take efforts to secure it.

"Higher lethality weapons would mean more massacres"
Apart from government or George Soros funded terrorism, massacres, especially in an un-restricted armed society, would rarely occur.




capego.icu

Blah blah. You know that's a recent interpretation right? Less than a decade old in fact.

No, it isn't. That is the ORIGINAL interpretation. Well Regulated is a term that means "in good working order" which is why you also see it emblazoned on clocks made from that era. Kind of stupid to think that you needed a law to control clocks. Don't ya think?

Uh huh, sure
And you were there to ask the framers what their original meaning was?

No, I wasn't, but thankfully they were REALLLY well educated, and they wrote TONS of letters, and you know what, when you read their correspondences you get the idea really damned quick that they feared a illegitimate government even more than a foreign invader.

"I prefer dangerous freedom over peaceful slavery."
- Thomas Jefferson, letter to James Madison, January 30, 1787

"What country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance. Let them take arms."
- Thomas Jefferson, letter to James Madison, December 20, 1787

"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 (quoting 18th century criminologist Cesare Beccaria), 1774-1776

“They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
- Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania, 1759

"To disarm the people...s the most effectual way to enslave them."
- George Mason, referencing advice given to the British Parliament by Pennsylvania governor Sir William Keith, The Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adooption of the Federal Constitution, June 14, 1788

"Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed, as they are in almost every country in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops."
- Noah Webster, An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution, October 10, 1787

"Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined.... The great object is that every man be armed. Everyone who is able might have a gun."
- Patrick Henry, Speech to the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 5, 1778

"This may be considered as the true palladium of liberty.... The right of self defense is the first law of nature: in most governments it has been the study of rulers to confine this right within the narrowest limits possible. Wherever standing armies are kept up, and the right of the people to keep and bear arms is, under any color or pretext whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink of destruction."
- St. George Tucker, Blackstone's Commentaries on the Laws of England, 1803


And on and on and on. Your problem is you are not well read, unlike the majority of us here. Furthermore you choose to remain uneducated. That provides us with shiploads of ammunition to point out your errors.

 

[capego]

In addition, the predicate that we should only stand up against tyranny if we can win is the view a coward would

Which is not my view at all. I am saying you delude yourself to think you will "defeat tyranny" with your penis extenders. Tyranny, if it occurs (watch closely, a wannabe tyrant is in the white house) will be defeated with ideas and democratic process. Else it will not be defeated at all.

It is your view and you just expressed it yet again.

Like I said, militia's have defeated the strongest militaries in the world, but they would not have to fight the US military if government became tyrannical. The men and women who serve in our Armed Forces understand the nature of legal orders and are some of the most intelligent people on the planet.

I appreciate your analysis, but it is fundamentally wrong. These days, that a federal employee swears an oath to the constitution does not indicate they will follow it. And, good intended young men can be easily mislead into wrong actions (gulf of tonkin) and there are always sizeable subsets who will outright do evil deeds (waco). Arguing against militias in favor of the US military is either ignorant or malicious.

The problem with your argument would be one in which the rank and file, along with the officer corp, were kept in ignorance. Have you served?

I have.

There is a continuing and rigorous training program in the duties of the armed forces, the nature of legal orders, and the meaning of the oaths that were sworn.

You seem to miss the meta point of the 2nd amendment: you can't trust people to keep to the word of a contract and so you must have failsafes. The failsafes do not include having government employees read their contracts multiple times (training).

The examples I gave validate the ability to keep the rank and file in ignorance. Further, gun confiscation in Katrina illustrates a direct violation.

How can you argue for the non-ignorance and effectiveness of the US military while the 2nd amendment is currently being violated in all states and at the level of the federal government?

 

[Darkwind]

In addition, the predicate that we should only stand up against tyranny if we can win is the view a coward would

Which is not my view at all. I am saying you delude yourself to think you will "defeat tyranny" with your penis extenders. Tyranny, if it occurs (watch closely, a wannabe tyrant is in the white house) will be defeated with ideas and democratic process. Else it will not be defeated at all.

It is your view and you just expressed it yet again.

Like I said, militia's have defeated the strongest militaries in the world, but they would not have to fight the US military if government became tyrannical. The men and women who serve in our Armed Forces understand the nature of legal orders and are some of the most intelligent people on the planet.

I appreciate your analysis, but it is fundamentally wrong. These days, that a federal employee swears an oath to the constitution does not indicate they will follow it. And, good intended young men can be easily mislead into wrong actions (gulf of tonkin) and there are always sizeable subsets who will outright do evil deeds (waco). Arguing against militias in favor of the US military is either ignorant or malicious.

The problem with your argument would be one in which the rank and file, along with the officer corp, were kept in ignorance. Have you served?

I have.

There is a continuing and rigorous training program in the duties of the armed forces, the nature of legal orders, and the meaning of the oaths that were sworn.

You seem to miss the meta point of the 2nd amendment: you can't trust people to keep to the word of a contract and so you must have failsafes. The failsafes do not include having government employees read their contracts multiple times (training).

The examples I gave validate the ability to keep the rank and file in ignorance. Further, gun confiscation in Katrina illustrates a direct violation.

How can you argue for the non-ignorance and effectiveness of the US military while the 2nd amendment is currently being violated in all states and at the level of the federal government?

I think you're the one missing the point. I trust the people of the U.S. Armed forces to keep their oath far more than I do any civilian government employee. They actually understand the Constitution and the founding generation and the purpose behind each of the Amendments in the Bill of Rights.

The military will not be a problem if ever the day comes that we must actually exercise that failsafe.

You are free to disagree of course. However, until you have served, you won't get it, and cite a few examples where the rights of the citizenry were violated does not equate to a military that will take over the country or support a tyranny.

Its poor thinking at its finest.

I respectfully disagree.

 

[capego]

Which is not my view at all. I am saying you delude yourself to think you will "defeat tyranny" with your penis extenders. Tyranny, if it occurs (watch closely, a wannabe tyrant is in the white house) will be defeated with ideas and democratic process. Else it will not be defeated at all.

It is your view and you just expressed it yet again.

Like I said, militia's have defeated the strongest militaries in the world, but they would not have to fight the US military if government became tyrannical. The men and women who serve in our Armed Forces understand the nature of legal orders and are some of the most intelligent people on the planet.

I appreciate your analysis, but it is fundamentally wrong. These days, that a federal employee swears an oath to the constitution does not indicate they will follow it. And, good intended young men can be easily mislead into wrong actions (gulf of tonkin) and there are always sizeable subsets who will outright do evil deeds (waco). Arguing against militias in favor of the US military is either ignorant or malicious.

The problem with your argument would be one in which the rank and file, along with the officer corp, were kept in ignorance. Have you served?

I have.

There is a continuing and rigorous training program in the duties of the armed forces, the nature of legal orders, and the meaning of the oaths that were sworn.

You seem to miss the meta point of the 2nd amendment: you can't trust people to keep to the word of a contract and so you must have failsafes. The failsafes do not include having government employees read their contracts multiple times (training).

The examples I gave validate the ability to keep the rank and file in ignorance. Further, gun confiscation in Katrina illustrates a direct violation.

How can you argue for the non-ignorance and effectiveness of the US military while the 2nd amendment is currently being violated in all states and at the level of the federal government?

I think you're the one missing the point. I trust the people of the U.S. Armed forces to keep their oath far more than I do any civilian government employee. They actually understand the Constitution and the founding generation and the purpose behind each of the Amendments in the Bill of Rights.

The military will not be a problem if ever the day comes that we must actually exercise that failsafe.

You are free to disagree of course. However, until you have served, you won't get it, and cite a few examples where the rights of the citizenry were violated does not equate to a military that will take over the country or support a tyranny.

Its poor thinking at its finest.

I respectfully disagree.

"I trust the people of the U.S. Armed forces to keep their oath far more than I do any civilian government employee."
I trust members of the US Armed forces far more than civilian government employees too, but I don't see what this has to do with anything. Please consider that you are emotionally attached to the military through trauma and it seems to be affecting your ability to understand.

"They actually understand the Constitution and the founding generation and the purpose behind each of the Amendments in the Bill of Rights"
Let's say I have a very broad experience with military members and I have found this not to be the case. But, excluding each of our experiences, in that it is the duty of military members to *uphold* and defend the constitution, and that the constitution is being and has been violated in the very apparent 2nd amendment infringements for a very long time with no military interventions indicates my point exactly : you can't trust the military to uphold the constitution.

Further, it seems you are awaiting tyranny to announce itself. Please go read Tragedy and Hope and understand that is the minimum level of sophistication you must protect against.

There is another point I will make for others who might read this. A police force that operates normally but also protects a criminal violent mob enables that mob.

 

[miketx]

The same people that claim the US military is by far the greatest in the world and can't be defeated, are the very same people that will tell you they could defeat the US military with only semi-automatic rifles and 'true grit'.

Uh huh.

veitnam
afganistan
cambodia

your lie has been proven wrong many times over traitor.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

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.

• "a free State" = not a tyranny
• "A well regulated Militia," is stated here to indicate it is assumed to arise given the right of the people to bear arms, and it is necessary to ensure a free state. It is not stated as a requisite to the right to bear arms.
• "right of the people to keep and bear Arms" there is no restriction on the types of arms here.

The guarantee of the right is intended for fighting/preventing a tyrannical government through the presence and actions of militias. Militias serve this purpose through the potential for widespread guerilla warfare. At the time, arms included canons. Given the intent is to allow for militias that could fight tyrannical governments, this right currently includes such things as conventional weapons, brass knuckles, rocket launchers, fully automatic machine guns, tanks, and all restrictions on such are in violation to the US Constitution.

It would not be expected that militias, guerilla groups, would have nukes. One way to look at what a militia might have, and, thus, what is included in the right to bear arms, is, "what arms are provided to fighting soldiers in the military". This notion reflects power-in-people-numbers, and, in this way, it is intended that militias could overthrow a tyrannical government if their numbers were large enough - given a tyrannical government would cause widespread rebellion by militias. Nukes are not a power-in-people-numbers weapon.

Frivolous Arguments
"But tanks/rocket launchers/automatic machine guns are dangerous "
So are cars, but more so is stupidity and ignorance. There is no constitutionality for the US government to restrict one's actions based on the potential danger to others.

"Rocket launchers could kill a lot of people"
So can bombs which require very little knowledge and cost. Rocket launchers are substantially more difficult to construct.

"A tank could kill a lot of people if it fell into the wrong hands"
Do you have any idea how much a tank costs to construct? Tanks are exceptionally expensive, and whoever owns one would probably take efforts to secure it.

"Higher lethality weapons would mean more massacres"
Apart from government or George Soros funded terrorism, massacres, especially in an un-restricted armed society, would rarely occur.




capego.icu

Wrong.

There’s nothing in the text, history, or case law of the Second Amendment that authorizes the ‘overthrow’ of a lawfully, Constitutionally elected government reflecting the will of the majority of the people because a minority of citizens incorrectly perceive that government to have become ‘tyrannical.’

The Second Amendment doesn’t ‘trump’ the First.

The people retain the right to petition the government for a redress of grievances through the political or judicial process, not through ‘force of arms.’

There’s nothing in the text, history, or case law of the Constitution that identifies the ‘criteria of tyranny,’ there are no Constitutional ‘tripwires’ that warrant disregarding the will of the people or ‘authorizing’ the overthrow of a duly elected government.

The meaning of the Second Amendment is as determined by the Heller Court: an individual right to possess a firearm pursuant to lawful self-defense, unconnected with militia service, having nothing to do with ‘overthrowing’ tyranny.

 

[pismoe]

interesting to me are the Military Veterans or Retired government men or 'kings' men or Public Servants that are gun controllers . These include Retired Generals , Admirals , and Old guys with Veteran stitched on their baseball cap and current Commander / Astronauts Mark Kelly . And other Retired on taxpayer money like retired 'CIA' Chief Micheal Hayden . Seems that they didn't learn Gun Rights too well in the Military or in Public Service . --- Giffords Veterans Coalition - Giffords --- i think this link is interesting . I think that Retired General Stanley McCRYSTAL mentioned in my link doesn't like Americans having semi auto AR15 Rifles .

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

The guarantee of the right is intended for fighting/preventing a tyrannical government through the presence and actions of militias.

Not the domestic government. That is a myth.

Your point is meaningless. The right is intended to prevent tyranny, not specifically from within or without. That tyranny can arise from within only means the "that is a myth" is wholly ignorant.

What constitutes ‘tyranny’ – absent consensus the notion is meaningless.

What some might perceive to be ‘tyranny’ is in fact not.

The right’s ‘Red Dawn’ fantasy is as pathetic as it is wrong.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

The same people that claim the US military is by far the greatest in the world and can't be defeated, are the very same people that will tell you they could defeat the US military with only semi-automatic rifles and 'true grit'.

Uh huh.

Don't spam my thread. Apparently you didn't read my OP. I've included tanks and rocket launchers.

And the thread’s premise is just as wrong.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

The same people that claim the US military is by far the greatest in the world and can't be defeated, are the very same people that will tell you they could defeat the US military with only semi-automatic rifles and 'true grit'.

Uh huh.

Ya cause after all we had no problem in Vietnam or now in Afghanistan right?

Oh please, no comparison. If we had pooured a million troops into Afghanistan we could have made it the 51st state.

Your ignorance is not welcome on this thread. Go away. You don't understand guerilla warfare and apparently you don't understand that the US military would include militia members who would also rebel.

You’re in no position to accuse others of ‘ignorance,’ given the ignorance you’ve exhibited in this thread.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

The Federalist numbers 28 by Hamilton and 46 by Madison. Read em.

They're specific to the use by the States of force, meaning the use of their Militia forces (all able-bodied males capable of bearing arms) in self-defense against any Federal usurpers seeking to oppress or dominate one or more States by force in violation of the Constitution's limits on Federal power.

The argument for militias for states against the federal government does not negate the general principle of guerilla warfare against tyranny, and, is rather an example of such.
The principle being:
"
The obstacles to usurpation and the facilities of resistance increase with the increased extent of the state, provided the citizens understand their rights and are disposed to defend them. The natural strength of the people in a large community, in proportion to the artificial strength of the government, is greater than in a small, and of course more competent to a struggle with the attempts of the government to establish a tyranny.
"

The ‘argument’ for state militias ‘against’ the Federal government is devoid of merit absent the consent of the people – and seeks only to replace perceived ‘tyranny’ with actual tyranny.

 

[pismoe]

--- here is what veteran and retired General Stanley McCRYSTAL has to say about the AR 15 , --- Gen. McChrystal: Assault rifles are for battlefields, not schools --- And please see my post number 73 for some interesting info on Veterans that are working to disarm Americans . And of course , no sane person thinks that the AR15 should be used to shoot up schools .

 

[capego]

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.

• "a free State" = not a tyranny
• "A well regulated Militia," is stated here to indicate it is assumed to arise given the right of the people to bear arms, and it is necessary to ensure a free state. It is not stated as a requisite to the right to bear arms.
• "right of the people to keep and bear Arms" there is no restriction on the types of arms here.

The guarantee of the right is intended for fighting/preventing a tyrannical government through the presence and actions of militias. Militias serve this purpose through the potential for widespread guerilla warfare. At the time, arms included canons. Given the intent is to allow for militias that could fight tyrannical governments, this right currently includes such things as conventional weapons, brass knuckles, rocket launchers, fully automatic machine guns, tanks, and all restrictions on such are in violation to the US Constitution.

It would not be expected that militias, guerilla groups, would have nukes. One way to look at what a militia might have, and, thus, what is included in the right to bear arms, is, "what arms are provided to fighting soldiers in the military". This notion reflects power-in-people-numbers, and, in this way, it is intended that militias could overthrow a tyrannical government if their numbers were large enough - given a tyrannical government would cause widespread rebellion by militias. Nukes are not a power-in-people-numbers weapon.

Frivolous Arguments
"But tanks/rocket launchers/automatic machine guns are dangerous "
So are cars, but more so is stupidity and ignorance. There is no constitutionality for the US government to restrict one's actions based on the potential danger to others.

"Rocket launchers could kill a lot of people"
So can bombs which require very little knowledge and cost. Rocket launchers are substantially more difficult to construct.

"A tank could kill a lot of people if it fell into the wrong hands"
Do you have any idea how much a tank costs to construct? Tanks are exceptionally expensive, and whoever owns one would probably take efforts to secure it.

"Higher lethality weapons would mean more massacres"
Apart from government or George Soros funded terrorism, massacres, especially in an un-restricted armed society, would rarely occur.




capego.icu

Wrong.

There’s nothing in the text, history, or case law of the Second Amendment that authorizes the ‘overthrow’ of a lawfully, Constitutionally elected government reflecting the will of the majority of the people because a minority of citizens incorrectly perceive that government to have become ‘tyrannical.’

The Second Amendment doesn’t ‘trump’ the First.

The people retain the right to petition the government for a redress of grievances through the political or judicial process, not through ‘force of arms.’

There’s nothing in the text, history, or case law of the Constitution that identifies the ‘criteria of tyranny,’ there are no Constitutional ‘tripwires’ that warrant disregarding the will of the people or ‘authorizing’ the overthrow of a duly elected government.

The meaning of the Second Amendment is as determined by the Heller Court: an individual right to possess a firearm pursuant to lawful self-defense, unconnected with militia service, having nothing to do with ‘overthrowing’ tyranny.

"authorizes the 'overthrow'" . That is comical and speaks to your background.

"The Second Amendment doesn’t ‘trump’ the First." Who said it did? You've created a strawman.

'tripwires' are in the form of the actions of rebellion by militias who judge there to be tyranny in some aspect. For example, the Bundy case. But, given your background, you'd probably want to see the constitution say "when the government crosses line x, then you can ..."

"Heller Court: an individual right to possess a firearm pursuant to lawful self-defense, unconnected with militia service, having nothing to do with ‘overthrowing’ tyranny."
This misinterpretation tells me you are a rather dangerous troll who operates with misconstruction and lies.

From the court itself:

(a) The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms. Pp. 2–22.
(b) The prefatory clause comports with the Court’s interpretation of the operative clause. The “militia” comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense.

If anything, the right to bear arms apart from a militia is guaranteed, but the right to form a militia is implied.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

In addition, the predicate that we should only stand up against tyranny if we can win is the view a coward would

Which is not my view at all. I am saying you delude yourself to think you will "defeat tyranny" with your penis extenders. Tyranny, if it occurs (watch closely, a wannabe tyrant is in the white house) will be defeated with ideas and democratic process. Else it will not be defeated at all.

It is your view and you just expressed it yet again.

Like I said, militia's have defeated the strongest militaries in the world, but they would not have to fight the US military if government became tyrannical. The men and women who serve in our Armed Forces understand the nature of legal orders and are some of the most intelligent people on the planet.

I appreciate your analysis, but it is fundamentally wrong. These days, that a federal employee swears an oath to the constitution does not indicate they will follow it. And, good intended young men can be easily mislead into wrong actions (gulf of tonkin) and there are always sizeable subsets who will outright do evil deeds (waco). Arguing against militias in favor of the US military is either ignorant or malicious.

And arguing that the Second Amendment authorizes the overthrow of a lawfully elected government absent the consent of the people and consensus as to what constitutes tyranny is ignorant, reckless, and irresponsible.