Exactly what and why was the 2nd amendment written like it is

[RetiredGySgt]

Wrong the 14th amendment solved that problem incorporating the amendments into the States.

The 14th amendment has absolutely nothing to do with the 2nd amendment at all. What are you smoking over there or are you just throwing crap at the wall and seeing what will stick?

The 14th amendment has been used since it was written to INCORPORATE the other amendments at the State level. Or do you deny the 5th 6th 8th 4th amendments do not apply to the States?

4th amendment limits the Federal government in what it can do as in housing federal troops, etc.. The State has the right to issue Warrants for searches, the Feds don't have that right. It's a limit on the Feds, not the State.

5th amendment came about because of the Robber Barons. The Feds just took what they wanted at the price they wanted and used Federal Troops to back it up with force. It was revised in 1992 and many years prior to that. It limits the Federal Government.

6th amendment just states that the State has the power to try and how they can do it. It removes the Federals from it except in extenuating conditions. Each State has it's own method of doing it.

The list goes on and on. Mostly, the first 10 amendments are for limiting the Federal Governments powers. And it points out some of the powers of the State. Now, please throw more crap on that wall. Maybe something else will stick.

Te 2nd amendment is an INDIVIDUAL right as determined by the Supreme Court I am afraid that applies to the States as well dumb ass.

It limits the Feds and puts the onus on the State. Get over yourself.

It is an individual right that States can not violate, pretty simple concept just like the 5th is an individual right.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

I notice that the fruitcakes don't like the history lesson so they hijack the thread. The real message is

The original founding fathers were made up of Auristocrats. And they made up only about 8% of the actual population. Their idea of what made up a real citizen was very narrow and if you didn't meet those requirements you weren't invited to join them. Here are the requirements to be a Citizen in 1770 according to the founding fathers

1. You must be Male
2. You must be White (No Tarnished Blood)
3. You must be a Land Owner
4, You must swear allegiance to the group of other "Citizens".

What seems to be left out is that the founding fathers condemned the Brits for trying to take the Rebels weapons to prevent a Revolution. But after the Revolution, the newly formed USA rounded up weapons of the Non Citizens to prevent a Revolution. This included British Simpthisers, all Blacks, All Spaniards, All Indians, ALL Mix Races, etc.. And don't forget the Women. One had to be a Citizen to own, possess, purchess and wield fire arms. During the Revolution, many "NoN" Citizens did use weapons on the promise that they would become land owners after the war making them full fledged Citizens. They were lied to. After the war, no land was granted and their weapons were confiscated. The Founding Fathers could not afford to have those people armed and allow them to assemble. There would have been another Revolution where the founding fathers wouldn't have fared so well.

Most of the first 10 Amendments have been revised to keep them current. Many have been redone as recent as 1992. But the 2nd amendment is still exactly as it was written. Don't you think it's time we updated it to modern times like most of the others? Or should be allow the 8% to be the only ones to have firearms and be the only ones to have the vote?

That however is NOT actually IN the Constitution ANYWHERE. Or perhaps YOU can quote for us the articles that cover it? And no one has rewritten the 10 amendments you retard.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

I won't look at today. I will look at the time around 1790.

Militia Act of 1792
Every citizen, so enrolled and notified, shall, within six months thereafter, provide himself with a good musket or firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints, and a knapsack, a pouch, with a box therein, to contain not less than twenty four cartridges, suited to the bore of his musket or firelock, each cartridge to contain a proper quantity of powder and ball; or with a good rifle, knapsack, shot-pouch, and powder-horn, twenty balls suited to the bore of his rifle, and a quarter of a pound of powder; and shall appear so armed, accoutred and provided, when called out to exercise or into service, except, that when called out on company days to exercise only, he may appear without a knapsack.

First we need to look at who was a Citizen in 1790s. In the 1790s, ALL Blacks even free Blacks were prohibited from owning and carrying firearms. All People even whites that would not swear allegiance to the newly formed United States were prohibited from owning or carrying fire arms. Women were prohibited from owning or carrying firearms. Bonded Slaves, even whites were prohibited from owning or carrying firearms of any kind. It all pretty much boiled down that a Citizen was a Free White Male Land Owner deemed to be in good standing with the Existing Government both Stated and Federal Governments. It's been estimated that only about 8% of the population from that time met the full requirement to own, possess and carry firearms legally. Remember, more than half of the population of that time either supported the Crown or leaned heavily in that direction. The Newly Formed Colonist Government did exactly what the British Government tried to do themselves.

There were two rebellions that made the Militia Act of 1792 to be written and adopted. The Shays Rebellion of 1786-1787 and the Whiskey Rebellion 1791-1794. While neither amounted to much, the founding fathers were scared to death that something else might come up that might endanger the newly formed Government so they adopted the 2nd Amendment as it was written since there was no Standing Army to prevent any decent resurrection from becoming successful. It was left up to each state individually to provide the militias to prevent it from happening. As long as the states agreed and didn't go to war with each other.

Using the original definition, if you don't own your House, Farm or Business and you don't completely and blindly support our current Government then are not a Citizen in Good Standings and will not be afforded the right to own, posses or carry any form of Firearms. Oh, and you must be a Free White Male as well.

Well, we have what the Founding Fathers were saying in the House (unfortunately the Senate was secret).

Amendment II: House of Representatives, Amendments to the Constitution

Basically they talk about what "bear arms" means.

It means "render military service" and "militia duty".

It's clear as day.

Sit back and watch everyone come on here and ignore the fuck out of this document because it's not convenient for them.

It took the war of 1812 to get rid of the "No Standing Army" clause. As weak as the Brits were in the Americas, the USA had to take the time to raise an Army in order to combat them. It took the burning of the Whitehouse for it to sink in. It was later changed to a standing army of no more than 75,000 which was deemed enough to buy the time to raise an even larger army if needed. At that point, the 2nd amendment no longer made a lot of sense since no one state could really raise a Militia of 75,000 or more Militia if the Feds decided to go rogue for many decades. The 2nd amendment is archaically worded and should have been updated right after 1812 to match the change in times.

Now, I might support it if it were to be changed to "Arm Bears". it would make hunting Bears a whole new experience. Imagine hunting a Bear who is armed with a Mah Duece. Or cornering a Deer who is armed with a Bazooka. Or a Rabbit with a 9mm Handgun. makes that walk through the woods a real adventure.

But the point of the militia isn't just to have a replacement for the standing army.

In their brilliance, our "Founding Fathers" tried to not have a standing army at all. In it's place was a state sponsored Militia that could be called up at will by each state. That only works until another country with a standing army attacks. In 1812, Britain attacked and overwhelmed the various Militias who weren't working together. So the USA quickly put together a Standing Army to combat the Brits. The Brits realized that it wouldn't take much to defeat the US because of the ridiculousness of it's military doctrine so they really didn't take it very serious. It was a steep learning curve that the US adapted to fast. Britain came very close to defeating the US. After that, there was a standing army of not more than 75,000 rule that was in force for many decades for the US until right around the start of the Civil War or possibly the Indian wars.

The original point of the Militia was so that there was no need for a standing army at all to prevent the Federals from becoming too powerful. It didn't work out too well.

Could there, possibly, be more than one reason to have a militia?

There certainly is. In Texas during the emergencies, it's the Texas State Militias that handle it. The Governor requires all Federal Units to work under the State Militias. It really chaps the Feds Drawers. This is why the Texans can handle emergencies better than any other state.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

I notice that the fruitcakes don't like the history lesson so they hijack the thread. The real message is

The original founding fathers were made up of Auristocrats. And they made up only about 8% of the actual population. Their idea of what made up a real citizen was very narrow and if you didn't meet those requirements you weren't invited to join them. Here are the requirements to be a Citizen in 1770 according to the founding fathers

1. You must be Male
2. You must be White (No Tarnished Blood)
3. You must be a Land Owner
4, You must swear allegiance to the group of other "Citizens".

What seems to be left out is that the founding fathers condemned the Brits for trying to take the Rebels weapons to prevent a Revolution. But after the Revolution, the newly formed USA rounded up weapons of the Non Citizens to prevent a Revolution. This included British Simpthisers, all Blacks, All Spaniards, All Indians, ALL Mix Races, etc.. And don't forget the Women. One had to be a Citizen to own, possess, purchess and wield fire arms. During the Revolution, many "NoN" Citizens did use weapons on the promise that they would become land owners after the war making them full fledged Citizens. They were lied to. After the war, no land was granted and their weapons were confiscated. The Founding Fathers could not afford to have those people armed and allow them to assemble. There would have been another Revolution where the founding fathers wouldn't have fared so well.

Most of the first 10 Amendments have been revised to keep them current. Many have been redone as recent as 1992. But the 2nd amendment is still exactly as it was written. Don't you think it's time we updated it to modern times like most of the others? Or should be allow the 8% to be the only ones to have firearms and be the only ones to have the vote?

That however is NOT actually IN the Constitution ANYWHERE. Or perhaps YOU can quote for us the articles that cover it? And no one has rewritten the 10 amendments you retard.

Most were revised in 1992. Revised means rewritten. Now, go away and please stop throwing so much crap at the wall to see if anything will stick. I don't have time for your nonsense.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

I notice that the fruitcakes don't like the history lesson so they hijack the thread. The real message is

The original founding fathers were made up of Auristocrats. And they made up only about 8% of the actual population. Their idea of what made up a real citizen was very narrow and if you didn't meet those requirements you weren't invited to join them. Here are the requirements to be a Citizen in 1770 according to the founding fathers

1. You must be Male
2. You must be White (No Tarnished Blood)
3. You must be a Land Owner
4, You must swear allegiance to the group of other "Citizens".

What seems to be left out is that the founding fathers condemned the Brits for trying to take the Rebels weapons to prevent a Revolution. But after the Revolution, the newly formed USA rounded up weapons of the Non Citizens to prevent a Revolution. This included British Simpthisers, all Blacks, All Spaniards, All Indians, ALL Mix Races, etc.. And don't forget the Women. One had to be a Citizen to own, possess, purchess and wield fire arms. During the Revolution, many "NoN" Citizens did use weapons on the promise that they would become land owners after the war making them full fledged Citizens. They were lied to. After the war, no land was granted and their weapons were confiscated. The Founding Fathers could not afford to have those people armed and allow them to assemble. There would have been another Revolution where the founding fathers wouldn't have fared so well.

Most of the first 10 Amendments have been revised to keep them current. Many have been redone as recent as 1992. But the 2nd amendment is still exactly as it was written. Don't you think it's time we updated it to modern times like most of the others? Or should be allow the 8% to be the only ones to have firearms and be the only ones to have the vote?

That however is NOT actually IN the Constitution ANYWHERE. Or perhaps YOU can quote for us the articles that cover it? And no one has rewritten the 10 amendments you retard.

Most were revised in 1992. Revised means rewritten. Now, go away and please stop throwing so much crap at the wall to see if anything will stick. I don't have time for your nonsense.

Link me to the NEW 10 amendments you moron they can NOT be rewritten unless amended.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Well, we have what the Founding Fathers were saying in the House (unfortunately the Senate was secret).

Amendment II: House of Representatives, Amendments to the Constitution

Basically they talk about what "bear arms" means.

It means "render military service" and "militia duty".

It's clear as day.

Sit back and watch everyone come on here and ignore the fuck out of this document because it's not convenient for them.

It took the war of 1812 to get rid of the "No Standing Army" clause. As weak as the Brits were in the Americas, the USA had to take the time to raise an Army in order to combat them. It took the burning of the Whitehouse for it to sink in. It was later changed to a standing army of no more than 75,000 which was deemed enough to buy the time to raise an even larger army if needed. At that point, the 2nd amendment no longer made a lot of sense since no one state could really raise a Militia of 75,000 or more Militia if the Feds decided to go rogue for many decades. The 2nd amendment is archaically worded and should have been updated right after 1812 to match the change in times.

Now, I might support it if it were to be changed to "Arm Bears". it would make hunting Bears a whole new experience. Imagine hunting a Bear who is armed with a Mah Duece. Or cornering a Deer who is armed with a Bazooka. Or a Rabbit with a 9mm Handgun. makes that walk through the woods a real adventure.

But the point of the militia isn't just to have a replacement for the standing army.

In their brilliance, our "Founding Fathers" tried to not have a standing army at all. In it's place was a state sponsored Militia that could be called up at will by each state. That only works until another country with a standing army attacks. In 1812, Britain attacked and overwhelmed the various Militias who weren't working together. So the USA quickly put together a Standing Army to combat the Brits. The Brits realized that it wouldn't take much to defeat the US because of the ridiculousness of it's military doctrine so they really didn't take it very serious. It was a steep learning curve that the US adapted to fast. Britain came very close to defeating the US. After that, there was a standing army of not more than 75,000 rule that was in force for many decades for the US until right around the start of the Civil War or possibly the Indian wars.

The original point of the Militia was so that there was no need for a standing army at all to prevent the Federals from becoming too powerful. It didn't work out too well.

Could there, possibly, be more than one reason to have a militia?

There certainly is. In Texas during the emergencies, it's the Texas State Militias that handle it. The Governor requires all Federal Units to work under the State Militias. It really chaps the Feds Drawers. This is why the Texans can handle emergencies better than any other state.

I was thinking more about it from the protection from the Federal government point of view.

While I'm not sure this is the right way to go, it's what it is whether you like it or not.

 

[WinterBorn]

I notice that the fruitcakes don't like the history lesson so they hijack the thread. The real message is

The original founding fathers were made up of Auristocrats. And they made up only about 8% of the actual population. Their idea of what made up a real citizen was very narrow and if you didn't meet those requirements you weren't invited to join them. Here are the requirements to be a Citizen in 1770 according to the founding fathers

1. You must be Male
2. You must be White (No Tarnished Blood)
3. You must be a Land Owner
4, You must swear allegiance to the group of other "Citizens".

What seems to be left out is that the founding fathers condemned the Brits for trying to take the Rebels weapons to prevent a Revolution. But after the Revolution, the newly formed USA rounded up weapons of the Non Citizens to prevent a Revolution. This included British Simpthisers, all Blacks, All Spaniards, All Indians, ALL Mix Races, etc.. And don't forget the Women. One had to be a Citizen to own, possess, purchess and wield fire arms. During the Revolution, many "NoN" Citizens did use weapons on the promise that they would become land owners after the war making them full fledged Citizens. They were lied to. After the war, no land was granted and their weapons were confiscated. The Founding Fathers could not afford to have those people armed and allow them to assemble. There would have been another Revolution where the founding fathers wouldn't have fared so well.

Most of the first 10 Amendments have been revised to keep them current. Many have been redone as recent as 1992. But the 2nd amendment is still exactly as it was written. Don't you think it's time we updated it to modern times like most of the others? Or should be allow the 8% to be the only ones to have firearms and be the only ones to have the vote?

That however is NOT actually IN the Constitution ANYWHERE. Or perhaps YOU can quote for us the articles that cover it? And no one has rewritten the 10 amendments you retard.

Most were revised in 1992. Revised means rewritten. Now, go away and please stop throwing so much crap at the wall to see if anything will stick. I don't have time for your nonsense.

Rewritten in 1992? Got a link for that?

The wording is the same as when I learned them in school in the 1970s.

 

[danielpalos]

Wrong the 14th amendment solved that problem incorporating the amendments into the States.

The 14th amendment has absolutely nothing to do with the 2nd amendment at all. What are you smoking over there or are you just throwing crap at the wall and seeing what will stick?

The 14th amendment has been used since it was written to INCORPORATE the other amendments at the State level. Or do you deny the 5th 6th 8th 4th amendments do not apply to the States?

4th amendment limits the Federal government in what it can do as in housing federal troops, etc.. The State has the right to issue Warrants for searches, the Feds don't have that right. It's a limit on the Feds, not the State.

5th amendment came about because of the Robber Barons. The Feds just took what they wanted at the price they wanted and used Federal Troops to back it up with force. It was revised in 1992 and many years prior to that. It limits the Federal Government.

6th amendment just states that the State has the power to try and how they can do it. It removes the Federals from it except in extenuating conditions. Each State has it's own method of doing it.

The list goes on and on. Mostly, the first 10 amendments are for limiting the Federal Governments powers. And it points out some of the powers of the State. Now, please throw more crap on that wall. Maybe something else will stick.

Te 2nd amendment is an INDIVIDUAL right as determined by the Supreme Court I am afraid that applies to the States as well dumb ass.

No, it doesn't. We have a Tenth Amendment. Both militia and the people are plural, not singular.

 

[flacaltenn]

(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. The Antifederalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to disable this citizens’ militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, so that the ideal of a citizens’ militia would be preserved. Pp. 22–28.

(c) The Court’s interpretation is confirmed by analogous arms-bearing rights in state constitutions that preceded and immediately followed the Second Amendment. Pp. 28–30.

(d) The Second Amendment’s drafting history, while of dubious interpretive worth, reveals three state Second Amendment proposals that unequivocally referred to an individual right to bear arms. Pp. 30–32.

(e) Interpretation of the Second Amendment by scholars, courts and legislators, from immediately after its ratification through the late 19th century also supports the Court’s conclusion. Pp. 32–47.

There it is.. The Bill of Rights was an afterthought to SELL and MARKET the Constitution. There was never a NEED to specify state any POSITIVE rights reserved to the People and the States. But the 10 Amendments were a marketing tool to attempt to address all of the dissent and detractors. And citizens bearing arms had SEVERAL components to it and necessitated some "compression" of wording.

 

[danielpalos]

There are two rules of construction, dictated by plain reason, as well as founded on legal axioms. The one is, that every part of the expression ought, if possible, to be allowed some meaning, and be made to conspire to some common end. The other is, that where the several parts cannot be made to coincide, the less important should give way to the more important part; the means should be sacrificed to the end, rather than the end to the means.

The Federalist Number Forty

 

[Pop23]

If the 2nd amendment was meant as the left says it was........

WHY THE HELL WOULD IT APPEAR IN THE BILL IF RIGHTS IN THE FIRST PLACE.

Clue, it wouldn’t

 

[Daryl Hunt]

If the 2nd amendment was meant as the left says it was........

WHY THE HELL WOULD IT APPEAR IN THE BILL IF RIGHTS IN THE FIRST PLACE.

Clue, it wouldn’t

We aren't governed by any part of the Bill of Rights. We are governed by the Constitutions of the United States and the many States. As nice and lofty as the Bill of Rights is, it's just another piece of parchment, nothing more.

 

[Pop23]

If the 2nd amendment was meant as the left says it was........

WHY THE HELL WOULD IT APPEAR IN THE BILL IF RIGHTS IN THE FIRST PLACE.

Clue, it wouldn’t

We aren't governed by any part of the Bill of Rights. We are governed by the Constitutions of the United States and the many States. As nice and lofty as the Bill of Rights is, it's just another piece of parchment, nothing more.

LOL, you can’t make an argument as to why it would be included in something THAT WOULD BE SO OUT OF PLACE, that now none of the bill of rights are applicable?

Wow, just wow.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

If the 2nd amendment was meant as the left says it was........

WHY THE HELL WOULD IT APPEAR IN THE BILL IF RIGHTS IN THE FIRST PLACE.

Clue, it wouldn’t

We aren't governed by any part of the Bill of Rights. We are governed by the Constitutions of the United States and the many States. As nice and lofty as the Bill of Rights is, it's just another piece of parchment, nothing more.

LOL, you can’t make an argument as to why it would be included in something THAT WOULD BE SO OUT OF PLACE, that now none of the bill of rights are applicable?

Wow, just wow.

I just stated a fact for your straw man. We are governed by the Constitution which may be based on the Bill of Rights but it's not exactly like the Bill or Rights. There are no amendments past 10 for the bill of rights. If the Bill of Rights were so perfect, the Constitution would not have been written so that amendments were able to be added later. We are governed by the Constitution, not the Bill of Rights.

 

[westwall]

Applying 21st Century mores to 18th Century thinking is an exercise in vanity.

The militia is bound to the right. The right is not bound to the militia.

If you want to follow the meaning of the 2nd amendment, the Militia is bound to the Government which should be neither right nor left, it just is.

Wow, you really don'tunderstand the English language do you. The Militia was a COUNTER to the government. It wasn't bound to the government, it was a defense FROM the government.

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms."
- Thomas Jefferson, Virginia Constitution, Draft 1, 1776

"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

"The Constitution of most of our states (and of the United States) assert that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed."
- Thomas Jefferson, letter to to John Cartwright, 5 June 1824

"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

"Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of."
- James Madison, Federalist No. 46, January 29, 1788




And on and on and on. The 2nd Amendment is the ultimate defender of ALL other Rights. Or, as a much smarter person than I ever said, "the Bill of Rights is nine limitations on what government can do....and one, final option."

 

[westwall]

If the 2nd amendment was meant as the left says it was........

WHY THE HELL WOULD IT APPEAR IN THE BILL IF RIGHTS IN THE FIRST PLACE.

Clue, it wouldn’t

We aren't governed by any part of the Bill of Rights. We are governed by the Constitutions of the United States and the many States. As nice and lofty as the Bill of Rights is, it's just another piece of parchment, nothing more.

LOL, you can’t make an argument as to why it would be included in something THAT WOULD BE SO OUT OF PLACE, that now none of the bill of rights are applicable?

Wow, just wow.

I just stated a fact for your straw man. We are governed by the Constitution which may be based on the Bill of Rights but it's not exactly like the Bill or Rights. There are no amendments past 10 for the bill of rights. If the Bill of Rights were so perfect, the Constitution would not have been written so that amendments were able to be added later. We are governed by the Constitution, not the Bill of Rights.

Correct, but the Bill of Rights was a REQUIREMENT for the Constitution to be ratified. Without the Bill of Rights, there would be no Constitution.

 

[frigidweirdo]

If the 2nd amendment was meant as the left says it was........

WHY THE HELL WOULD IT APPEAR IN THE BILL IF RIGHTS IN THE FIRST PLACE.

Clue, it wouldn’t

We aren't governed by any part of the Bill of Rights. We are governed by the Constitutions of the United States and the many States. As nice and lofty as the Bill of Rights is, it's just another piece of parchment, nothing more.

But the Bill of Rights is part of the US Constitution.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

Applying 21st Century mores to 18th Century thinking is an exercise in vanity.

The militia is bound to the right. The right is not bound to the militia.

If you want to follow the meaning of the 2nd amendment, the Militia is bound to the Government which should be neither right nor left, it just is.

Wow, you really don'tunderstand the English language do you. The Militia was a COUNTER to the government. It wasn't bound to the government, it was a defense FROM the government.

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms."
- Thomas Jefferson, Virginia Constitution, Draft 1, 1776

"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

"The Constitution of most of our states (and of the United States) assert that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed."
- Thomas Jefferson, letter to to John Cartwright, 5 June 1824

"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

"Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of."
- James Madison, Federalist No. 46, January 29, 1788




And on and on and on. The 2nd Amendment is the ultimate defender of ALL other Rights. Or, as a much smarter person than I ever said, "the Bill of Rights is nine limitations on what government can do....and one, final option."

I didn't say which government. You assumed I meant the Federal Government while you are looking for a fight or just trying to be right. You are kind of right. But the 2nd amendment is what gives the States the right to have State Militias seperate from the Federal Forces and even the National Guard. The State can raise an army if it feels the need. And THAT is the Organized Militia, not the National Guard which can be Nationalized. But the first half of the 2nd amendment is probably not necessary so much anymore and is primarily used by nutjobs that just want to run around the woods calling themselves Militias. I call them potential Lynch Mobs. But a few states still have State Guards and do use them in case of Emergency when one arises. It really burns Femas drawers when the State Guard takes charge and Fema has to work for them.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

If the 2nd amendment was meant as the left says it was........

WHY THE HELL WOULD IT APPEAR IN THE BILL IF RIGHTS IN THE FIRST PLACE.

Clue, it wouldn’t

We aren't governed by any part of the Bill of Rights. We are governed by the Constitutions of the United States and the many States. As nice and lofty as the Bill of Rights is, it's just another piece of parchment, nothing more.

But the Bill of Rights is part of the US Constitution.

Yes, but the Bill of Rights is not the Constitution. It's a seperate document that has no legal standings. The Constitution did take it's first 10 amendments from it but the constitution is more than that and is the law of the land. The Bill of Rights is just a supporting document. Anyone states that we must follow the bill or rights over the Constitution doesn't get my support.

 

[westwall]

Applying 21st Century mores to 18th Century thinking is an exercise in vanity.

The militia is bound to the right. The right is not bound to the militia.

If you want to follow the meaning of the 2nd amendment, the Militia is bound to the Government which should be neither right nor left, it just is.

Wow, you really don'tunderstand the English language do you. The Militia was a COUNTER to the government. It wasn't bound to the government, it was a defense FROM the government.

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms."
- Thomas Jefferson, Virginia Constitution, Draft 1, 1776

"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

"The Constitution of most of our states (and of the United States) assert that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed."
- Thomas Jefferson, letter to to John Cartwright, 5 June 1824

"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

"Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of."
- James Madison, Federalist No. 46, January 29, 1788




And on and on and on. The 2nd Amendment is the ultimate defender of ALL other Rights. Or, as a much smarter person than I ever said, "the Bill of Rights is nine limitations on what government can do....and one, final option."

I didn't say which government. You assumed I meant the Federal Government while you are looking for a fight or just trying to be right. You are kind of right. But the 2nd amendment is what gives the States the right to have State Militias seperate from the Federal Forces and even the National Guard. The State can raise an army if it feels the need. And THAT is the Organized Militia, not the National Guard which can be Nationalized. But the first half of the 2nd amendment is probably not necessary so much anymore and is primarily used by nutjobs that just want to run around the woods calling themselves Militias. I call them potential Lynch Mobs. But a few states still have State Guards and do use them in case of Emergency when one arises. It really burns Femas drawers when the State Guard takes charge and Fema has to work for them.

Nice try, but there is no Bill of Rights for any other government so you had to be talking about our Federal government. and, you are wrong. The 2nd Amendment enumerates a Right of the individual to keep arms for their own PRIVATE defense. It conveys no Rights to the State at all. The State after all IS power. The ridiculous claim that the 2nd gives the government the right to arm itself is simply stupid. States have no Rights. PEOPLE DO.