REMINDER: The Second Amendment Is Not About Hunting

[Wehrwolfen]

REMINDER: The Second Amendment Is Not About Hunting​

By Michael Geer
01/11/2013

You know it. I know it. The unspoken truth is the Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America is about citizens resisting and overcoming tyranny. A common law and natural law right considered for 200+ years as an inalienable right. Speaking plainly, the 2nd is our bulwark against government which becomes despotic. Armed free citizens are the final bulwark against tyranny by local, state or federal government. When the Declaration, the Constitution and the Bill of Rights committed our people to founding a new Nation guns were natural and necessary. For putting food on the table and wait for it, personal defense against hostilities

Armed citizens have a long history of taking action to correct despotic governments. Feudal economies faded away due in no small part to enough peasants acquiring arms. And the will to use them.

Federalist 46. James Madison, known as the author of most of the Bill of Rights said of arms and the common man ...


Read more:
Blog: The Second Amendment Is Not About Hunting

 

[emptystep]

So the founding fathers create "a more perfect union", put in all kinds of checks and balances, fought tooth and nail to make it the best government they could, and then they threw in a clause saying "oh yeah, if you want to overthrow it go right ahead".

 

[hazlnut]

So the founding fathers create "a more perfect union", put in all kinds of checks and balances, fought tooth and nail to make it the best government they could, and then they threw in a clause saying "oh yeah, if you want to overthrow it go right ahead".

And no Amendment is not not without legal exceptions.

 

[Some Guy]

So the founding fathers create "a more perfect union", put in all kinds of checks and balances, fought tooth and nail to make it the best government they could, and then they threw in a clause saying "oh yeah, if you want to overthrow it go right ahead".

Simply, yes. They laid out the rules by which the people may be governed and did the best they could. But they also seemed to realize that no one is perfect and tried to build in protection for the people against a government that grows too large and oppressive in spite of their guidelines.

 

[AsheedMidrarwz]

Thomas Jefferson
No freeman shall ever be debarred the use of arms. Proposed Virginia Constitution, June, 1776.

The constitutions of most of our States assert, that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves, ... or they may act by representatives, freely and equally chosen; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed; that they are entitled to freedom of person, freedom of religion, freedom of property, and freedom of the press. Letter to Major John Cartwright (5 June 1824).

 

[nodoginnafight]

So the founding fathers create "a more perfect union", put in all kinds of checks and balances, fought tooth and nail to make it the best government they could, and then they threw in a clause saying "oh yeah, if you want to overthrow it go right ahead".

Simply, yes. They laid out the rules by which the people may be governed and did the best they could. But they also seemed to realize that no one is perfect and tried to build in protection for the people against a government that grows too large and oppressive in spite of their guidelines.

Keep running with that. It's a silly legal argument and a suicidal PR talking point. Your gonna run your mouths right into a gun-free society.

 

[Mad Scientist]

So the founding fathers create "a more perfect union", put in all kinds of checks and balances, fought tooth and nail to make it the best government they could, and then they threw in a clause saying "oh yeah, if you want to overthrow it go right ahead".

Wrong. The 2nd Amendment is to prevent Oppression at the hands of a Tyrannical Gov't, just as the Founding Fathers suffered under the hand of the British.

 

[Some Guy]

So the founding fathers create "a more perfect union", put in all kinds of checks and balances, fought tooth and nail to make it the best government they could, and then they threw in a clause saying "oh yeah, if you want to overthrow it go right ahead".

Simply, yes. They laid out the rules by which the people may be governed and did the best they could. But they also seemed to realize that no one is perfect and tried to build in protection for the people against a government that grows too large and oppressive in spite of their guidelines.

Keep running with that. It's a silly legal argument and a suicidal PR talking point. Your gonna run your mouths right into a gun-free society.

For one, i don't even own a gun and don't ever plan on it.

Second: if the second amendment isn't intended to protect the people from the government, then why is it there? Obviously the founding fathers had a reason for it.

 

[emptystep]

So the founding fathers create "a more perfect union", put in all kinds of checks and balances, fought tooth and nail to make it the best government they could, and then they threw in a clause saying "oh yeah, if you want to overthrow it go right ahead".

Wrong. The 2nd Amendment is to prevent Oppression at the hands of a Tyrannical Gov't, just as the Founding Fathers suffered under the hand of the British.

Sure, the 'oppressed' founding fathers were more worried about the common man being oppressed than having their 'perfect union' go down in history as a failure.

Put yourself in their shoes. Governments are getting overthrown all over the place. You are a rich landowner who just created a new government which might not be overwhelmingly popular with the masses. I know! Let's give them all guns.

Some of them might have thought so but the clause 'a well regulated militia' got thrown in there as a safety mechanism. Sorry but that is just the way it went down.

 

[Wehrwolfen]

So the founding fathers create "a more perfect union", put in all kinds of checks and balances, fought tooth and nail to make it the best government they could, and then they threw in a clause saying "oh yeah, if you want to overthrow it go right ahead".

Wrong. The 2nd Amendment is to prevent Oppression at the hands of a Tyrannical Gov't, just as the Founding Fathers suffered under the hand of the British.

Sure, the 'oppressed' founding fathers were more worried about the common man being oppressed than having their 'perfect union' go down in history as a failure.

Put yourself in their shoes. Governments are getting overthrown all over the place. You are a rich landowner who just created a new government which might not be overwhelmingly popular with the masses. I know! Let's give them all guns.

Some of them might have thought so but the clause 'a well regulated militia' got thrown in there as a safety mechanism. Sorry but that is just the way it went down.

________________________________________________________


Well Regulated

The Random House College Dictionary (1980) gives four definitions for the word "regulate," which were all in use during the Colonial period and one more definition dating from 1690 (Oxford English Dictionary, 2nd Edition, 1989). They are:

1) To control or direct by a rule, principle, method, etc.
2) To adjust to some standard or requirement as for amount, degree, etc.

3) To adjust so as to ensure accuracy of operation.

4) To put in good order.

[obsolete sense]
b. Of troops: Properly disciplined. Obs. rare-1.

1690 Lond. Gaz. No. 2568/3 We hear likewise that the French are in a great Allarm in Dauphine and Bresse, not having at present 1500 Men of regulated Troops on that side.
We can begin to deduce what well-regulated meant from Alexander Hamilton's words in Federalist Paper No. 29:

The project of disciplining all the militia of the United States is as futile as it would be injurious if it were capable of being carried into execution. A tolerable expertness in military movements is a business that requires time and practice. It is not a day, nor a week nor even a month, that will suffice for the attainment of it. To oblige the great body of the yeomanry and of the other classes of the citizens to be under arms for the purpose of going through military exercises and evolutions, as often as might be necessary to acquire the degree of perfection which would entitle them to the character of a well regulated militia, would be a real grievance to the people and a serious public inconvenience and loss.
--- The Federalist Papers, No. 29.

Hamilton indicates a well-regulated militia is a state of preparedness obtained after rigorous and persistent training. Note the use of 'disciplining' which indicates discipline could be synonymous with well-trained.

[Excerpt]

Read more:
Meaning of the words in the Second Amendment

 

[bigrebnc1775]

So the founding fathers create "a more perfect union", put in all kinds of checks and balances, fought tooth and nail to make it the best government they could, and then they threw in a clause saying "oh yeah, if you want to overthrow it go right ahead".

Simply, yes. They laid out the rules by which the people may be governed and did the best they could. But they also seemed to realize that no one is perfect and tried to build in protection for the people against a government that grows too large and oppressive in spite of their guidelines.

The tenth amendment comes to mind.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Remember when the Right used to bristle and howl in protest whenever someone pointed out how they were obsessed with Gays, Guns, and God?

Who was right or wrong about that???

 

[bripat9643]

So the founding fathers create "a more perfect union", put in all kinds of checks and balances, fought tooth and nail to make it the best government they could, and then they threw in a clause saying "oh yeah, if you want to overthrow it go right ahead".

If the government becomes tyrannical, "throwing it away" is the best course of action. Our government is very close to that point now.

 

[bripat9643]

Remember when the Right used to bristle and howl in protest whenever someone pointed out how they were obsessed with Gays, Guns, and God?

Who was right or wrong about that???

Have you noticed how the left bristles and howls when you call them communists and fascists?

Who is right about that?

 

[Defiant1]

Thomas Jefferson, letter to William Stevens Smith, November 13, 1787


"God forbid we should ever be twenty years without such a rebellion. The people cannot be all, and always, well informed. The part which is wrong will be discontented, in proportion to the importance of the facts they misconceive. If they remain quiet under such misconceptions, it is lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty . . . And what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not warned from time to time, that this people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to the facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure."

 

[bripat9643]

Sure, the 'oppressed' founding fathers were more worried about the common man being oppressed than having their 'perfect union' go down in history as a failure.

Put yourself in their shoes. Governments are getting overthrown all over the place. You are a rich landowner who just created a new government which might not be overwhelmingly popular with the masses. I know! Let's give them all guns.

Some of them might have thought so but the clause 'a well regulated militia' got thrown in there as a safety mechanism. Sorry but that is just the way it went down.

You're one of the bigger morons in this forum.

 

[NYcarbineer]

So the founding fathers create "a more perfect union", put in all kinds of checks and balances, fought tooth and nail to make it the best government they could, and then they threw in a clause saying "oh yeah, if you want to overthrow it go right ahead".

Wrong. The 2nd Amendment is to prevent Oppression at the hands of a Tyrannical Gov't, just as the Founding Fathers suffered under the hand of the British.

The 2nd amendment is neither an endorsement nor facilitator of the right of the people to engage in armed rebellion against the government.

 

[007]

So the founding fathers create "a more perfect union", put in all kinds of checks and balances, fought tooth and nail to make it the best government they could, and then they threw in a clause saying "oh yeah, if you want to overthrow it go right ahead".

Wrong. The 2nd Amendment is to prevent Oppression at the hands of a Tyrannical Gov't, just as the Founding Fathers suffered under the hand of the British.

The 2nd amendment is neither an endorsement nor facilitator of the right of the people to engage in armed rebellion against the government.

Ya, you keep running with that, and you'll run yourself right into being a good little commie subject overseen by a tyrannical government that won't let you as much as FART without their APPROVAL.

Idiot.

 

[Missourian]

So the founding fathers create "a more perfect union", put in all kinds of checks and balances, fought tooth and nail to make it the best government they could, and then they threw in a clause saying "oh yeah, if you want to overthrow it go right ahead".

It's simply another check and balance.

It assures power remains with the citizenry.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Federalist 46 tends more to support the argument of some that the 2nd amendment protects the right of states to form and arm militias,

not the right of any individual to own any sort of weapon.