REMINDER: The Second Amendment Is Not About Hunting

[NYcarbineer]

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.

How can the Constitution both support and endorse the right of treason, while also making it a crime?

 

[NYcarbineer]

Some of you might want to recall what the battle of Lexington/Concord was all about,

and how that relates to the 2nd amendment.

 

[nodoginnafight]

The 2nd was certainly not written so that a minority could overthrow a majority-elected government. The suggestion is as foolish a contention as I have seen on these boards (and that is saying something).

The people have protections against tyranny already built into the Constitution. It's called voting them out of office. And while in the minority, the Constitution offers protections.

Armed insurection a Constitutional right???????
So Timothy McVeigh was kinda like George Washington????
Oh please ....
If these numbskulls don't crawl back under their rocks, they are going to cost EVERYONE their guns. Guaranteed.

 

[bripat9643]

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

Actually, it is. It's much easier to stage a rebellion if you're armed. Without arms, you're just so much machine gun fodder. It's much easier to drag unarmed serfs to the Gulag than it is to imprison a populace that is armed to the teeth.

 

[Missourian]

The 2nd was certainly not written so that a minority could overthrow a majority-elected government. The suggestion is as foolish a contention as I have seen on these boards (and that is saying something).

The people have protections against tyranny already built into the Constitution. It's called voting them out of office. And while in the minority, the Constitution offers protections.

Armed insurection a Constitutional right???????
So Timothy McVeigh was kinda like George Washington????
Oh please ....
If these numbskulls don't crawl back under their rocks, they are going to cost EVERYONE their guns. Guaranteed.

Your post speaks more to your fears than to reality.

No one has said anything about the minority overthrowing the majority.

 

[bripat9643]

The 2nd was certainly not written so that a minority could overthrow a majority-elected government. The suggestion is as foolish a contention as I have seen on these boards (and that is saying something).

The people have protections against tyranny already built into the Constitution. It's called voting them out of office. And while in the minority, the Constitution offers protections.

Politicians have gotten around those "protections." That's why well over 90% of incumbents win reelection. They can use tax money to bribe voters, they get tons of free media coverage, they have the franking privilege, and their staffs are basically full time taxpayer funded campaign workers.

 

[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".

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.

Like I said in another post. There is nothing that says you can't have a firearm in the Bill of Rights. There is nothing that says you can either. Unless you're in a federal Militia however.

 

[nodoginnafight]

The 2nd was certainly not written so that a minority could overthrow a majority-elected government. The suggestion is as foolish a contention as I have seen on these boards (and that is saying something).

The people have protections against tyranny already built into the Constitution. It's called voting them out of office. And while in the minority, the Constitution offers protections.

Armed insurection a Constitutional right???????
So Timothy McVeigh was kinda like George Washington????
Oh please ....
If these numbskulls don't crawl back under their rocks, they are going to cost EVERYONE their guns. Guaranteed.

Your post speaks more to your fears than to reality.

No one has said anything about the minority overthrowing the majority.

You have a Timothy McVeigh poster over your bed don't you?

If he had a right to stage an armed insurection, how come he's dead now?

How come the term for pulling out yer pea shooter and aiming it at a cop is called, "suicide by police officer"?


psssst - it's because you have no right to armed insurection nor to avoid the authority of gov't.

 

[emptystep]

The 2nd was certainly not written so that a minority could overthrow a majority-elected government. The suggestion is as foolish a contention as I have seen on these boards (and that is saying something).

The people have protections against tyranny already built into the Constitution. It's called voting them out of office. And while in the minority, the Constitution offers protections.

Armed insurection a Constitutional right???????
So Timothy McVeigh was kinda like George Washington????
Oh please ....
If these numbskulls don't crawl back under their rocks, they are going to cost EVERYONE their guns. Guaranteed.

"It's called voting them out of office." - But shooting them out of office is so much faster.

"So Timothy McVeigh was kinda like George Washington????" - OMG, the number of people who feel that way is scary.

 

[bripat9643]

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.

Bullshit.

The concept of a "collective right" is an oxymoron. The 2nd Amendment says "the right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed." In all the other Amendments the phrase "the people" is accepted to mean all the people of the United States. That is, it refers to all the individuals in the United States. It doesn't refer to any arm of the government.

 

[Rambunctious]

I wish you people would wake up. It's not about guns. It's about the federal government attempting to usurp and castigate the US constitution. Gun's... because they are often linked to tragedy is a convenient pin prick in the constitution that the powerful seek to shove a finger into and tear it open. The constitution is the book of RULES that the federal government is to OBEY and they don't like it. They don't want to get rid of guns, they want to get rid of the constitution, guns and the 2nd amendment are an easy and gutless way to do so.

 

[Some Guy]

The 2nd was certainly not written so that a minority could overthrow a majority-elected government. The suggestion is as foolish a contention as I have seen on these boards (and that is saying something).

Agreed. Only wingers are suggesting that this or any government we've ever seen in the U.S. be overthrown.

The people have protections against tyranny already built into the Constitution. It's called voting them out of office. And while in the minority, the Constitution offers protections.

Armed insurection a Constitutional right???????

No, the constitution doesn't advocate or even allow for it's overthrow because it assumes it's rules are being followed. If they are, the proper checks and balances will be in place and respected and the people will maintain their rights as laid out by the Bill of Rights. One of those rights is the right to bear arms. An armed citizenry is the first deterrent to an oppressive government.

Therefore, if the government attempts to disarm it's citizens, it is not following the rules set by the constitution, thus acting in a tyrannical way (in the founders' opinion anyway) thus no longer representing the people, thus worthy of consideration for an overthrow by the people (or perhaps should be, it's ultimately up to the people to decide).

If there were no protections for citizens to maintain arms while the government is following the rules laid out by the constitution, then it's a simple hop, step and a jump from government for and by the people following the constitution (U.S.) to a tyrannical dictatorship ignoring the constitution engaging in mass murder (Hitler, Stalin, Hussein, etc).

 

[bripat9643]

You have a Timothy McVeigh poster over your bed don't you?

If he had a right to stage an armed insurection, how come he's dead now?

How come the term for pulling out yer pea shooter and aiming it at a cop is called, "suicide by police officer"?


psssst - it's because you have no right to armed insurection nor to avoid the authority of gov't.

Yes you do, you bootlicking asshole. That's what the Declaration of Independence is all about. It says the people have a right to overthrow their government when it becomes abusive.

 

[Missourian]

The 2nd was certainly not written so that a minority could overthrow a majority-elected government. The suggestion is as foolish a contention as I have seen on these boards (and that is saying something).

The people have protections against tyranny already built into the Constitution. It's called voting them out of office. And while in the minority, the Constitution offers protections.

Armed insurection a Constitutional right???????
So Timothy McVeigh was kinda like George Washington????
Oh please ....
If these numbskulls don't crawl back under their rocks, they are going to cost EVERYONE their guns. Guaranteed.

Your post speaks more to your fears than to reality.

No one has said anything about the minority overthrowing the majority.

You have a Timothy McVeigh poster over your bed don't you?

If he had a right to stage an armed insurection, how come he's dead now?

How come the term for pulling out yer pea shooter and aiming it at a cop is called, "suicide by police officer"?


psssst - it's because you have no right to armed insurection nor to avoid the authority of gov't.

The ad hominem attack, didn't see that coming.

Can you use logic and reason, or it stupidity your top intellectual floor?

 

[emptystep]

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.

I'm trying for biggest. I am very competitive in that way.

 

[nodoginnafight]

A partial list of those who thought they had a right to use their weapons against the authority of the U.S. Government:
Timothy McVeigh - dead
Osama Bin Laden - dead
Eric Rudolph - in jail (plea deal - lucky fellow)
David Koresh - dead

 

[Missourian]

What happens when you vote them out of office, and they decide, in your best interest of course, not to go?

 

[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.

I'm trying for biggest. I am very competitive in that way.

The competition here is intense. You'll have to beat JakeMarkey, truthmatters, rdead and a host of others.

 

[emptystep]

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

I am not sure if I understand your post. You show the definition of regulated as being controlled. Then you post something from Alexander Hamilton that that states that it is a futile effort. You just stated that while Alexander Hamilton stated it was futile to try, it was written stating regulation was required nonetheless.

 

[bripat9643]

A partial list of those who thought they had a right to use their weapons against the authority of the U.S. Government:
Timothy McVeigh - dead
Osama Bin Laden - dead
Eric Rudolph - in jail (plea deal - lucky fellow)
David Koresh - dead

Here's a partial list of those who thought they had a right to use arms against their government

George Washington
Benjamin Franklin
Thomas Jefferson
John Adams
John Hancock
James Madison
Alexander Hamilton
Patrick Henry
Sam Adams
Thomas Paine
George Mason