REMINDER: The Second Amendment Is Not About Hunting

[Nosmo King]

You people and your esoteric fight against "tyranny"! You have no idea what tyranny is!

Have any of you been told you cannot vote? Have any of you been told you cannot trade at certain stores? Have any of you ever been lynched? Have any of you ever been told where to sit at lunch counters? On buses? In movie houses?

Well, there was an entire class of American citizens who endured precisely that style of state sanctioned tyranny.

Did they resort to open insurrection? Did they arm themselves and fight the clear oppression they were living under?

No. They took to the streets and peacefully marched. They boycotted. The performed other acts of civil disobedience. And they won their rights under the protection of a well regulated militia; the National Guard.

But some of them were not satisfied with the speed of the government response to their demands. They advocated arming themselves. They advocated open armed insurrection. And that's when some folks got very very nervous.

The Black Panthers made people very nervous. And who got nervous the most? Why Conservatives! The very people who are advocating arming the population and being prepared for open armed insurrection. Ironic, ain't it?

A militia is not the national guard

And it's not six guys with AR-15s slung over their shoulders sitting in a Dodge Durango playing Army! It's constitutionally mandated to be "Well regulated".

 

[Nosmo King]

But nice response to "tyranny". An argument skirted is an argument lost.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

You people and your esoteric fight against "tyranny"! You have no idea what tyranny is!

Have any of you been told you cannot vote? Have any of you been told you cannot trade at certain stores? Have any of you ever been lynched? Have any of you ever been told where to sit at lunch counters? On buses? In movie houses?

Well, there was an entire class of American citizens who endured precisely that style of state sanctioned tyranny.

Did they resort to open insurrection? Did they arm themselves and fight the clear oppression they were living under?

No. They took to the streets and peacefully marched. They boycotted. The performed other acts of civil disobedience. And they won their rights under the protection of a well regulated militia; the National Guard.

But some of them were not satisfied with the speed of the government response to their demands. They advocated arming themselves. They advocated open armed insurrection. And that's when some folks got very very nervous.

The Black Panthers made people very nervous. And who got nervous the most? Why Conservatives! The very people who are advocating arming the population and being prepared for open armed insurrection. Ironic, ain't it?

A militia is not the national guard

And it's not six guys with AR-15s slung over their shoulders sitting in a Dodge Durango playing Army! It's constitutionally mandated to be "Well regulated".

yes ad it's constitutionally mandated that a person in the militia is supposed to supply their own weapons does anyone in the national guard have ownership of the weapons they carry?

 

[Nosmo King]

A militia is not the national guard

And it's not six guys with AR-15s slung over their shoulders sitting in a Dodge Durango playing Army! It's constitutionally mandated to be "Well regulated".

yes ad it's constitutionally mandated that a person in the militia is supposed to supply their own weapons does anyone in the national guard have ownership of the weapons they carry?

Here's the text:

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.

I can read the "well regulated" part pretty easily. I can't see anything about private ownership of weapons as a qualifier for militia status. Oh, incidentally, another sterling response on the subject of tyranny, by the way!

 

[BlindBoo]

The 2nd Amendment refers to militias AND citizens. It's not being redundant.

The state militias were made up of citizens of that state.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

And it's not six guys with AR-15s slung over their shoulders sitting in a Dodge Durango playing Army! It's constitutionally mandated to be "Well regulated".

yes ad it's constitutionally mandated that a person in the militia is supposed to supply their own weapons does anyone in the national guard have ownership of the weapons they carry?

Here's the text:

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.

I can read the "well regulated" part pretty easily. I can't see anything about private ownership of weapons as a qualifier for militia status. Oh, incidentally, another sterling response on the subject of tyranny, by the way!

Miller vs. U.S.

 

[Missourian]

You people and your esoteric fight against "tyranny"! You have no idea what tyranny is!

Have any of you been told you cannot vote? Have any of you been told you cannot trade at certain stores? Have any of you ever been lynched? Have any of you ever been told where to sit at lunch counters? On buses? In movie houses?

Well, there was an entire class of American citizens who endured precisely that style of state sanctioned tyranny.

Did they resort to open insurrection? Did they arm themselves and fight the clear oppression they were living under?

No. They took to the streets and peacefully marched. They boycotted. The performed other acts of civil disobedience. And they won their rights under the protection of a well regulated militia; the National Guard.

But some of them were not satisfied with the speed of the government response to their demands. They advocated arming themselves. They advocated open armed insurrection. And that's when some folks got very very nervous.

The Black Panthers made people very nervous. And who got nervous the most? Why Conservatives! The very people who are advocating arming the population and being prepared for open armed insurrection. Ironic, ain't it?

Never heard of the Black Codes?

How about the Gun Control Act of 1968, than banned firearms that impoverished blacks could afford?

But I think you are exactly right.

The reason we are talking gun control today is the same reason the it was passed in 1968.

Why, when rifles only account for a miniscule 3% of all homicides...and so called assault rifles account for only a minute fraction of that percentage, is that the one firearm that the leftists are so terribly concerned over?

 

[JakeStarkey]

The radicals here are being stupid. Rise up against the government like the Republic of Texas loons and either die or lose your freedom for the remainder of your lives.

Idiots.

 

[jgarden]

REMINDER: The Second Amendment Is Not About Hunting

Just another example of the "gun-lobby" trying to "wrap itself in the flag" and attempting to ride on the "Founding Father's" coat tails!

Is there no limit to which gun-supporters won't go in their efforts to justify the unjustifiable?

 

[Nosmo King]

You people and your esoteric fight against "tyranny"! You have no idea what tyranny is!

Have any of you been told you cannot vote? Have any of you been told you cannot trade at certain stores? Have any of you ever been lynched? Have any of you ever been told where to sit at lunch counters? On buses? In movie houses?

Well, there was an entire class of American citizens who endured precisely that style of state sanctioned tyranny.

Did they resort to open insurrection? Did they arm themselves and fight the clear oppression they were living under?

No. They took to the streets and peacefully marched. They boycotted. The performed other acts of civil disobedience. And they won their rights under the protection of a well regulated militia; the National Guard.

But some of them were not satisfied with the speed of the government response to their demands. They advocated arming themselves. They advocated open armed insurrection. And that's when some folks got very very nervous.

The Black Panthers made people very nervous. And who got nervous the most? Why Conservatives! The very people who are advocating arming the population and being prepared for open armed insurrection. Ironic, ain't it?

Never heard of the Black Codes?

How about the Gun Control Act of 1968, than banned firearms that impoverished blacks could afford?

But I think you are exactly right.

The reason we are talking gun control today is the same reason the it was passed in 1968.

Why, when rifles only account for a miniscule 3% of all homicides...and so called assault rifles account for only a minute fraction of that percentage, is that the one firearm that the leftists are so terribly concerned over?

Actually, the reason we're talking about gun control is a score of first graders riddled with as many as seven bullets apiece.

I think such a death toll and heartbreaking tragedy deserves an honest debate. And if it doesn't, I truly dread what level of tragedy would merit such a debate.

 

[JakeStarkey]

You people and your esoteric fight against "tyranny"! You have no idea what tyranny is!

Have any of you been told you cannot vote? Have any of you been told you cannot trade at certain stores? Have any of you ever been lynched? Have any of you ever been told where to sit at lunch counters? On buses? In movie houses?

Well, there was an entire class of American citizens who endured precisely that style of state sanctioned tyranny.

Did they resort to open insurrection? Did they arm themselves and fight the clear oppression they were living under?

No. They took to the streets and peacefully marched. They boycotted. The performed other acts of civil disobedience. And they won their rights under the protection of a well regulated militia; the National Guard.

But some of them were not satisfied with the speed of the government response to their demands. They advocated arming themselves. They advocated open armed insurrection. And that's when some folks got very very nervous.

The Black Panthers made people very nervous. And who got nervous the most? Why Conservatives! The very people who are advocating arming the population and being prepared for open armed insurrection. Ironic, ain't it?

Never heard of the Black Codes?

How about the Gun Control Act of 1968, than banned firearms that impoverished blacks could afford?

But I think you are exactly right.

The reason we are talking gun control today is the same reason the it was passed in 1968.

Why, when rifles only account for a miniscule 3% of all homicides...and so called assault rifles account for only a minute fraction of that percentage, is that the one firearm that the leftists are so terribly concerned over?

Actually, the reason we're talking about gun control is a score of first graders riddled with as many as seven bullets apiece.

I think such a death toll and heartbreaking tragedy deserves an honest debate. And if it doesn't, I truly dread what level of tragedy would merit such a debate.

Yes, this debate is going to happen, period.

 

[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".

In a way you're right. Our founders figured if someone came along lying to the PEOPLE and became a 'Dictator' and 'Tyrrant' under the guise of the Presidency, the PEOPLE had the right to remove him by force of arms if necessary. We have a good example in Hugo Chavez in Venezuela and now America has Oblamer.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Obama is neither a tyrant nor a dictator.

Wehrwolfen is not a patriot, and those who think like do not understand the American way of life and government.

Their "reward" for a revolt will be six feet by six feet.

 

[Nosmo King]

The talk about tyranny so far amounts to typical radio talk show hyperbole. No one here is living under tyranny. That's not to say tyranny cannot exist here as it has. But the Civil rights movement proved that tyranny can be repressed by means other than armed insurrection. That's not to say armed insurrection hasn't happened here. But killing 168 innocents at a federal building certainly wasn't on the minds of the founding fathers as they compromised and drafted the Bill of Rights.

If any of you wannabe Rambos wants to tell us all about the tyranny you suffer with, we're glad to help. But a squabble about the top marginal tax rate or health care or any other issue you have with the current President of the United States pales before lynching and segregated lunch counters and repressed voting rights, doesn't it?

 

[edthecynic]

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".

In a way you're right. Our founders figured if someone came along lying to the PEOPLE and became a 'Dictator' and 'Tyrrant' under the guise of the Presidency, the PEOPLE had the right to remove him by force of arms if necessary. We have a good example in Hugo Chavez in Venezuela and now America has Oblamer.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

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

Ignorant nonsense.

The Second Amendment, as with the rest of the Constitution, is subject to interpretation by the courts, as authorized by the doctrine of judicial review.

The Second Amendment enshrines a right to self-defense, and an individual right to own a handgun pursuant to the right of self-defense, unconnected with militia service. See: DC v. Heller (2008).

It has nothing to do with “citizens resisting and overcoming tyranny.”

 

[bripat9643]

Ignorant nonsense.

The Second Amendment, as with the rest of the Constitution, is subject to interpretation by the courts, as authorized by the doctrine of judicial review.

The Second Amendment enshrines a right to self-defense, and an individual right to own a handgun pursuant to the right of self-defense, unconnected with militia service. See: DC v. Heller (2008).

It has nothing to do with “citizens resisting and overcoming tyranny.”

Supreme Court rulings are the result of a political process. They are not some infallible ultimate authority. The historical record indicates that you dead wrong.

 

[Missourian]

You people and your esoteric fight against "tyranny"! You have no idea what tyranny is!

Have any of you been told you cannot vote? Have any of you been told you cannot trade at certain stores? Have any of you ever been lynched? Have any of you ever been told where to sit at lunch counters? On buses? In movie houses?

Well, there was an entire class of American citizens who endured precisely that style of state sanctioned tyranny.

Did they resort to open insurrection? Did they arm themselves and fight the clear oppression they were living under?

No. They took to the streets and peacefully marched. They boycotted. The performed other acts of civil disobedience. And they won their rights under the protection of a well regulated militia; the National Guard.

But some of them were not satisfied with the speed of the government response to their demands. They advocated arming themselves. They advocated open armed insurrection. And that's when some folks got very very nervous.

The Black Panthers made people very nervous. And who got nervous the most? Why Conservatives! The very people who are advocating arming the population and being prepared for open armed insurrection. Ironic, ain't it?

Never heard of the Black Codes?

How about the Gun Control Act of 1968, than banned firearms that impoverished blacks could afford?

But I think you are exactly right.

The reason we are talking gun control today is the same reason the it was passed in 1968.

Why, when rifles only account for a miniscule 3% of all homicides...and so called assault rifles account for only a minute fraction of that percentage, is that the one firearm that the leftists are so terribly concerned over?

Actually, the reason we're talking about gun control is a score of first graders riddled with as many as seven bullets apiece.

I think such a death toll and heartbreaking tragedy deserves an honest debate. And if it doesn't, I truly dread what level of tragedy would merit such a debate.

Have you forgotten the twenty five year year history of trying to ban magazine fed semi automatic rifles?

 

[M14 Shooter]

REMINDER: The Second Amendment Is Not About Hunting

Just another example of the "gun-lobby" trying to "wrap itself in the flag" and attempting to ride on the "Founding Father's" coat tails!

Is there no limit to which gun-supporters won't go in their efforts to justify the unjustifiable?

Says he who uses the blood of innocent children to push his anti-gun agenda.

 

[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.

Your opinion deliberatly runs contrary to established jurisprudence.

The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home

I told you what Federalist 46 says. 46 was brought up.

Like other amendments in the Bill of Rights, the 2nd was designed to prevent injustices committed by the British against the colonies.

The right of individuals to own personal firearms was never in dispute at that time. It exists as a right in the same way abortion was determined to be a right in Roe v Wade.