The 2nd Amendment (Why we our Founders wrote it)

[Boss]

The right to keep arms is the right to own weapons so the militia will have a ready supply of weapons in times of need.

No it's not. This is made clear in Federalist 28.

 

[Boss]

Whether the Second Amendment enshrines the right to ‘keep’ arms or ‘bear’ arms, in either case it refers to an individual right pursuant to the right of self-defense, not a ‘right’ to ‘overthrow’ the government because one subjectively ‘thinks’ or ‘feels’ that the government has become ‘tyrannical.’

No one said anything about "thinks" or "feels" and that was never any argument made by 2nd Amendment advocates. So where does this come from, other than your pea brain?

 

[Skull Pilot]

The Right to Bear Arms (i.e. the 2nd Amendment) was seen by our Founding Fathers as the last check against tyranny. They knew that the best line of defense against a standing army was an armed populace.

"If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no resource left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government, and which against the usurpations of the national rulers, may be exerted with infinitely better prospect of success than against those of the rulers of an individual state. In a single state, if the persons intrusted with supreme power become usurpers, the different parcels, subdivisions, or districts of which it consists, having no distinct government in each, can take no regular measures for defense. The citizens must rush tumultuously to arms, without concert, without system, without resource; except in their courage and despair."

- Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 28

"f circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little, if at all, inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow-citizens. This appears to me the only substitute that can be devised for a standing army, and the best possible security against it, if it should exist."

- Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 28

The people who wish to preserve liberty and are capable of bearing arms are the militia.

“A militia when properly formed are in fact the people themselves…and include, according to the past and general usuage of the states, all men capable of bearing arms… "To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them."

- Richard Henry Lee, Federal Farmer No. 18, January 25, 1788

The Founding Fathers believed that peaceable law abiding citizens should never have their right to bear arms be infringed upon.

"And that the said Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the Press, or the rights of Conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, WHO ARE PEACEABLE CITIZENS, from keeping their own arms; …"

Samuel Adams quoted in the Philadelphia Independent Gazetteer, August 20, 1789, "Propositions submitted to the Convention of this State"

The fundamental purpose of the militia is to serve as a check upon a standing army, the words “well regulated” referred to the necessity that the armed citizens making up the militia have the level of equipment and training necessary to be an effective and formidable check upon the national government’s standing army.

"I ask who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers." - George Mason, Address to the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 4, 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

"The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country." - James Madison, I Annals of Congress 434, June 8, 1789

“A militia when properly formed are in fact the people themselves…and include, according to the past and general usuage of the states, all men capable of bearing arms… "To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them." - Richard Henry Lee, Federal Farmer No. 18, January 25, 1788

Well regulated does not mean regulations. When the Constitution specifies regulations it specifically states who and what is being regulated. The phrase "well-regulated" was in common use long before 1789, and remained so for a century thereafter. It referred to the property of something being in proper working order. Something that was well-regulated was calibrated correctly, functioning as expected. The fundamental purpose of the militia was to serve as a check upon a standing army, the words “well regulated” referred to the necessity that the armed citizens making up the militia have the necessary equipment and training necessary to be an effective and formidable check upon the national government’s standing army. Establishing government oversight of the people's arms was not only not the intent in using the phrase in the 2nd amendment, it was precisely to render the government powerless to do so that the founders wrote it.

Firstly the right to bear arms doesn't give you an armed populace. That's the right to keep arms. The right to bear arms is the right to be in the militia.

i.e., the militia with citizen soldiers, that means you need people with the guns for the militia, and you need people to use the guns in the militia.

The right to bear arms is not predicated on being in a militia

 

[Boss]

...in either case it refers to an individual right pursuant to the right of self-defense...

False. It's not about self defense. It's in order to form a well-regulated militia. A well-regulated militia is the best defense against a tyrannical government.

You have to understand, our framers established a small limited government. They realized that such a government would be extremely vulnerable to attack from enemies abroad or within. Should such a thing happen, they put in place a 2nd Amendment so that the populace would always be armed and ready to secure their liberty again.

 

[IsaacNewton]

The intention of the 2nd amendment when it was written, which was to allow a citizenry to protect itself against a government that became tyrannical is a moot point today and has been for over 100 years.

The weapons owned by citizens in 1776 were flintlocks and cannons, identical to what the government had.

Today the most powerful weapon a citizen can own is a semi-auto rifle. The government has fully auto small and heavy machine guns, a gigantic navy, a huge air force with thousands of attack aircraft and helicopters, thousands of tanks, missiles, and nuclear weapons. Our military can beat all the rest of the world combined by themselves.

Stop with this 'minuteman' fantasy. That dream ended more than a century ago and to cling to it only leaves the citizenry in a woefully untenable position. Find an argument that isn't laughable.

 

[Boss]

The intention of the 2nd amendment when it was written, which was to allow a citizenry to protect itself against a government that became tyrannical is a moot point today and has been for over 100 years.

The weapons owned by citizens in 1776 were flintlocks and cannons, identical to what the government had.

Today the most powerful weapon a citizen can own is a semi-auto rifle. The government has fully auto small and heavy machine guns, a gigantic navy, a huge air force with thousands of attack aircraft and helicopters, thousands of tanks, missiles, and nuclear weapons. Our military can beat all the rest of the world combined by themselves.

Stop with this 'minuteman' fantasy. That dream ended more than a century ago and to cling to it only leaves the citizenry in a woefully untenable position. Find an argument that isn't laughable.

Well this is yet another anti-gun argument that has been repeatedly debunked but just keeps on being thrown out there.

200 million Americans owning 350 million guns is no match for the US Government. What would they do... nuke their entire population? What would be the point in that? So no... they're never going to disarm us and we would eventually take our country back from a tyrannical coup.

Now... no one has some fucked up fantasy that a bunch of Tea Party gun owners are going to Washington to "take back the country" from the likes of Hillary or Obama... I know you're concerned that might happen if you libtards get too big for your britches but that's not going to happen and not what anyone is talking about happening.... except for you. We'll defeat YOU at the ballot box.

Now going back to touch on your argument about the archaic weaponry of the time.... you do realize people were allowed to own cannons, right? In fact, the US Government routinely hired private gun boats to patrol the Eastern seaboard, which were armed with rather large cannons capable of decimating entire cities. These were literally the WMDs of their time and individual citizens had every right to own them.

 

[IsaacNewton]

The intention of the 2nd amendment when it was written, which was to allow a citizenry to protect itself against a government that became tyrannical is a moot point today and has been for over 100 years.

The weapons owned by citizens in 1776 were flintlocks and cannons, identical to what the government had.

Today the most powerful weapon a citizen can own is a semi-auto rifle. The government has fully auto small and heavy machine guns, a gigantic navy, a huge air force with thousands of attack aircraft and helicopters, thousands of tanks, missiles, and nuclear weapons. Our military can beat all the rest of the world combined by themselves.

Stop with this 'minuteman' fantasy. That dream ended more than a century ago and to cling to it only leaves the citizenry in a woefully untenable position. Find an argument that isn't laughable.

Well this is yet another anti-gun argument that has been repeatedly debunked but just keeps on being thrown out there.

200 million Americans owning 350 million guns is no match for the US Government. What would they do... nuke their entire population? What would be the point in that? So no... they're never going to disarm us and we would eventually take our country back from a tyrannical coup.

Now... no one has some fucked up fantasy that a bunch of Tea Party gun owners are going to Washington to "take back the country" from the likes of Hillary or Obama... I know you're concerned that might happen if you libtards get too big for your britches but that's not going to happen and not what anyone is talking about happening.... except for you. We'll defeat YOU at the ballot box.

Now going back to touch on your argument about the archaic weaponry of the time.... you do realize people were allowed to own cannons, right? In fact, the US Government routinely hired private gun boats to patrol the Eastern seaboard, which were armed with rather large cannons capable of decimating entire cities. These were literally the WMDs of their time and individual citizens had every right to own them.

I'd like one time, just once, for a conservative to actually read a post. Not just the first three words and then twitch into nuclear YOUR WRONG convulsions and vomit online. I said they had muskets and cannons if you read the post.

It's simple, you believe 200 million people armed with semi or automatic AR-15s can defeat thousands of M1A1 tanks and helicopters.

I wish you well in your fantasy.

 

[Boss]

It's simple, you believe 200 million people armed with semi or automatic AR-15s can defeat thousands of M1A1 tanks and helicopters.

I don't think you have any concept of 350 million guns.

 

[Boss]

It's simple, you believe 200 million people armed with semi or automatic AR-15s can defeat thousands of M1A1 tanks and helicopters.

Okay... Let's play out the scenario here... Let's imagine some tyrannical coup overtakes the government. The 200 million armed with their 350 million guns rise up. Who is going to man the tanks and helicopters? Do you think US servicemen are going to remain loyal under the new tyrant? Or would most of them abandon their posts and join the revolution? How quickly do you think the people would secure the National Guard armories and military bases around the country?

Before your tyrant could roll out the first tank, the revolution would already have most of our military arsenal under it's control. The whole thing would be over before it started.

 

[frigidweirdo]

The Right to Bear Arms (i.e. the 2nd Amendment) was seen by our Founding Fathers as the last check against tyranny. They knew that the best line of defense against a standing army was an armed populace.

"If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no resource left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government, and which against the usurpations of the national rulers, may be exerted with infinitely better prospect of success than against those of the rulers of an individual state. In a single state, if the persons intrusted with supreme power become usurpers, the different parcels, subdivisions, or districts of which it consists, having no distinct government in each, can take no regular measures for defense. The citizens must rush tumultuously to arms, without concert, without system, without resource; except in their courage and despair."

- Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 28

"f circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little, if at all, inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow-citizens. This appears to me the only substitute that can be devised for a standing army, and the best possible security against it, if it should exist."

- Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 28

The people who wish to preserve liberty and are capable of bearing arms are the militia.

“A militia when properly formed are in fact the people themselves…and include, according to the past and general usuage of the states, all men capable of bearing arms… "To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them."

- Richard Henry Lee, Federal Farmer No. 18, January 25, 1788

The Founding Fathers believed that peaceable law abiding citizens should never have their right to bear arms be infringed upon.

"And that the said Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the Press, or the rights of Conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, WHO ARE PEACEABLE CITIZENS, from keeping their own arms; …"

Samuel Adams quoted in the Philadelphia Independent Gazetteer, August 20, 1789, "Propositions submitted to the Convention of this State"

The fundamental purpose of the militia is to serve as a check upon a standing army, the words “well regulated” referred to the necessity that the armed citizens making up the militia have the level of equipment and training necessary to be an effective and formidable check upon the national government’s standing army.

"I ask who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers." - George Mason, Address to the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 4, 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

"The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country." - James Madison, I Annals of Congress 434, June 8, 1789

“A militia when properly formed are in fact the people themselves…and include, according to the past and general usuage of the states, all men capable of bearing arms… "To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them." - Richard Henry Lee, Federal Farmer No. 18, January 25, 1788

Well regulated does not mean regulations. When the Constitution specifies regulations it specifically states who and what is being regulated. The phrase "well-regulated" was in common use long before 1789, and remained so for a century thereafter. It referred to the property of something being in proper working order. Something that was well-regulated was calibrated correctly, functioning as expected. The fundamental purpose of the militia was to serve as a check upon a standing army, the words “well regulated” referred to the necessity that the armed citizens making up the militia have the necessary equipment and training necessary to be an effective and formidable check upon the national government’s standing army. Establishing government oversight of the people's arms was not only not the intent in using the phrase in the 2nd amendment, it was precisely to render the government powerless to do so that the founders wrote it.

Firstly the right to bear arms doesn't give you an armed populace. That's the right to keep arms. The right to bear arms is the right to be in the militia.

i.e., the militia with citizen soldiers, that means you need people with the guns for the militia, and you need people to use the guns in the militia.

The right to bear arms is not predicated on being in a militia

Did I say it was? No, I didn't.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

The intention of the 2nd amendment when it was written, which was to allow a citizenry to protect itself against a government that became tyrannical is a moot point today and has been for over 100 years.

The weapons owned by citizens in 1776 were flintlocks and cannons, identical to what the government had.

Today the most powerful weapon a citizen can own is a semi-auto rifle. The government has fully auto small and heavy machine guns, a gigantic navy, a huge air force with thousands of attack aircraft and helicopters, thousands of tanks, missiles, and nuclear weapons. Our military can beat all the rest of the world combined by themselves.

Stop with this 'minuteman' fantasy. That dream ended more than a century ago and to cling to it only leaves the citizenry in a woefully untenable position. Find an argument that isn't laughable.

Well this is yet another anti-gun argument that has been repeatedly debunked but just keeps on being thrown out there.

200 million Americans owning 350 million guns is no match for the US Government. What would they do... nuke their entire population? What would be the point in that? So no... they're never going to disarm us and we would eventually take our country back from a tyrannical coup.

Now... no one has some fucked up fantasy that a bunch of Tea Party gun owners are going to Washington to "take back the country" from the likes of Hillary or Obama... I know you're concerned that might happen if you libtards get too big for your britches but that's not going to happen and not what anyone is talking about happening.... except for you. We'll defeat YOU at the ballot box.

Now going back to touch on your argument about the archaic weaponry of the time.... you do realize people were allowed to own cannons, right? In fact, the US Government routinely hired private gun boats to patrol the Eastern seaboard, which were armed with rather large cannons capable of decimating entire cities. These were literally the WMDs of their time and individual citizens had every right to own them.

I'd like one time, just once, for a conservative to actually read a post. Not just the first three words and then twitch into nuclear YOUR WRONG convulsions and vomit online. I said they had muskets and cannons if you read the post.

It's simple, you believe 200 million people armed with semi or automatic AR-15s can defeat thousands of M1A1 tanks and helicopters.

I wish you well in your fantasy.

Correct, it is a pathetic fantasy.

And it’s a fantasy wholly unsupported by the law.

 

[westwall]

Nowhere in the history, text, or case law of the Second Amendment will one find any reference to the Second Amendment 'trumping' the First Amendment, or authorizing the Second Amendment to abridge the First Amendment right of the people to petition the government for a redress of grievances through either the political process or the judicial process.

That a minority of citizens might subjectively and in error perceive government to have become 'tyrannical' in no manner 'justifies' that minority to 'take up arms' against a government lawfully sanctioned by a majority of the people, where government is indeed functioning in accordance with the Constitution and its case law.

There must first be consensus and agreement among the people through the political and democratic process as to what constitutes actual 'tyranny,' and that, consistent with that consensus, the government is in fact 'tyrannical' - then and only then might 'taking up arms' be warranted and lawful.

Of course you won't. The Bill of Rights is nine limitations on what government can do to the PEOPLE, and one, final option.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

The Right to Bear Arms (i.e. the 2nd Amendment) was seen by our Founding Fathers as the last check against tyranny. They knew that the best line of defense against a standing army was an armed populace.

"If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no resource left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government, and which against the usurpations of the national rulers, may be exerted with infinitely better prospect of success than against those of the rulers of an individual state. In a single state, if the persons intrusted with supreme power become usurpers, the different parcels, subdivisions, or districts of which it consists, having no distinct government in each, can take no regular measures for defense. The citizens must rush tumultuously to arms, without concert, without system, without resource; except in their courage and despair."

- Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 28

"f circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little, if at all, inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow-citizens. This appears to me the only substitute that can be devised for a standing army, and the best possible security against it, if it should exist."

- Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 28

The people who wish to preserve liberty and are capable of bearing arms are the militia.

“A militia when properly formed are in fact the people themselves…and include, according to the past and general usuage of the states, all men capable of bearing arms… "To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them."

- Richard Henry Lee, Federal Farmer No. 18, January 25, 1788

The Founding Fathers believed that peaceable law abiding citizens should never have their right to bear arms be infringed upon.

"And that the said Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the Press, or the rights of Conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, WHO ARE PEACEABLE CITIZENS, from keeping their own arms; …"

Samuel Adams quoted in the Philadelphia Independent Gazetteer, August 20, 1789, "Propositions submitted to the Convention of this State"

The fundamental purpose of the militia is to serve as a check upon a standing army, the words “well regulated” referred to the necessity that the armed citizens making up the militia have the level of equipment and training necessary to be an effective and formidable check upon the national government’s standing army.

"I ask who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers." - George Mason, Address to the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 4, 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

"The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country." - James Madison, I Annals of Congress 434, June 8, 1789

“A militia when properly formed are in fact the people themselves…and include, according to the past and general usuage of the states, all men capable of bearing arms… "To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them." - Richard Henry Lee, Federal Farmer No. 18, January 25, 1788

Well regulated does not mean regulations. When the Constitution specifies regulations it specifically states who and what is being regulated. The phrase "well-regulated" was in common use long before 1789, and remained so for a century thereafter. It referred to the property of something being in proper working order. Something that was well-regulated was calibrated correctly, functioning as expected. The fundamental purpose of the militia was to serve as a check upon a standing army, the words “well regulated” referred to the necessity that the armed citizens making up the militia have the necessary equipment and training necessary to be an effective and formidable check upon the national government’s standing army. Establishing government oversight of the people's arms was not only not the intent in using the phrase in the 2nd amendment, it was precisely to render the government powerless to do so that the founders wrote it.

Firstly the right to bear arms doesn't give you an armed populace. That's the right to keep arms. The right to bear arms is the right to be in the militia.

i.e., the militia with citizen soldiers, that means you need people with the guns for the militia, and you need people to use the guns in the militia.

The OP specifically posted relevant portions of the Federalist Papers explaining to you what the 2nd Amendment means. You simply ignored that and applied your own left-wing interpretation. You're just fucking wrong.

Only the Supreme Court can determine what the Constitution means, including the Second Amendment.

And there was nothing in the OP justifying that the will of the majority of the people could be ignored because a minority incorrectly and subjectively perceives the government to have become ‘tyrannical,’ authorizing ‘armed rebellion.’

Indeed, there are rightwing idiots who currently propagate the ridiculous lie that the government has become ‘tyrannical.’

 

[Tennyson]

The Right to Bear Arms (i.e. the 2nd Amendment) was seen by our Founding Fathers as the last check against tyranny. They knew that the best line of defense against a standing army was an armed populace.

"If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no resource left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government, and which against the usurpations of the national rulers, may be exerted with infinitely better prospect of success than against those of the rulers of an individual state. In a single state, if the persons intrusted with supreme power become usurpers, the different parcels, subdivisions, or districts of which it consists, having no distinct government in each, can take no regular measures for defense. The citizens must rush tumultuously to arms, without concert, without system, without resource; except in their courage and despair."

- Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 28

"f circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little, if at all, inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow-citizens. This appears to me the only substitute that can be devised for a standing army, and the best possible security against it, if it should exist."

- Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 28

The people who wish to preserve liberty and are capable of bearing arms are the militia.

“A militia when properly formed are in fact the people themselves…and include, according to the past and general usuage of the states, all men capable of bearing arms… "To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them."

- Richard Henry Lee, Federal Farmer No. 18, January 25, 1788

The Founding Fathers believed that peaceable law abiding citizens should never have their right to bear arms be infringed upon.

"And that the said Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the Press, or the rights of Conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, WHO ARE PEACEABLE CITIZENS, from keeping their own arms; …"

Samuel Adams quoted in the Philadelphia Independent Gazetteer, August 20, 1789, "Propositions submitted to the Convention of this State"

The fundamental purpose of the militia is to serve as a check upon a standing army, the words “well regulated” referred to the necessity that the armed citizens making up the militia have the level of equipment and training necessary to be an effective and formidable check upon the national government’s standing army.

"I ask who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers." - George Mason, Address to the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 4, 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

"The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country." - James Madison, I Annals of Congress 434, June 8, 1789

“A militia when properly formed are in fact the people themselves…and include, according to the past and general usuage of the states, all men capable of bearing arms… "To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them." - Richard Henry Lee, Federal Farmer No. 18, January 25, 1788

Well regulated does not mean regulations. When the Constitution specifies regulations it specifically states who and what is being regulated. The phrase "well-regulated" was in common use long before 1789, and remained so for a century thereafter. It referred to the property of something being in proper working order. Something that was well-regulated was calibrated correctly, functioning as expected. The fundamental purpose of the militia was to serve as a check upon a standing army, the words “well regulated” referred to the necessity that the armed citizens making up the militia have the necessary equipment and training necessary to be an effective and formidable check upon the national government’s standing army. Establishing government oversight of the people's arms was not only not the intent in using the phrase in the 2nd amendment, it was precisely to render the government powerless to do so that the founders wrote it.

Firstly the right to bear arms doesn't give you an armed populace. That's the right to keep arms. The right to bear arms is the right to be in the militia.

i.e., the militia with citizen soldiers, that means you need people with the guns for the militia, and you need people to use the guns in the militia.

You are overlooking that the militia clause is the prefatory clause and the right to bear arms is the operative clause. The use of the indefinite articles "a" and "an" in Article I, Section 8 and the Second Amendment are precise and intentional. The collective right to arms is in Article I, § 8, Clause 15, which was supported in Presser v Illinois, and the individual right is in the operative clause of the Second Amendment.

 

[ding]

Only the Supreme Court can determine what the Constitution means, including the Second Amendment.

Do you mean the same Supreme Court that found that some human life is property to be disposed of at the will of its owner? Twice? That Supreme Court?

And there was nothing in the OP justifying that the will of the majority of the people could be ignored because a minority incorrectly and subjectively perceives the government to have become ‘tyrannical,’ authorizing ‘armed rebellion.’

That's right. It hasn't happened yet. We won't know until if we get there. I'm curious, how many people got to make that call the last time it happened?

Indeed, there are rightwing idiots who currently propagate the ridiculous lie that the government has become ‘tyrannical.’’

Maybe so. I don't know anything about that. Have they risen up yet?

 

[Boss]

Indeed, there are rightwing idiots who currently propagate the ridiculous lie that the government has become ‘tyrannical.’

Let's straighten you out, fucktard... IF the federal government had become tyrannical, we'd already have taken it back over. Your little pissant ass wouldn't deter us from that, should it ever happen.

Only the Supreme Court can determine what the Constitution means, including the Second Amendment.

No, the Supreme Court does not get to determine what the Constitution means. Take a fucking civics class and educate yourself. The Constitution means what the Constitution means and the SCOTUS determines how it applies to certain cases it hears. If you want to change what the Constitution means, there is an Amendment process. It has been used 17 times since the Bill of Rights.

 

[ding]

Indeed, there are rightwing idiots who currently propagate the ridiculous lie that the government has become ‘tyrannical.’

Let's straighten you out, fucktard... IF the federal government had become tyrannical, we'd already have taken it back over. Your little pissant ass wouldn't deter us from that, should it ever happen.

Only the Supreme Court can determine what the Constitution means, including the Second Amendment.

No, the Supreme Court does not get to determine what the Constitution means. Take a fucking civics class and educate yourself. The Constitution means what the Constitution means and the SCOTUS determines how it applies to certain cases it hears. If you want to change what the Constitution means, there is an Amendment process. It has been used 17 times since the Bill of Rights.

If I were gay I would marry you.

Supreme Court & Judicial Review

http://scholarship.law.berkeley.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3977&context=californialawreview

Judicial review in the United States - Wikipedia

The Supreme Court and Unconstitutional Acts of Congress on JSTOR

 

[CrusaderFrank]

ding excellent OP! welcome

 

[frigidweirdo]

The Right to Bear Arms (i.e. the 2nd Amendment) was seen by our Founding Fathers as the last check against tyranny. They knew that the best line of defense against a standing army was an armed populace.

"If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no resource left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government, and which against the usurpations of the national rulers, may be exerted with infinitely better prospect of success than against those of the rulers of an individual state. In a single state, if the persons intrusted with supreme power become usurpers, the different parcels, subdivisions, or districts of which it consists, having no distinct government in each, can take no regular measures for defense. The citizens must rush tumultuously to arms, without concert, without system, without resource; except in their courage and despair."

- Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 28

"f circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little, if at all, inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow-citizens. This appears to me the only substitute that can be devised for a standing army, and the best possible security against it, if it should exist."

- Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 28

The people who wish to preserve liberty and are capable of bearing arms are the militia.

“A militia when properly formed are in fact the people themselves…and include, according to the past and general usuage of the states, all men capable of bearing arms… "To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them."

- Richard Henry Lee, Federal Farmer No. 18, January 25, 1788

The Founding Fathers believed that peaceable law abiding citizens should never have their right to bear arms be infringed upon.

"And that the said Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the Press, or the rights of Conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, WHO ARE PEACEABLE CITIZENS, from keeping their own arms; …"

Samuel Adams quoted in the Philadelphia Independent Gazetteer, August 20, 1789, "Propositions submitted to the Convention of this State"

The fundamental purpose of the militia is to serve as a check upon a standing army, the words “well regulated” referred to the necessity that the armed citizens making up the militia have the level of equipment and training necessary to be an effective and formidable check upon the national government’s standing army.

"I ask who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers." - George Mason, Address to the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 4, 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

"The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country." - James Madison, I Annals of Congress 434, June 8, 1789

“A militia when properly formed are in fact the people themselves…and include, according to the past and general usuage of the states, all men capable of bearing arms… "To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them." - Richard Henry Lee, Federal Farmer No. 18, January 25, 1788

Well regulated does not mean regulations. When the Constitution specifies regulations it specifically states who and what is being regulated. The phrase "well-regulated" was in common use long before 1789, and remained so for a century thereafter. It referred to the property of something being in proper working order. Something that was well-regulated was calibrated correctly, functioning as expected. The fundamental purpose of the militia was to serve as a check upon a standing army, the words “well regulated” referred to the necessity that the armed citizens making up the militia have the necessary equipment and training necessary to be an effective and formidable check upon the national government’s standing army. Establishing government oversight of the people's arms was not only not the intent in using the phrase in the 2nd amendment, it was precisely to render the government powerless to do so that the founders wrote it.

Firstly the right to bear arms doesn't give you an armed populace. That's the right to keep arms. The right to bear arms is the right to be in the militia.

i.e., the militia with citizen soldiers, that means you need people with the guns for the militia, and you need people to use the guns in the militia.

You are overlooking that the militia clause is the prefatory clause and the right to bear arms is the operative clause. The use of the indefinite articles "a" and "an" in Article I, Section 8 and the Second Amendment are precise and intentional. The collective right to arms is in Article I, § 8, Clause 15, which was supported in Presser v Illinois, and the individual right is in the operative clause of the Second Amendment.

No, I'm not.

You're just unable to comprehend what I'm saying. I've said it plenty of times and you keep acting like I said something else. It's getting a little tiring.

 

[Tennyson]

The Right to Bear Arms (i.e. the 2nd Amendment) was seen by our Founding Fathers as the last check against tyranny. They knew that the best line of defense against a standing army was an armed populace.

"If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no resource left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government, and which against the usurpations of the national rulers, may be exerted with infinitely better prospect of success than against those of the rulers of an individual state. In a single state, if the persons intrusted with supreme power become usurpers, the different parcels, subdivisions, or districts of which it consists, having no distinct government in each, can take no regular measures for defense. The citizens must rush tumultuously to arms, without concert, without system, without resource; except in their courage and despair."

- Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 28

"f circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little, if at all, inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow-citizens. This appears to me the only substitute that can be devised for a standing army, and the best possible security against it, if it should exist."

- Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 28

The people who wish to preserve liberty and are capable of bearing arms are the militia.

“A militia when properly formed are in fact the people themselves…and include, according to the past and general usuage of the states, all men capable of bearing arms… "To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them."

- Richard Henry Lee, Federal Farmer No. 18, January 25, 1788

The Founding Fathers believed that peaceable law abiding citizens should never have their right to bear arms be infringed upon.

"And that the said Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the Press, or the rights of Conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, WHO ARE PEACEABLE CITIZENS, from keeping their own arms; …"

Samuel Adams quoted in the Philadelphia Independent Gazetteer, August 20, 1789, "Propositions submitted to the Convention of this State"

The fundamental purpose of the militia is to serve as a check upon a standing army, the words “well regulated” referred to the necessity that the armed citizens making up the militia have the level of equipment and training necessary to be an effective and formidable check upon the national government’s standing army.

"I ask who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers." - George Mason, Address to the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 4, 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

"The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country." - James Madison, I Annals of Congress 434, June 8, 1789

“A militia when properly formed are in fact the people themselves…and include, according to the past and general usuage of the states, all men capable of bearing arms… "To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them." - Richard Henry Lee, Federal Farmer No. 18, January 25, 1788

Well regulated does not mean regulations. When the Constitution specifies regulations it specifically states who and what is being regulated. The phrase "well-regulated" was in common use long before 1789, and remained so for a century thereafter. It referred to the property of something being in proper working order. Something that was well-regulated was calibrated correctly, functioning as expected. The fundamental purpose of the militia was to serve as a check upon a standing army, the words “well regulated” referred to the necessity that the armed citizens making up the militia have the necessary equipment and training necessary to be an effective and formidable check upon the national government’s standing army. Establishing government oversight of the people's arms was not only not the intent in using the phrase in the 2nd amendment, it was precisely to render the government powerless to do so that the founders wrote it.

Firstly the right to bear arms doesn't give you an armed populace. That's the right to keep arms. The right to bear arms is the right to be in the militia.

i.e., the militia with citizen soldiers, that means you need people with the guns for the militia, and you need people to use the guns in the militia.

You are overlooking that the militia clause is the prefatory clause and the right to bear arms is the operative clause. The use of the indefinite articles "a" and "an" in Article I, Section 8 and the Second Amendment are precise and intentional. The collective right to arms is in Article I, § 8, Clause 15, which was supported in Presser v Illinois, and the individual right is in the operative clause of the Second Amendment.

No, I'm not.

You're just unable to comprehend what I'm saying. I've said it plenty of times and you keep acting like I said something else. It's getting a little tiring.

I understand that you are equating the right to bear arms with the militia. I understand you are making a collective statement. I understand you addressed nothing in my post.