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

[C_Clayton_Jones]

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.

Doesn't preclude regulations

Who must join the militia, how they are trained, what weapons they have, what the command structure is

Knowing who has guns, the training they have and where they are is essential to a well regulated militia

No.

No.

And no.

Given that the point of the 2nd Amendment is to serve as a check against a standing army of a tyrannical government, giving the government -. the ones we are supposed to be serving as a check against - the details of the militia would make as little sense as arming them with less than the technology of the day.

There is nothing in the Constitution about militias being a check on the government

They look at militias as being necessary for the security of a free state......not a check on a free state

Now you are splitting hairs. Same difference. Which is why we look at the statements that were made by the Founding Fathers. But hey, I'm not trying to convince you. You won't be happy until all guns are banned and confiscated.

There are no words in the Constitution relating to the rights of civilians to overthrow government.
I'm not looking to ban or confiscate all guns. With 300 million out there, that is not going to happen

But I do believe those who stockpile guns and ammo for the day when they will take on the US Government are certifiable crazy

Correct.

The Second Amendment recognizes an individual right to possess a firearm, along with the right to self-defense.

There is no Second Amendment ‘right’ to ‘overthrow’ the government, the notion is as ridiculous as it is insane.

And the right to self-defense concerns protecting oneself from criminal attack by other private persons – attempted robbery, home invasion, rape, murder, etc. – not to ‘defend’ oneself from ‘the government’ incorrectly perceived to be ‘tyrannical.’

 

[ding]

Unfortunately logic is logic, you can't have your own little personalized logic. No, you don't know anyone making arguments for tanks, except for yourself. Your argument is this: "so the militia and its arms must never be under the auspice of that government. The same logic applies to the type of weaponry they should possess."

In this case I can as you started off this line of thought by making an assumption that was not true. It is not my argument that the 2nd Amendment grants us the right to own any weapon. This is YOUR weak tea argument, not mine and it shows how desperate you are becoming to deny us the arms we need which are semi-automatic rifles with high capacity magazines.

That all weaponry the militia has should not be under govt control. I'm going to assume right now that you mean the federal govt, this is an important point, but let me know if I'm wrong under your "logic".

Yes. You are wrong. All government control. Period. Let's be realistic here, your end game is banning guns. Let's not pretend you are trying to refine the finer points of the 2nd Amendment, ok?

So you're saying the people should be able to have militia weaponry, then I say tanks are militia weaponry then all of a sudden you're not saying people should have militia weaponry.

I have been very clear about what I have said. You are the one who is saying all manner of ridiculous things in a feeble attempt at constructing a straw-man of your own making. Let's not pretend you are trying to refine the finer points of the 2nd Amendment, ok? Your end game is banning guns.

So, should people be able to have militia weaponry at home, or should they not?

My last statement was very clear. The 2nd Amendment grants peaceable law abiding citizens the right to own, possess, keep and bear arms.

I should have just left it earlier on. You're back to talking complete bollocks again.

No. I'm not talking bollocks again and I wasn't talking bollocks before. Your end game is banning guns. You don't care about the 2nd Amendment.

 

[ding]

Doesn't preclude regulations

Who must join the militia, how they are trained, what weapons they have, what the command structure is

Knowing who has guns, the training they have and where they are is essential to a well regulated militia

No.

No.

And no.

Given that the point of the 2nd Amendment is to serve as a check against a standing army of a tyrannical government, giving the government -. the ones we are supposed to be serving as a check against - the details of the militia would make as little sense as arming them with less than the technology of the day.

There is nothing in the Constitution about militias being a check on the government

They look at militias as being necessary for the security of a free state......not a check on a free state

Now you are splitting hairs. Same difference. Which is why we look at the statements that were made by the Founding Fathers. But hey, I'm not trying to convince you. You won't be happy until all guns are banned and confiscated.

There are no words in the Constitution relating to the rights of civilians to overthrow government.
I'm not looking to ban or confiscate all guns. With 300 million out there, that is not going to happen

But I do believe those who stockpile guns and ammo for the day when they will take on the US Government are certifiable crazy

Correct.

The Second Amendment recognizes an individual right to possess a firearm, along with the right to self-defense.

There is no Second Amendment ‘right’ to ‘overthrow’ the government, the notion is as ridiculous as it is insane.

And the right to self-defense concerns protecting oneself from criminal attack by other private persons – attempted robbery, home invasion, rape, murder, etc. – not to ‘defend’ oneself from ‘the government’ incorrectly perceived to be ‘tyrannical.’

Not a just government. No. But I am glad that you agree with everything else.

 

[ding]

No.

No.

And no.

Given that the point of the 2nd Amendment is to serve as a check against a standing army of a tyrannical government, giving the government -. the ones we are supposed to be serving as a check against - the details of the militia would make as little sense as arming them with less than the technology of the day.

There is nothing in the Constitution about militias being a check on the government

They look at militias as being necessary for the security of a free state......not a check on a free state

Now you are splitting hairs. Same difference. Which is why we look at the statements that were made by the Founding Fathers. But hey, I'm not trying to convince you. You won't be happy until all guns are banned and confiscated.

There are no words in the Constitution relating to the rights of civilians to overthrow government.
I'm not looking to ban or confiscate all guns. With 300 million out there, that is not going to happen

But I do believe those who stockpile guns and ammo for the day when they will take on the US Government are certifiable crazy

The 2nd Amendment is intended to serve as a deterrent against a tyrannical government. You want the police and military to be the only ones who have semi automatic rifles and high capacity magazines which makes no sense at all.

I trust trained police and military with automatic rifles and high capacity magazines more than some stupid fucking kid that nobody ever liked

It's not up to you to decide.

 

[emilynghiem]

There are no words in the Constitution relating to the rights of civilians to overthrow government.
I'm not looking to ban or confiscate all guns. With 300 million out there, that is not going to happen

But I do believe those who stockpile guns and ammo for the day when they will take on the US Government are certifiable crazy

And that's a very small percentage of gun owners

I give you ....Ding

When people have truth on their side they argue facts. When they have reason on their side they argue logic. When they have neither they attack the character of the person who has been mopping the floor with them using facts and logic.

Well ding ppl are human too.
Even you digressed and made comments about how someone was brought up by their mother in that other religion thread. That's part of Internet culture with males putting others in their place. If we got sidetracked everytime that happened we'd never finish and get to the point.

My question is how do liberals like rightwinger expect to police the police and govt after giving them all the power? If police are accused of abusing guns now, and accused of skewing the grand jury process in favor of police, wouldn't more power make that worse?

Wouldn't the opposite be to empower citizens to check the govt against abuses? Teach all districts to manage their own Grievance or complaint and compliance process? If rightwinger wants more civil means of preventing abuses or crimes, can't both sides agree that arming citizens with knowledge and defense of the laws will do more to enforce consistent standards, deter abuse and reduce the need for violent force?

“My question is how do liberals like rightwinger expect to police the police and govt after giving them all the power?”

This fails as a straw man fallacy.

Indeed, your post is a lie – ‘liberals’ don’t advocate giving anyone ‘all the power.’

OK C_Clayton_Jones
so you explain it then
If you only trust military police or militia with the right to bear arms,
how do you plan to get any better results in preventing abuse of excessive force?

If the answer is better training and screening for police and military,
isn't that the same answer we should apply to citizens and the right to bear arms?

Make sure citizens have proper training in defending laws and due process,
as police and military are required,
but that doesn't mean citizens have to be part of a formal militia to go through training, right?

So what is your solution
to stop abuse of force by either govt or nongovt
police or nonpolice, military/formal militia or other citizens?

Isn't education and training in laws and enforcement the solution either way?

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

Doesn't preclude regulations

Who must join the militia, how they are trained, what weapons they have, what the command structure is

Knowing who has guns, the training they have and where they are is essential to a well regulated militia

No.

No.

And no.

Given that the point of the 2nd Amendment is to serve as a check against a standing army of a tyrannical government, giving the government -. the ones we are supposed to be serving as a check against - the details of the militia would make as little sense as arming them with less than the technology of the day.

There is nothing in the Constitution about militias being a check on the government

They look at militias as being necessary for the security of a free state......not a check on a free state

Now you are splitting hairs. Same difference. Which is why we look at the statements that were made by the Founding Fathers. But hey, I'm not trying to convince you. You won't be happy until all guns are banned and confiscated.

There are no words in the Constitution relating to the rights of civilians to overthrow government.
I'm not looking to ban or confiscate all guns. With 300 million out there, that is not going to happen

But I do believe those who stockpile guns and ammo for the day when they will take on the US Government are certifiable crazy

Correct.

The Second Amendment recognizes an individual right to possess a firearm, along with the right to self-defense.

There is no Second Amendment ‘right’ to ‘overthrow’ the government, the notion is as ridiculous as it is insane.

And the right to self-defense concerns protecting oneself from criminal attack by other private persons – attempted robbery, home invasion, rape, murder, etc. – not to ‘defend’ oneself from ‘the government’ incorrectly perceived to be ‘tyrannical.’

“No Free Man shall ever be debarred the use of arms. The strongest reason for the people to retain their right to keep and bear arms is as a last resort to protect themselves against tyranny in government.”
-Thomas Jefferson

 

[frigidweirdo]

Unfortunately logic is logic, you can't have your own little personalized logic. No, you don't know anyone making arguments for tanks, except for yourself. Your argument is this: "so the militia and its arms must never be under the auspice of that government. The same logic applies to the type of weaponry they should possess."

In this case I can as you started off this line of thought by making an assumption that was not true. It is not my argument that the 2nd Amendment grants us the right to own any weapon. This is YOUR weak tea argument, not mine and it shows how desperate you are becoming to deny us the arms we need which are semi-automatic rifles with high capacity magazines.

That all weaponry the militia has should not be under govt control. I'm going to assume right now that you mean the federal govt, this is an important point, but let me know if I'm wrong under your "logic".

Yes. You are wrong. All government control. Period. Let's be realistic here, your end game is banning guns. Let's not pretend you are trying to refine the finer points of the 2nd Amendment, ok?

So you're saying the people should be able to have militia weaponry, then I say tanks are militia weaponry then all of a sudden you're not saying people should have militia weaponry.

I have been very clear about what I have said. You are the one who is saying all manner of ridiculous things in a feeble attempt at constructing a straw-man of your own making. Let's not pretend you are trying to refine the finer points of the 2nd Amendment, ok? Your end game is banning guns.

So, should people be able to have militia weaponry at home, or should they not?

My last statement was very clear. The 2nd Amendment grants peaceable law abiding citizens the right to own, possess, keep and bear arms.

I should have just left it earlier on. You're back to talking complete bollocks again.

No. I'm not talking bollocks again and I wasn't talking bollocks before. Your end game is banning guns. You don't care about the 2nd Amendment.

Telling people what they think is talking bollocks. You can't even read what I write, let alone understand what I'm thinking.

 

[ding]

Unfortunately logic is logic, you can't have your own little personalized logic. No, you don't know anyone making arguments for tanks, except for yourself. Your argument is this: "so the militia and its arms must never be under the auspice of that government. The same logic applies to the type of weaponry they should possess."

In this case I can as you started off this line of thought by making an assumption that was not true. It is not my argument that the 2nd Amendment grants us the right to own any weapon. This is YOUR weak tea argument, not mine and it shows how desperate you are becoming to deny us the arms we need which are semi-automatic rifles with high capacity magazines.

That all weaponry the militia has should not be under govt control. I'm going to assume right now that you mean the federal govt, this is an important point, but let me know if I'm wrong under your "logic".

Yes. You are wrong. All government control. Period. Let's be realistic here, your end game is banning guns. Let's not pretend you are trying to refine the finer points of the 2nd Amendment, ok?

So you're saying the people should be able to have militia weaponry, then I say tanks are militia weaponry then all of a sudden you're not saying people should have militia weaponry.

I have been very clear about what I have said. You are the one who is saying all manner of ridiculous things in a feeble attempt at constructing a straw-man of your own making. Let's not pretend you are trying to refine the finer points of the 2nd Amendment, ok? Your end game is banning guns.

So, should people be able to have militia weaponry at home, or should they not?

My last statement was very clear. The 2nd Amendment grants peaceable law abiding citizens the right to own, possess, keep and bear arms.

I should have just left it earlier on. You're back to talking complete bollocks again.

No. I'm not talking bollocks again and I wasn't talking bollocks before. Your end game is banning guns. You don't care about the 2nd Amendment.

Telling people what they think is talking bollocks. You can't even read what I write, let alone understand what I'm thinking.

Tell me how you don't want to ban guns then. Prove me wrong.

 

[ding]

Checkmate. This is too easy.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Unfortunately logic is logic, you can't have your own little personalized logic. No, you don't know anyone making arguments for tanks, except for yourself. Your argument is this: "so the militia and its arms must never be under the auspice of that government. The same logic applies to the type of weaponry they should possess."

In this case I can as you started off this line of thought by making an assumption that was not true. It is not my argument that the 2nd Amendment grants us the right to own any weapon. This is YOUR weak tea argument, not mine and it shows how desperate you are becoming to deny us the arms we need which are semi-automatic rifles with high capacity magazines.

That all weaponry the militia has should not be under govt control. I'm going to assume right now that you mean the federal govt, this is an important point, but let me know if I'm wrong under your "logic".

Yes. You are wrong. All government control. Period. Let's be realistic here, your end game is banning guns. Let's not pretend you are trying to refine the finer points of the 2nd Amendment, ok?

So you're saying the people should be able to have militia weaponry, then I say tanks are militia weaponry then all of a sudden you're not saying people should have militia weaponry.

I have been very clear about what I have said. You are the one who is saying all manner of ridiculous things in a feeble attempt at constructing a straw-man of your own making. Let's not pretend you are trying to refine the finer points of the 2nd Amendment, ok? Your end game is banning guns.

So, should people be able to have militia weaponry at home, or should they not?

My last statement was very clear. The 2nd Amendment grants peaceable law abiding citizens the right to own, possess, keep and bear arms.

I should have just left it earlier on. You're back to talking complete bollocks again.

No. I'm not talking bollocks again and I wasn't talking bollocks before. Your end game is banning guns. You don't care about the 2nd Amendment.

Telling people what they think is talking bollocks. You can't even read what I write, let alone understand what I'm thinking.

Tell me how you don't want to ban guns then. Prove me wrong.

Is there any point? At no time during any conversation with you have you shown the slightest interest in debate. It's like talking with a brick wall that has buttons you press and automated answers come out.

No dude, I'm done with you.

 

[frigidweirdo]

No.

No.

And no.

Given that the point of the 2nd Amendment is to serve as a check against a standing army of a tyrannical government, giving the government -. the ones we are supposed to be serving as a check against - the details of the militia would make as little sense as arming them with less than the technology of the day.

There is nothing in the Constitution about militias being a check on the government

They look at militias as being necessary for the security of a free state......not a check on a free state

Now you are splitting hairs. Same difference. Which is why we look at the statements that were made by the Founding Fathers. But hey, I'm not trying to convince you. You won't be happy until all guns are banned and confiscated.

There are no words in the Constitution relating to the rights of civilians to overthrow government.
I'm not looking to ban or confiscate all guns. With 300 million out there, that is not going to happen

But I do believe those who stockpile guns and ammo for the day when they will take on the US Government are certifiable crazy

Correct.

The Second Amendment recognizes an individual right to possess a firearm, along with the right to self-defense.

There is no Second Amendment ‘right’ to ‘overthrow’ the government, the notion is as ridiculous as it is insane.

And the right to self-defense concerns protecting oneself from criminal attack by other private persons – attempted robbery, home invasion, rape, murder, etc. – not to ‘defend’ oneself from ‘the government’ incorrectly perceived to be ‘tyrannical.’

“No Free Man shall ever be debarred the use of arms. The strongest reason for the people to retain their right to keep and bear arms is as a last resort to protect themselves against tyranny in government.”
-Thomas Jefferson

Then again you have to wonder what Jefferson would say today. I doubt he'd be of the same opinion.

 

[Skull Pilot]

No.

No.

And no.

Given that the point of the 2nd Amendment is to serve as a check against a standing army of a tyrannical government, giving the government -. the ones we are supposed to be serving as a check against - the details of the militia would make as little sense as arming them with less than the technology of the day.

There is nothing in the Constitution about militias being a check on the government

They look at militias as being necessary for the security of a free state......not a check on a free state

Now you are splitting hairs. Same difference. Which is why we look at the statements that were made by the Founding Fathers. But hey, I'm not trying to convince you. You won't be happy until all guns are banned and confiscated.

There are no words in the Constitution relating to the rights of civilians to overthrow government.
I'm not looking to ban or confiscate all guns. With 300 million out there, that is not going to happen

But I do believe those who stockpile guns and ammo for the day when they will take on the US Government are certifiable crazy

The 2nd Amendment is intended to serve as a deterrent against a tyrannical government. You want the police and military to be the only ones who have semi automatic rifles and high capacity magazines which makes no sense at all.

I trust trained police and military with automatic rifles and high capacity magazines more than some stupid fucking kid that nobody ever liked

civilians can;t buy automatic rifles without special permits and if they get the permit they can only buy automatic weapons made before 1985

and you have to be 18 to buy a rifle and 21 to buy a handgun in most states iow an aduly

 

[Skull Pilot]

There is nothing in the Constitution about militias being a check on the government

They look at militias as being necessary for the security of a free state......not a check on a free state

Now you are splitting hairs. Same difference. Which is why we look at the statements that were made by the Founding Fathers. But hey, I'm not trying to convince you. You won't be happy until all guns are banned and confiscated.

There are no words in the Constitution relating to the rights of civilians to overthrow government.
I'm not looking to ban or confiscate all guns. With 300 million out there, that is not going to happen

But I do believe those who stockpile guns and ammo for the day when they will take on the US Government are certifiable crazy

The 2nd Amendment serves as a deterrent against a tyrannical government. You want the police and military to be the only ones who have semi automatic rifles and high capacity magazines which makes no sense at all.

Dear ding and rightwinger
If liberals don't trust police with greater concentrated authority and power , because they fear the abuse of force, then who is left to use arms for defense.

Isn't it better to train more citizens in proper defense of laws for security.

Why put all the power in hands of police, then say you don't trust them with that power. Which way is it?

As a citizen, I have more control over who gets selected for the police force, the training they receive and the rules and regulations they comply with

I have no control over a pimply faced kid that wants to get even with everyone that ever picked on him

you have no control over who gets hired by the cops

and like I said you have to be 18 to buy a long gun legally

 

[ding]

In this case I can as you started off this line of thought by making an assumption that was not true. It is not my argument that the 2nd Amendment grants us the right to own any weapon. This is YOUR weak tea argument, not mine and it shows how desperate you are becoming to deny us the arms we need which are semi-automatic rifles with high capacity magazines.


Yes. You are wrong. All government control. Period. Let's be realistic here, your end game is banning guns. Let's not pretend you are trying to refine the finer points of the 2nd Amendment, ok?


I have been very clear about what I have said. You are the one who is saying all manner of ridiculous things in a feeble attempt at constructing a straw-man of your own making. Let's not pretend you are trying to refine the finer points of the 2nd Amendment, ok? Your end game is banning guns.

My last statement was very clear. The 2nd Amendment grants peaceable law abiding citizens the right to own, possess, keep and bear arms.

I should have just left it earlier on. You're back to talking complete bollocks again.

No. I'm not talking bollocks again and I wasn't talking bollocks before. Your end game is banning guns. You don't care about the 2nd Amendment.

Telling people what they think is talking bollocks. You can't even read what I write, let alone understand what I'm thinking.

Tell me how you don't want to ban guns then. Prove me wrong.

Is there any point? At no time during any conversation with you have you shown the slightest interest in debate. It's like talking with a brick wall that has buttons you press and automated answers come out.

No dude, I'm done with you.

The point would have been to prove me wrong. Wasn't that a good enough reason to say you didn't want to ban guns if you really didn't want to ban guns. The problem is that I nailed it. You didn't have any other choice but to feign indignity and stomp off into the sunset. It was exactly as I called it. Checkmate.

 

[rightwinger]

There is nothing in the Constitution about militias being a check on the government

They look at militias as being necessary for the security of a free state......not a check on a free state

Now you are splitting hairs. Same difference. Which is why we look at the statements that were made by the Founding Fathers. But hey, I'm not trying to convince you. You won't be happy until all guns are banned and confiscated.

There are no words in the Constitution relating to the rights of civilians to overthrow government.
I'm not looking to ban or confiscate all guns. With 300 million out there, that is not going to happen

But I do believe those who stockpile guns and ammo for the day when they will take on the US Government are certifiable crazy

The 2nd Amendment is intended to serve as a deterrent against a tyrannical government. You want the police and military to be the only ones who have semi automatic rifles and high capacity magazines which makes no sense at all.

I trust trained police and military with automatic rifles and high capacity magazines more than some stupid fucking kid that nobody ever liked

It's not up to you to decide.

Actually, it is

That is why I vote

 

[rightwinger]

No.

No.

And no.

Given that the point of the 2nd Amendment is to serve as a check against a standing army of a tyrannical government, giving the government -. the ones we are supposed to be serving as a check against - the details of the militia would make as little sense as arming them with less than the technology of the day.

There is nothing in the Constitution about militias being a check on the government

They look at militias as being necessary for the security of a free state......not a check on a free state

Now you are splitting hairs. Same difference. Which is why we look at the statements that were made by the Founding Fathers. But hey, I'm not trying to convince you. You won't be happy until all guns are banned and confiscated.

There are no words in the Constitution relating to the rights of civilians to overthrow government.
I'm not looking to ban or confiscate all guns. With 300 million out there, that is not going to happen

But I do believe those who stockpile guns and ammo for the day when they will take on the US Government are certifiable crazy

Correct.

The Second Amendment recognizes an individual right to possess a firearm, along with the right to self-defense.

There is no Second Amendment ‘right’ to ‘overthrow’ the government, the notion is as ridiculous as it is insane.

And the right to self-defense concerns protecting oneself from criminal attack by other private persons – attempted robbery, home invasion, rape, murder, etc. – not to ‘defend’ oneself from ‘the government’ incorrectly perceived to be ‘tyrannical.’

“No Free Man shall ever be debarred the use of arms. The strongest reason for the people to retain their right to keep and bear arms is as a last resort to protect themselves against tyranny in government.”
-Thomas Jefferson

Those words never made it into the Constitution or into any law

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

There is nothing in the Constitution about militias being a check on the government

They look at militias as being necessary for the security of a free state......not a check on a free state

Now you are splitting hairs. Same difference. Which is why we look at the statements that were made by the Founding Fathers. But hey, I'm not trying to convince you. You won't be happy until all guns are banned and confiscated.

There are no words in the Constitution relating to the rights of civilians to overthrow government.
I'm not looking to ban or confiscate all guns. With 300 million out there, that is not going to happen

But I do believe those who stockpile guns and ammo for the day when they will take on the US Government are certifiable crazy

Correct.

The Second Amendment recognizes an individual right to possess a firearm, along with the right to self-defense.

There is no Second Amendment ‘right’ to ‘overthrow’ the government, the notion is as ridiculous as it is insane.

And the right to self-defense concerns protecting oneself from criminal attack by other private persons – attempted robbery, home invasion, rape, murder, etc. – not to ‘defend’ oneself from ‘the government’ incorrectly perceived to be ‘tyrannical.’

“No Free Man shall ever be debarred the use of arms. The strongest reason for the people to retain their right to keep and bear arms is as a last resort to protect themselves against tyranny in government.”
-Thomas Jefferson

Then again you have to wonder what Jefferson would say today. I doubt he'd be of the same opinion.

Speculation. Irrelevant.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

There is nothing in the Constitution about militias being a check on the government

They look at militias as being necessary for the security of a free state......not a check on a free state

Now you are splitting hairs. Same difference. Which is why we look at the statements that were made by the Founding Fathers. But hey, I'm not trying to convince you. You won't be happy until all guns are banned and confiscated.

There are no words in the Constitution relating to the rights of civilians to overthrow government.
I'm not looking to ban or confiscate all guns. With 300 million out there, that is not going to happen

But I do believe those who stockpile guns and ammo for the day when they will take on the US Government are certifiable crazy

Correct.

The Second Amendment recognizes an individual right to possess a firearm, along with the right to self-defense.

There is no Second Amendment ‘right’ to ‘overthrow’ the government, the notion is as ridiculous as it is insane.

And the right to self-defense concerns protecting oneself from criminal attack by other private persons – attempted robbery, home invasion, rape, murder, etc. – not to ‘defend’ oneself from ‘the government’ incorrectly perceived to be ‘tyrannical.’

“No Free Man shall ever be debarred the use of arms. The strongest reason for the people to retain their right to keep and bear arms is as a last resort to protect themselves against tyranny in government.”
-Thomas Jefferson

Those words never made it into the Constitution or into any law

No, but they explain the rationale behind the 2A.

 

[rightwinger]

Now you are splitting hairs. Same difference. Which is why we look at the statements that were made by the Founding Fathers. But hey, I'm not trying to convince you. You won't be happy until all guns are banned and confiscated.

There are no words in the Constitution relating to the rights of civilians to overthrow government.
I'm not looking to ban or confiscate all guns. With 300 million out there, that is not going to happen

But I do believe those who stockpile guns and ammo for the day when they will take on the US Government are certifiable crazy

Correct.

The Second Amendment recognizes an individual right to possess a firearm, along with the right to self-defense.

There is no Second Amendment ‘right’ to ‘overthrow’ the government, the notion is as ridiculous as it is insane.

And the right to self-defense concerns protecting oneself from criminal attack by other private persons – attempted robbery, home invasion, rape, murder, etc. – not to ‘defend’ oneself from ‘the government’ incorrectly perceived to be ‘tyrannical.’

“No Free Man shall ever be debarred the use of arms. The strongest reason for the people to retain their right to keep and bear arms is as a last resort to protect themselves against tyranny in government.”
-Thomas Jefferson

Those words never made it into the Constitution or into any law

No, but they explain the rationale behind the 2A.

If they wanted those words, they would have put them in

As it is, The Constitution makes no provisions for overthrowing the government peacefully or with force

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

There are no words in the Constitution relating to the rights of civilians to overthrow government.
I'm not looking to ban or confiscate all guns. With 300 million out there, that is not going to happen

But I do believe those who stockpile guns and ammo for the day when they will take on the US Government are certifiable crazy

Correct.

The Second Amendment recognizes an individual right to possess a firearm, along with the right to self-defense.

There is no Second Amendment ‘right’ to ‘overthrow’ the government, the notion is as ridiculous as it is insane.

And the right to self-defense concerns protecting oneself from criminal attack by other private persons – attempted robbery, home invasion, rape, murder, etc. – not to ‘defend’ oneself from ‘the government’ incorrectly perceived to be ‘tyrannical.’

“No Free Man shall ever be debarred the use of arms. The strongest reason for the people to retain their right to keep and bear arms is as a last resort to protect themselves against tyranny in government.”
-Thomas Jefferson

Those words never made it into the Constitution or into any law

No, but they explain the rationale behind the 2A.

If they wanted those words, they would have put them in

As it is, The Constitution makes no provisions for overthrowing the government peacefully or with force

The people need no special permission to oppose a government gone wrong. Just what do you think the whole idea of this experiment is?