The REAL purpose of 2nd Amendment; The no B.S. truth

[bucs90]

[ame=http://www.amazon.com/Stalkers-Shooters-A-History-Snipers/dp/0425215423]Stalkers and Shooters: A History of Snipers: Kevin Dockery: 9780425215425: Amazon.com: Books[/ame]

Read this book last weekend, "Stalkers and Shooters: History of Snipers"; it was fantastic. Documents the history of snipers, from the early 1300's with arrows, up to the Revolutionary and Civil Wars, all the way to modern day military and swat snipers fighting terrorism. More of a detailed history than techincal teaching book.

Anyway, it spoke about the 2nd Amendment. And the real meaning of it within context of what was going on in the country at the time. This is not a political book. Its for no-B.S. military and police people. And here is basically how it lays it out:

The Revolutionary War depended a lot on volunteer militia to fight alongside official military. The problem was, the militia were being provided ammo by the regular troops, and they had to make 7 different types of ammo due to the militia all having different rifles.

The Revolutionary War was turned in large part due to American snipers and their marksmanship and guerilla tactics. They fought ALONGSIDE their government's official troops to fight off the British.

So, to put it bluntly, as the book lays it out, the CONTEXT of the idea behind the 2nd Amendment immediately after the Revolutionary War was a "well regulated" militia, MEANING that the standing government could provide ammunition in times of emergency to the citizens, and with "well regulated" militia, they'd all have a standard caliber ammo so the government could focus on mass producing one type of ammo, and thus, supply as much ammo as possible to it's people.

And that would allow the people to fight ALONG SIDE the regular troops in times of national defense.

THAT, in my opinion, is the true, no bullshit meaning, with historical context and purpose. To have armed citizens, in a common caliber of ammo, that the government can open up the hordes of ammo to should a national emergency or invasion happen.

Its not to allow the citizens to fight against their own government, its to allow them to fight WITH their government. The Revolutionary War showed this, when the Americans tried to supply 7 different types of ammo to the militia, and it was hard, so they determined that a "well regulated" (aka, common caliber) amongst the militia would be a good idea.

And it is. The standard ammo of choice seems to be 5.56/.223, 12 guage, and .45 or 9mm, all very common rounds that the federal, state and local governments use. And they are very popular among citizens.

It seems the 2nd Amendment works, accidentally or on purpose, in that if America were subjected to a mass invasion, the governments could distribute ammo to the people, most of whom would have guns that could fire the most common calibers government uses.



But much to the disappointment of right wing fanatics, the 2nd was, and is, meant to allow citizens to fight WITH their government, NOT against it.

 

[ScienceRocks]

Men could shot each other for the hell of it at one time. We had total rights.

 

[The2ndAmendment]

Allow me to quote the Preamble to the Bill of Rights which expressly declares the purpose of each Amendment thereto:

The Preamble to The Bill of Rights

Congress of the United States
begun and held at the City of New-York, on
Wednesday the fourth of March, one thousand seven hundred and eighty nine.

THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution.

RESOLVED by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, two thirds of both Houses concurring, that the following Articles be proposed to the Legislatures of the several States, as amendments to the Constitution of the United States, all, or any of which Articles, when ratified by three fourths of the said Legislatures, to be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of the said Constitution; viz.

ARTICLES in addition to, and Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America, proposed by Congress, and ratified by the Legislatures of the several States, pursuant to the fifth Article of the original Constitution.

Also, the purpose of the Second Amendment is to Restore the Rule of Law.

That means to either assist our government it was are invaded, or there is unjustified Insurrection.

It also means to abolish a Government (which is a group of men) that has decided to REVOLT against We the People by either suspending jury trials or confiscating the most modern form of self-defense.

 

[ScienceRocks]

One of our founding fathers was legally blown away. This is how our founders felt about our gun rights!

 

[The2ndAmendment]

One of our founding fathers was legally blown away. This is how our founders felt about our gun rights!

And notice that that particular Found Father was the most conniving Statist among them, whose true intention of persuading the People to ratify the Constitution was to allow him to set up a private Central bank to enslave us all.

 

[Little-Acorn]

the 2nd was, and is, meant to allow citizens to fight WITH their government, NOT against it.

If that were true, they would have written it that way.

But they didn't.

It simply says that the right of the people cannot be taken away or restricted. And it provides an explanation why... but makes no conditions on its mandate.

Even if somebody managed to prove that a well-regulated militia were NOT necessary for the security of a free states, the 2nd would still be a command that the right shall not be infringed. Period.

Much to the disappointment of left-wing fanatics.

 

[Vandalshandle]

Having read the Federalist Papers, written by the framers of the Constitution, it is clear that the the government was not intending to encourage citizens to arm themselves against a tyranical government. If anything, they were assuming that no standing army would ever be needed in this country, and that the defense of the nation, against domestic and foreign threats, rested permenantly with the militia, and NOT with a standing army. Consequently, the militia must be allowed to be armed, and the government was not going to pay for stocking arsanals for them.

 

[bucs90]

the 2nd was, and is, meant to allow citizens to fight WITH their government, NOT against it.

If that were true, they would have written it that way.

But they didn't.

It simply says that the right of the people cannot be taken away or restricted. And it provides an explanation why... but makes no conditions on its mandate.

Even if somebody managed to prove that a well-regulated militia were NOT necessary for the security of a free states, the 2nd would still be a command that the right shall not be infringed. Period.

Much to the disappointment of left-wing fanatics.

Thats probably because back then, in this new nation, they couldnt forsee a time when people hated the United States government so much. That they could only imagine supporting it and showing patriotism towards it.

They probably couldn't forsee people wanting to fight against the very government that partly makes this country so great.

A "poorly" or non-regulated militia would just be everybody having guns. And thats it.

The "well regulated" part, meaning it has some standards, referred to a common caliber of ammo, so in times of crisis, the government could arm the people with that standard caliber. The sources used in the book explain that. About how the Revolutionary War showed trouble by the American military trying to supply the citizens 7 different calibers of ammo to fight the British, when one.....or a "well regulated" militia.....would have been far more efficient.

If the Founders had wanted to be sure the citizens had the power to overthrow the government, they would've said "The people shall have the right to own weapons far superior to that of the government; And the government shall not own any weapons that are equal or greater than that of common citizens."

But thats not what they said.

 

[bucs90]

Having read the Federalist Papers, written by the framers of the Constitution, it is clear that the the government was not intending to encourage citizens to arm themselves against a tyranical government. If anything, they were assuming that no standing army would ever be needed in this country, and that the defense of the nation, against domestic and foreign threats, rested permenantly with the militia, and NOT with a standing army. Consequently, the militia must be allowed to be armed, and the government was not going to pay for stocking arsanals for them.

Do you agree that, with the explosion of technology, that proper national defense now MUST have a standing, full time Army that trains in peace time?

If we did not, and Russia or China invaded with their full time military that trains for years and years...........you dont think our citizens could all of a sudden pick up a rifle, learn to fly jets, etc, and fight them off?

We hear all the time about our military reservists not getting enough training. "Militia" in today's world, with all the technology, wouldnt stand a chance.

 

[Little-Acorn]

the 2nd was, and is, meant to allow citizens to fight WITH their government, NOT against it.

If that were true, they would have written it that way.

But they didn't.

It simply says that the right of the people cannot be taken away or restricted. And it provides an explanation why... but makes no conditions on its mandate.

Even if somebody managed to prove that a well-regulated militia were NOT necessary for the security of a free states, the 2nd would still be a command that the right shall not be infringed. Period.

Much to the disappointment of left-wing fanatics.

Thats probably because back then, in this new nation, they couldnt forsee a time when people hated the United States government so much. That they could only imagine supporting it and showing patriotism towards it.

They probably couldn't forsee people wanting to fight against the very government that partly makes this country so great.

Pure balderdash.

The Framers studied every form of government that had existed for the last few thousand years. And they knew perfectly well that LOTS of people disliked (or worse) EVERY form of government that came down the pike. Without exception. They knew that whatever they set up, would be far from perfect, since it would be composed of imperfect people. Their greatest hope was that the new government would be flexible enough, yet rigid enough to protect people's rights against other people who would take them away, with enogh checks and balances that it would restrain government more than it would restrain the people being governed.

To imagine that the Framers were so idyllic, naive, and self-admiring that they would think their government would have no opponents, is the most absurd wishful thinking.

They wrote the 2nd amendment so that ordinary people would have the same quality weapons as the foot soldier... but would outnumber the foot soldiers by orders of magnitude. And so that government would have NO authority to tell any of the people, that they could not have those weapons, or could not carry them etc.

 

[The2ndAmendment]

Do you agree that, with the explosion of technology, that proper national defense now MUST have a standing, full time Army that trains in peace time?

If we did not, and Russia or China invaded with their full time military that trains for years and years...........you dont think our citizens could all of a sudden pick up a rifle, learn to fly jets, etc, and fight them off?

We hear all the time about our military reservists not getting enough training. "Militia" in today's world, with all the technology, wouldnt stand a chance.

The Constitution provides that Congress, for two years at a time, may create and fund a Standing Army, so that point is moot.

Furthermore, the Founders allowed the United States to keep and maintain a Navy, and without any doubt, in the modern era, would have extended this to include the Air Force, because you cannot just simply train someone to captain a modern military destroyer or to fly a jet overnight.

 

[Stephanie]

the 2nd was, and is, meant to allow citizens to fight WITH their government, NOT against it.

If that were true, they would have written it that way.

But they didn't.

It simply says that the right of the people cannot be taken away or restricted. And it provides an explanation why... but makes no conditions on its mandate.

Even if somebody managed to prove that a well-regulated militia were NOT necessary for the security of a free states, the 2nd would still be a command that the right shall not be infringed. Period.

Much to the disappointment of left-wing fanatics.

Thats probably because back then, in this new nation, they couldnt forsee a time when people hated the United States government so much. That they could only imagine supporting it and showing patriotism towards it.

They probably couldn't forsee people wanting to fight against the very government that partly makes this country so great.

A "poorly" or non-regulated militia would just be everybody having guns. And thats it.

The "well regulated" part, meaning it has some standards, referred to a common caliber of ammo, so in times of crisis, the government could arm the people with that standard caliber. The sources used in the book explain that. About how the Revolutionary War showed trouble by the American military trying to supply the citizens 7 different calibers of ammo to fight the British, when one.....or a "well regulated" militia.....would have been far more efficient.

If the Founders had wanted to be sure the citizens had the power to overthrow the government, they would've said "The people shall have the right to own weapons far superior to that of the government; And the government shall not own any weapons that are equal or greater than that of common citizens."

But thats not what they said.

they didn't forsee a government this bloated full of UNtrusting idiots who has made a Career out of sucking off the taxpayer trying to take our freedoms away either...
but you can continue to kiss the ground they walk on

 

[hunarcy]

Stalkers and Shooters: A History of Snipers: Kevin Dockery: 9780425215425: Amazon.com: Books

Read this book last weekend, "Stalkers and Shooters: History of Snipers"; it was fantastic. Documents the history of snipers, from the early 1300's with arrows, up to the Revolutionary and Civil Wars, all the way to modern day military and swat snipers fighting terrorism. More of a detailed history than techincal teaching book.

Anyway, it spoke about the 2nd Amendment. And the real meaning of it within context of what was going on in the country at the time. This is not a political book. Its for no-B.S. military and police people. And here is basically how it lays it out:

The Revolutionary War depended a lot on volunteer militia to fight alongside official military. The problem was, the militia were being provided ammo by the regular troops, and they had to make 7 different types of ammo due to the militia all having different rifles.

The Revolutionary War was turned in large part due to American snipers and their marksmanship and guerilla tactics. They fought ALONGSIDE their government's official troops to fight off the British.

So, to put it bluntly, as the book lays it out, the CONTEXT of the idea behind the 2nd Amendment immediately after the Revolutionary War was a "well regulated" militia, MEANING that the standing government could provide ammunition in times of emergency to the citizens, and with "well regulated" militia, they'd all have a standard caliber ammo so the government could focus on mass producing one type of ammo, and thus, supply as much ammo as possible to it's people.

And that would allow the people to fight ALONG SIDE the regular troops in times of national defense.

THAT, in my opinion, is the true, no bullshit meaning, with historical context and purpose. To have armed citizens, in a common caliber of ammo, that the government can open up the hordes of ammo to should a national emergency or invasion happen.

Its not to allow the citizens to fight against their own government, its to allow them to fight WITH their government. The Revolutionary War showed this, when the Americans tried to supply 7 different types of ammo to the militia, and it was hard, so they determined that a "well regulated" (aka, common caliber) amongst the militia would be a good idea.

And it is. The standard ammo of choice seems to be 5.56/.223, 12 guage, and .45 or 9mm, all very common rounds that the federal, state and local governments use. And they are very popular among citizens.

It seems the 2nd Amendment works, accidentally or on purpose, in that if America were subjected to a mass invasion, the governments could distribute ammo to the people, most of whom would have guns that could fire the most common calibers government uses.



But much to the disappointment of right wing fanatics, the 2nd was, and is, meant to allow citizens to fight WITH their government, NOT against it.

Amusing. But, consider this:

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

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

This quote from the Journals of the Continental Congress, 1774-1789 also conveys the meaning of well regulated:

Resolved , That this appointment be conferred on experienced and vigilant general officers, who are acquainted with whatever relates to the general economy, manoeuvres and discipline of a well regulated army.
--- Saturday, December 13, 1777.

In the passage that follows, do you think the U.S. government was concerned because the Creek Indians' tribal regulations were superior to those of the Wabash or was it because they represented a better trained and disciplined fighting force?

That the strength of the Wabash Indians who were principally the object of the resolve of the 21st of July 1787, and the strength of the Creek Indians is very different. That the said Creeks are not only greatly superior in numbers but are more united, better regulated, and headed by a man whose talents appear to have fixed him in their confidence. That from the view of the object your Secretary has been able to take he conceives that the only effectual mode of acting against the said Creeks in case they should persist in their hostilities would be by making an invasion of their country with a powerful body of well regulated troops always ready to combat and able to defeat any combination of force the said Creeks could oppose and to destroy their towns and provisions.
--- Saturday, December 13, 1777.

I am unacquainted with the extent of your works, and consequently ignorant of the number or men necessary to man them. If your present numbers should be insufficient for that purpose, I would then by all means advise your making up the deficiency out of the best regulated militia that can be got.
--- George Washington (The Writings of George Washington, pp. 503-4, (G.P. Putnam & Sons, pub.)(1889))

The above quote is clearly not a request for a militia with the best set of regulations. (For brevity the entire passage is not shown and this quote should not be construed to imply Washington favored militias, in fact he thought little of them, as the full passage indicates.)

But Dr Sir I am Afraid it would blunt the keen edge they have at present which might be keept sharp for the Shawnese &c: I am convinced it would be Attended by considerable desertions. And perhaps raise a Spirit of Discontent not easily Queld amongst the best regulated troops, but much more so amongst men unused to the Yoak of Military Discipline.
--- Letter from Colonel William Fleming to Col. Adam Stephen, Oct 8, 1774, pp. 237-8. (Documentary History of Dunmore's War, 1774, Wisconsin historical society, pub. (1905))

And finally, a late-17th century comparison between the behavior of a large collection of seahorses and well-regulated soldiers:


One of the Seamen that had formerly made a Greenland Voyage for Whale-Fishing, told us that in that country he had seen very great Troops of those Sea-Horses ranging upon Land, sometimes three or four hundred in a Troop: Their great desire, he says, is to roost themselves on Land in the Warm Sun; and Whilst they sleep, they apppoint one to stand Centinel, and watch a certain time; and when that time's expir'd, another takes his place of Watching, and the first Centinel goes to sleep, &c. observing the strict Discipline, as a Body of Well-regulated Troops
--- (Letters written from New-England, A. D. 1686. P. 47, John Dutton (1867))

The quoted passages support the idea that a well-regulated militia was synonymous with one that was thoroughly trained and disciplined, and as a result, well-functioning. That description fits most closely with the "to put in good order" definition supplied by the Random House dictionary. The Oxford dictionary's definition also appears to fit if one considers discipline in a military context to include or imply well-trained.


What about the Amendment's text itself? Considering the adjective "well" and the context of the militia clause, which is more likely to ensure the security of a free state, a militia governed by numerous laws (or the proper amount of regulation [depending on the meaning of "well"] ) or a well-disciplined and trained militia? This brief textual analysis also suggests "to put in good order" is the correct interpretation of well regulated, signifying a well disciplined, trained, and functioning militia.

And finally, when regulated is used as an adjective, its meaning varies depending on the noun its modifying and of course the context. For example: well regulated liberty (properly controlled), regulated rifle (adjusted for accuracy), and regulated commerce (governed by regulations) all express a different meaning for regulated. This is by no means unusual, just as the word, bear, conveys a different meaning depending on the word it modifies: bearing arms, bearing fruit, or bearing gifts. Nothing there indicates that the PURPOSE of the 2nd Amendment was only to fight "WITH the government" and not against it if it became overbearing.

 

[NoTeaPartyPleez]

Stalkers and Shooters: A History of Snipers: Kevin Dockery: 9780425215425: Amazon.com: Books

Read this book last weekend, "Stalkers and Shooters: History of Snipers"; it was fantastic. Documents the history of snipers, from the early 1300's with arrows, up to the Revolutionary and Civil Wars, all the way to modern day military and swat snipers fighting terrorism. More of a detailed history than techincal teaching book.

Anyway, it spoke about the 2nd Amendment. And the real meaning of it within context of what was going on in the country at the time. This is not a political book. Its for no-B.S. military and police people. And here is basically how it lays it out:

The Revolutionary War depended a lot on volunteer militia to fight alongside official military. The problem was, the militia were being provided ammo by the regular troops, and they had to make 7 different types of ammo due to the militia all having different rifles.

The Revolutionary War was turned in large part due to American snipers and their marksmanship and guerilla tactics. They fought ALONGSIDE their government's official troops to fight off the British.

So, to put it bluntly, as the book lays it out, the CONTEXT of the idea behind the 2nd Amendment immediately after the Revolutionary War was a "well regulated" militia, MEANING that the standing government could provide ammunition in times of emergency to the citizens, and with "well regulated" militia, they'd all have a standard caliber ammo so the government could focus on mass producing one type of ammo, and thus, supply as much ammo as possible to it's people.

And that would allow the people to fight ALONG SIDE the regular troops in times of national defense.

Great post. Two things: The gov't did not provide the actual firearms, they wanted citizens to provide their own, but they did provide the ammunition. Which is logical.

But the secondary use of a "well regulated militia" was to give citizenry the right to assemble and defend itself in the invent our newly formed gov't did indeed become tyrannical as the British had been.

 

[chikenwing]

What really begs a question,is why so many are willing to argue against giving the 2nds strengths to the people,but instead to a government.

Why would people do that?

 

[DiamondDave]

no...

Words have meaning.. and the founders chose their words very carefully.. when they meant something, they wrote it...

This is t he most idiotic thread and premise I have read in a while

 

[JoeB131]

I think the thinking of people 230 years ago is kind of irrelevent.

DOes it make sense in the here and now for Joker Holmes to be able to walk into a gun store and buy military grade weapons and 100 ammo clips?

 

[DiamondDave]

I think the thinking of people 230 years ago is kind of irrelevent.

DOes it make sense in the here and now for Joker Holmes to be able to walk into a gun store and buy military grade weapons and 100 ammo clips?

Amendment process is there.. go for it... you'll need all the luck you can get

But no.. you and your prog ilk would rather have government step over its bounds to get the result you want.. cheering all the way as the law of the land is thwarted and the limits on government laid out in the constitution are ignored...

 

[JoeB131]

I think the thinking of people 230 years ago is kind of irrelevent.

DOes it make sense in the here and now for Joker Holmes to be able to walk into a gun store and buy military grade weapons and 100 ammo clips?

Amendment process is there.. go for it... you'll need all the luck you can get

But no.. you and your prog ilk would rather have government step over its bounds to get the result you want.. cheering all the way as the law of the land is thwarted and the limits on government laid out in the constitution are ignored...

Yeah, pretty much.

230 years ago, they though bleeding was a legitamate medical treatment and slavery was nifty.

The Constitution isn't written in stone, and they gave us a judiciary to make interpretations that reflect real life.

So can you give me a good reason why Joker Holmes should be able to buy an AR-15 and a 100 round clip?

 

[editec]

One of our founding fathers was legally blown away. This is how our founders felt about our gun rights!

And notice that that particular Found Father was the most conniving Statist among them, whose true intention of persuading the People to ratify the Constitution was to allow him to set up a private Central bank to enslave us all.

Kid you know jack shit about US history

Hamilton was a genius who recognized the flaws in the system and much thanks to him, made it possible for the USA to survive and thrive.

Who supported him?

People like WASHINGTON...or is he a STATIST, too?