Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
That may well be the view of those today that believe that militias are needed so gun toking patriots can overthrow the government when things don't go their way. However, the founders view was quite different. It was the fear of standing armies that led the founders to prefer the citizen-soldier to the professional. A near-universal assumption of the founding generation was the danger posed by a standing military force. Far from being composed of honorable citizens dutifully serving the interests of the nation, armies were held to be “nurseries of vice,” “dangerous,” and “the grand engine of despotism.” Fear of a standing army and the cost of maintaining it made the militia the overwhelming choice for the defense of the country.Like most gun nuts, you just can't stand to quote the whole 2nd amendment, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." You would have to be a little nuts to believe militias are necessary to the security of the nation today and it the militias aren't needed then there is no constitutional bases for the right to bear arms./----/ Nice try Gun Grabber. But I take the words of our Founding Fathers over yours any day of the week:The founders state in the amendment their reason for the right. Supporters of the amendment prefer to ignore their reason. If you actually take the time to read the amendment, instead of just focusing on the last phrase you will see that the founder's reason is no longer valid today. It would take a real nut case to believe the security of this nation doesn't rest with military but rather regulated militias that hardly even exist. At the time the 2nd amendment was written, the founders believed that regulated part time citizen militias composed of all citizens with firearms was necessary for the security of the state and thus the people must have the right to bear arms otherwise there could be no militias./----/ Ahhhh, the first straw man argument of the day.The deplorable gun fanatics are a bit inconsistent, either you take the sacred constitution literally or you don't.
So if you can carry a fifty caliber you should have the right to own one..
And you must become part of a well regulated militia of course
View attachment 180027
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
James Madison, author of the 2nd Amendment, Federalist Papers, #46, 1788
Madison clearly states what a militia is and what its purpose is; to counter the federal government. The anti-gun folks pretend this and other documents don’t exist. They wish.
No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms.
Thomas Jefferson, proposal to the Virginia Constitution.
Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom 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 bands of troops, that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States”
Noah Webster, 1787
Well.... that's stretching things a little far.
The whole point of militias is that they're needed when things have really hit the fan. If things haven't hit the fan, and you say they're not necessary because things haven't hit the fan, then you've got a real problem.
/——/ Nice cut & paste gun grabbers. BTW who won the War of 1812?That may well be the view of those today that believe that militias are needed so gun toking patriots can overthrow the government when things don't go their way. However, the founders view was quite different. It was the fear of standing armies that led the founders to prefer the citizen-soldier to the professional. A near-universal assumption of the founding generation was the danger posed by a standing military force. Far from being composed of honorable citizens dutifully serving the interests of the nation, armies were held to be “nurseries of vice,” “dangerous,” and “the grand engine of despotism.” Fear of a standing army and the cost of maintaining it made the militia the overwhelming choice for the defense of the country.Like most gun nuts, you just can't stand to quote the whole 2nd amendment, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." You would have to be a little nuts to believe militias are necessary to the security of the nation today and it the militias aren't needed then there is no constitutional bases for the right to bear arms./----/ Nice try Gun Grabber. But I take the words of our Founding Fathers over yours any day of the week:The founders state in the amendment their reason for the right. Supporters of the amendment prefer to ignore their reason. If you actually take the time to read the amendment, instead of just focusing on the last phrase you will see that the founder's reason is no longer valid today. It would take a real nut case to believe the security of this nation doesn't rest with military but rather regulated militias that hardly even exist. At the time the 2nd amendment was written, the founders believed that regulated part time citizen militias composed of all citizens with firearms was necessary for the security of the state and thus the people must have the right to bear arms otherwise there could be no militias./----/ Ahhhh, the first straw man argument of the day.
View attachment 180027
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
James Madison, author of the 2nd Amendment, Federalist Papers, #46, 1788
Madison clearly states what a militia is and what its purpose is; to counter the federal government. The anti-gun folks pretend this and other documents don’t exist. They wish.
No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms.
Thomas Jefferson, proposal to the Virginia Constitution.
Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom 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 bands of troops, that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States”
Noah Webster, 1787
Well.... that's stretching things a little far.
The whole point of militias is that they're needed when things have really hit the fan. If things haven't hit the fan, and you say they're not necessary because things haven't hit the fan, then you've got a real problem.
The founders unfortunately were proved wrong in their faith in militia for defense of the nation. In the War of 1812, the United States militia, because of a lack of discipline and poor training, were often routed in battle on open ground by British regulars. The need for a standing army in lieu of relying on militias became evident to all in the 19th century. As standing armies became the bulwark of the nation's defense, after the civil war militias provided law enforcement at local and state level and at times became vigilante groups. They also were called into military service. Most militias today are a far cry from that of the 18th century. Many militias see themselves as the ultimate defense of liberty. However, there is serious doubt that the Founders ever contemplated the use of the militia against the government they had established.
American Resistance to a Standing Army | Teachinghistory.org
That may well be the view of those today that believe that militias are needed so gun toking patriots can overthrow the government when things don't go their way. However, the founders view was quite different. It was the fear of standing armies that led the founders to prefer the citizen-soldier to the professional. A near-universal assumption of the founding generation was the danger posed by a standing military force. Far from being composed of honorable citizens dutifully serving the interests of the nation, armies were held to be “nurseries of vice,” “dangerous,” and “the grand engine of despotism.” Fear of a standing army and the cost of maintaining it made the militia the overwhelming choice for the defense of the country.Like most gun nuts, you just can't stand to quote the whole 2nd amendment, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." You would have to be a little nuts to believe militias are necessary to the security of the nation today and it the militias aren't needed then there is no constitutional bases for the right to bear arms./----/ Nice try Gun Grabber. But I take the words of our Founding Fathers over yours any day of the week:The founders state in the amendment their reason for the right. Supporters of the amendment prefer to ignore their reason. If you actually take the time to read the amendment, instead of just focusing on the last phrase you will see that the founder's reason is no longer valid today. It would take a real nut case to believe the security of this nation doesn't rest with military but rather regulated militias that hardly even exist. At the time the 2nd amendment was written, the founders believed that regulated part time citizen militias composed of all citizens with firearms was necessary for the security of the state and thus the people must have the right to bear arms otherwise there could be no militias./----/ Ahhhh, the first straw man argument of the day.
View attachment 180027
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
James Madison, author of the 2nd Amendment, Federalist Papers, #46, 1788
Madison clearly states what a militia is and what its purpose is; to counter the federal government. The anti-gun folks pretend this and other documents don’t exist. They wish.
No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms.
Thomas Jefferson, proposal to the Virginia Constitution.
Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom 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 bands of troops, that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States”
Noah Webster, 1787
Well.... that's stretching things a little far.
The whole point of militias is that they're needed when things have really hit the fan. If things haven't hit the fan, and you say they're not necessary because things haven't hit the fan, then you've got a real problem.
The founders unfortunately were proved wrong in their faith in militia for defense of the nation. In the War of 1812, the United States militia, because of a lack of discipline and poor training, were often routed in battle on open ground by British regulars. The need for a standing army in lieu of relying on militias became evident to all in the 19th century. As standing armies became the bulwark of the nation's defense, after the civil war militias provided law enforcement at local and state level and at times became vigilante groups. They also were called into military service. Most militias today are a far cry from that of the 18th century. Many militias see themselves as the ultimate defense of liberty. However, there is serious doubt that the Founders ever contemplated the use of the militia against the government they had established.
American Resistance to a Standing Army | Teachinghistory.org
/——/ Gun grabbers understand American history the way a pig understands the designated hitter rule.That may well be the view of those today that believe that militias are needed so gun toking patriots can overthrow the government when things don't go their way. However, the founders view was quite different. It was the fear of standing armies that led the founders to prefer the citizen-soldier to the professional. A near-universal assumption of the founding generation was the danger posed by a standing military force. Far from being composed of honorable citizens dutifully serving the interests of the nation, armies were held to be “nurseries of vice,” “dangerous,” and “the grand engine of despotism.” Fear of a standing army and the cost of maintaining it made the militia the overwhelming choice for the defense of the country.Like most gun nuts, you just can't stand to quote the whole 2nd amendment, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." You would have to be a little nuts to believe militias are necessary to the security of the nation today and it the militias aren't needed then there is no constitutional bases for the right to bear arms./----/ Nice try Gun Grabber. But I take the words of our Founding Fathers over yours any day of the week:The founders state in the amendment their reason for the right. Supporters of the amendment prefer to ignore their reason. If you actually take the time to read the amendment, instead of just focusing on the last phrase you will see that the founder's reason is no longer valid today. It would take a real nut case to believe the security of this nation doesn't rest with military but rather regulated militias that hardly even exist. At the time the 2nd amendment was written, the founders believed that regulated part time citizen militias composed of all citizens with firearms was necessary for the security of the state and thus the people must have the right to bear arms otherwise there could be no militias.
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
James Madison, author of the 2nd Amendment, Federalist Papers, #46, 1788
Madison clearly states what a militia is and what its purpose is; to counter the federal government. The anti-gun folks pretend this and other documents don’t exist. They wish.
No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms.
Thomas Jefferson, proposal to the Virginia Constitution.
Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom 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 bands of troops, that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States”
Noah Webster, 1787
Well.... that's stretching things a little far.
The whole point of militias is that they're needed when things have really hit the fan. If things haven't hit the fan, and you say they're not necessary because things haven't hit the fan, then you've got a real problem.
The founders unfortunately were proved wrong in their faith in militia for defense of the nation. In the War of 1812, the United States militia, because of a lack of discipline and poor training, were often routed in battle on open ground by British regulars. The need for a standing army in lieu of relying on militias became evident to all in the 19th century. As standing armies became the bulwark of the nation's defense, after the civil war militias provided law enforcement at local and state level and at times became vigilante groups. They also were called into military service. Most militias today are a far cry from that of the 18th century. Many militias see themselves as the ultimate defense of liberty. However, there is serious doubt that the Founders ever contemplated the use of the militia against the government they had established.
American Resistance to a Standing Army | Teachinghistory.org
The founders unfortunately were proved wrong in their faith in militia for defense of the nation.
Strange comment. Militias formed this nation from a British colony.
In the War of 1812, the United States militia, because of a lack of discipline and poor training, were often routed in battle on open ground by British regulars.
Really? An outnumbered force composed mostly of militias scored a lopsided victory over the best the British had (considered by the best in the world) at New Orleans after winning fights with American Indians and Spanish.
/——/ Johnny Horton wrote pop songs to teach kids history. So learn something about the War of 1812. A better link with the lyrics:That may well be the view of those today that believe that militias are needed so gun toking patriots can overthrow the government when things don't go their way. However, the founders view was quite different. It was the fear of standing armies that led the founders to prefer the citizen-soldier to the professional. A near-universal assumption of the founding generation was the danger posed by a standing military force. Far from being composed of honorable citizens dutifully serving the interests of the nation, armies were held to be “nurseries of vice,” “dangerous,” and “the grand engine of despotism.” Fear of a standing army and the cost of maintaining it made the militia the overwhelming choice for the defense of the country.Like most gun nuts, you just can't stand to quote the whole 2nd amendment, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." You would have to be a little nuts to believe militias are necessary to the security of the nation today and it the militias aren't needed then there is no constitutional bases for the right to bear arms./----/ Nice try Gun Grabber. But I take the words of our Founding Fathers over yours any day of the week:The founders state in the amendment their reason for the right. Supporters of the amendment prefer to ignore their reason. If you actually take the time to read the amendment, instead of just focusing on the last phrase you will see that the founder's reason is no longer valid today. It would take a real nut case to believe the security of this nation doesn't rest with military but rather regulated militias that hardly even exist. At the time the 2nd amendment was written, the founders believed that regulated part time citizen militias composed of all citizens with firearms was necessary for the security of the state and thus the people must have the right to bear arms otherwise there could be no militias./----/ Ahhhh, the first straw man argument of the day.
View attachment 180027
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
James Madison, author of the 2nd Amendment, Federalist Papers, #46, 1788
Madison clearly states what a militia is and what its purpose is; to counter the federal government. The anti-gun folks pretend this and other documents don’t exist. They wish.
No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms.
Thomas Jefferson, proposal to the Virginia Constitution.
Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom 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 bands of troops, that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States”
Noah Webster, 1787
Well.... that's stretching things a little far.
The whole point of militias is that they're needed when things have really hit the fan. If things haven't hit the fan, and you say they're not necessary because things haven't hit the fan, then you've got a real problem.
The founders unfortunately were proved wrong in their faith in militia for defense of the nation. In the War of 1812, the United States militia, because of a lack of discipline and poor training, were often routed in battle on open ground by British regulars. The need for a standing army in lieu of relying on militias became evident to all in the 19th century. As standing armies became the bulwark of the nation's defense, after the civil war militias provided law enforcement at local and state level and at times became vigilante groups. They also were called into military service. Most militias today are a far cry from that of the 18th century. Many militias see themselves as the ultimate defense of liberty. However, there is serious doubt that the Founders ever contemplated the use of the militia against the government they had established.
American Resistance to a Standing Army | Teachinghistory.org
In the War of 1812, the militia was a disaster on the battle field. However, they fared better and proved more reliable when protected behind defensive entrenchments and fixed fortifications, as was effectively shown at New Orleans. Because of their overall ineffectiveness and failure during the war, militias were not adequate for the national defense. Military budgets were greatly increased at this time and a smaller, standing federal army, rather than States' militias, was deemed better for the national defense.That may well be the view of those today that believe that militias are needed so gun toking patriots can overthrow the government when things don't go their way. However, the founders view was quite different. It was the fear of standing armies that led the founders to prefer the citizen-soldier to the professional. A near-universal assumption of the founding generation was the danger posed by a standing military force. Far from being composed of honorable citizens dutifully serving the interests of the nation, armies were held to be “nurseries of vice,” “dangerous,” and “the grand engine of despotism.” Fear of a standing army and the cost of maintaining it made the militia the overwhelming choice for the defense of the country.Like most gun nuts, you just can't stand to quote the whole 2nd amendment, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." You would have to be a little nuts to believe militias are necessary to the security of the nation today and it the militias aren't needed then there is no constitutional bases for the right to bear arms./----/ Nice try Gun Grabber. But I take the words of our Founding Fathers over yours any day of the week:The founders state in the amendment their reason for the right. Supporters of the amendment prefer to ignore their reason. If you actually take the time to read the amendment, instead of just focusing on the last phrase you will see that the founder's reason is no longer valid today. It would take a real nut case to believe the security of this nation doesn't rest with military but rather regulated militias that hardly even exist. At the time the 2nd amendment was written, the founders believed that regulated part time citizen militias composed of all citizens with firearms was necessary for the security of the state and thus the people must have the right to bear arms otherwise there could be no militias.
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
James Madison, author of the 2nd Amendment, Federalist Papers, #46, 1788
Madison clearly states what a militia is and what its purpose is; to counter the federal government. The anti-gun folks pretend this and other documents don’t exist. They wish.
No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms.
Thomas Jefferson, proposal to the Virginia Constitution.
Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom 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 bands of troops, that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States”
Noah Webster, 1787
Well.... that's stretching things a little far.
The whole point of militias is that they're needed when things have really hit the fan. If things haven't hit the fan, and you say they're not necessary because things haven't hit the fan, then you've got a real problem.
The founders unfortunately were proved wrong in their faith in militia for defense of the nation. In the War of 1812, the United States militia, because of a lack of discipline and poor training, were often routed in battle on open ground by British regulars. The need for a standing army in lieu of relying on militias became evident to all in the 19th century. As standing armies became the bulwark of the nation's defense, after the civil war militias provided law enforcement at local and state level and at times became vigilante groups. They also were called into military service. Most militias today are a far cry from that of the 18th century. Many militias see themselves as the ultimate defense of liberty. However, there is serious doubt that the Founders ever contemplated the use of the militia against the government they had established.
American Resistance to a Standing Army | Teachinghistory.org
The founders unfortunately were proved wrong in their faith in militia for defense of the nation.
Strange comment. Militias formed this nation from a British colony.
In the War of 1812, the United States militia, because of a lack of discipline and poor training, were often routed in battle on open ground by British regulars.
Really? An outnumbered force composed mostly of militias scored a lopsided victory over the best the British had (considered by the best in the world) at New Orleans after winning fights with American Indians and Spanish.
It’s a prime illustration of why left-wing policy is so detrimental to society.Failing to understand the distinction between a semi-automatic and automatic weapon tells us you’re dishonest, unserious, or unprepared for the debate.
We wouldn’t allow a 1st grader to walk into a test ignorant and emotional. And yet we tolerate progressives creating policy this way and attempting to strip constitutional rights that way.In a debate imbued with emotion, gun control advocates rely on ignorance
That may well be the view of those today that believe that militias are needed so gun toking patriots can overthrow the government when things don't go their way. However, the founders view was quite different. It was the fear of standing armies that led the founders to prefer the citizen-soldier to the professional. A near-universal assumption of the founding generation was the danger posed by a standing military force. Far from being composed of honorable citizens dutifully serving the interests of the nation, armies were held to be “nurseries of vice,” “dangerous,” and “the grand engine of despotism.” Fear of a standing army and the cost of maintaining it made the militia the overwhelming choice for the defense of the country.Like most gun nuts, you just can't stand to quote the whole 2nd amendment, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." You would have to be a little nuts to believe militias are necessary to the security of the nation today and it the militias aren't needed then there is no constitutional bases for the right to bear arms./----/ Nice try Gun Grabber. But I take the words of our Founding Fathers over yours any day of the week:The founders state in the amendment their reason for the right. Supporters of the amendment prefer to ignore their reason. If you actually take the time to read the amendment, instead of just focusing on the last phrase you will see that the founder's reason is no longer valid today. It would take a real nut case to believe the security of this nation doesn't rest with military but rather regulated militias that hardly even exist. At the time the 2nd amendment was written, the founders believed that regulated part time citizen militias composed of all citizens with firearms was necessary for the security of the state and thus the people must have the right to bear arms otherwise there could be no militias./----/ Ahhhh, the first straw man argument of the day.
View attachment 180027
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
James Madison, author of the 2nd Amendment, Federalist Papers, #46, 1788
Madison clearly states what a militia is and what its purpose is; to counter the federal government. The anti-gun folks pretend this and other documents don’t exist. They wish.
No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms.
Thomas Jefferson, proposal to the Virginia Constitution.
Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom 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 bands of troops, that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States”
Noah Webster, 1787
Well.... that's stretching things a little far.
The whole point of militias is that they're needed when things have really hit the fan. If things haven't hit the fan, and you say they're not necessary because things haven't hit the fan, then you've got a real problem.
The founders unfortunately were proved wrong in their faith in militia for defense of the nation. In the War of 1812, the United States militia, because of a lack of discipline and poor training, were often routed in battle on open ground by British regulars. The need for a standing army in lieu of relying on militias became evident to all in the 19th century. As standing armies became the bulwark of the nation's defense, after the civil war militias provided law enforcement at local and state level and at times became vigilante groups. They also were called into military service. Most militias today are a far cry from that of the 18th century. Many militias see themselves as the ultimate defense of liberty. However, there is serious doubt that the Founders ever contemplated the use of the militia against the government they had established.
American Resistance to a Standing Army | Teachinghistory.org
/——/ Johnny Horton wrote pop songs to teach kids history. So learn something about the War of 1812. A better link with the lyrics:That may well be the view of those today that believe that militias are needed so gun toking patriots can overthrow the government when things don't go their way. However, the founders view was quite different. It was the fear of standing armies that led the founders to prefer the citizen-soldier to the professional. A near-universal assumption of the founding generation was the danger posed by a standing military force. Far from being composed of honorable citizens dutifully serving the interests of the nation, armies were held to be “nurseries of vice,” “dangerous,” and “the grand engine of despotism.” Fear of a standing army and the cost of maintaining it made the militia the overwhelming choice for the defense of the country.Like most gun nuts, you just can't stand to quote the whole 2nd amendment, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." You would have to be a little nuts to believe militias are necessary to the security of the nation today and it the militias aren't needed then there is no constitutional bases for the right to bear arms./----/ Nice try Gun Grabber. But I take the words of our Founding Fathers over yours any day of the week:The founders state in the amendment their reason for the right. Supporters of the amendment prefer to ignore their reason. If you actually take the time to read the amendment, instead of just focusing on the last phrase you will see that the founder's reason is no longer valid today. It would take a real nut case to believe the security of this nation doesn't rest with military but rather regulated militias that hardly even exist. At the time the 2nd amendment was written, the founders believed that regulated part time citizen militias composed of all citizens with firearms was necessary for the security of the state and thus the people must have the right to bear arms otherwise there could be no militias.
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
James Madison, author of the 2nd Amendment, Federalist Papers, #46, 1788
Madison clearly states what a militia is and what its purpose is; to counter the federal government. The anti-gun folks pretend this and other documents don’t exist. They wish.
No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms.
Thomas Jefferson, proposal to the Virginia Constitution.
Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom 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 bands of troops, that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States”
Noah Webster, 1787
Well.... that's stretching things a little far.
The whole point of militias is that they're needed when things have really hit the fan. If things haven't hit the fan, and you say they're not necessary because things haven't hit the fan, then you've got a real problem.
The founders unfortunately were proved wrong in their faith in militia for defense of the nation. In the War of 1812, the United States militia, because of a lack of discipline and poor training, were often routed in battle on open ground by British regulars. The need for a standing army in lieu of relying on militias became evident to all in the 19th century. As standing armies became the bulwark of the nation's defense, after the civil war militias provided law enforcement at local and state level and at times became vigilante groups. They also were called into military service. Most militias today are a far cry from that of the 18th century. Many militias see themselves as the ultimate defense of liberty. However, there is serious doubt that the Founders ever contemplated the use of the militia against the government they had established.
American Resistance to a Standing Army | Teachinghistory.org
/——/ Johnny Horton wrote pop songs to teach kids history. So learn something about the War of 1812. A better link with the lyrics:That may well be the view of those today that believe that militias are needed so gun toking patriots can overthrow the government when things don't go their way. However, the founders view was quite different. It was theLike most gun nuts, you just can't stand to quote the whole 2nd amendment, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." You would have to be a little nuts to believe militias are necessary to the security of the nation today and it the militias aren't needed then there is no constitutional bases for the right to bear arms./----/ Nice try Gun Grabber. But I take the words of our Founding Fathers over yours any day of the week:
James Madison, author of the 2nd Amendment, Federalist Papers, #46, 1788
Madison clearly states what a militia is and what its purpose is; to counter the federal government. The anti-gun folks pretend this and other documents don’t exist. They wish.
No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms.
Thomas Jefferson, proposal to the Virginia Constitution.
Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom 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 bands of troops, that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States”
Noah Webster, 1787
Well.... that's stretching things a little far.
The whole point of militias is that they're needed when things have really hit the fan. If things haven't hit the fan, and you say they're not necessary because things haven't hit the fan, then you've got a real problem.
fear of standing armies that led the founders to prefer the citizen-soldier to the professional. A near-universal assumption of the founding generation was the danger posed by a standing military force. Far from being composed of honorable citizens dutifully serving the interests of the nation, armies were held to be “nurseries of vice,” “dangerous,” and “the grand engine of despotism.” Fear of a standing army and the cost of maintaining it made the militia the overwhelming choice for the defense of the country.
The founders unfortunately were proved wrong in their faith in militia for defense of the nation. In the War of 1812, the United States militia, because of a lack of discipline and poor training, were often routed in battle on open ground by British regulars. The need for a standing army in lieu of relying on militias became evident to all in the 19th century. As standing armies became the bulwark of the nation's defense, after the civil war militias provided law enforcement at local and state level and at times became vigilante groups. They also were called into military service. Most militias today are a far cry from that of the 18th century. Many militias see themselves as the ultimate defense of liberty. However, there is serious doubt that the Founders ever contemplated the use of the militia against the government they had established.
American Resistance to a Standing Army | Teachinghistory.org
The first thing you need to know about the War of 1812 is the Battle of New Orleans occurred two weeks after the end of the war and had no effect on the outcome. Had communications been better, there would have been no battle and Johnny Horton's greatest hit would have been, "North to Alaska"
That may well be the view of those today that believe that militias are needed so gun toking patriots can overthrow the government when things don't go their way. However, the founders view was quite different. It was the fear of standing armies that led the founders to prefer the citizen-soldier to the professional. A near-universal assumption of the founding generation was the danger posed by a standing military force. Far from being composed of honorable citizens dutifully serving the interests of the nation, armies were held to be “nurseries of vice,” “dangerous,” and “the grand engine of despotism.” Fear of a standing army and the cost of maintaining it made the militia the overwhelming choice for the defense of the country.Like most gun nuts, you just can't stand to quote the whole 2nd amendment, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." You would have to be a little nuts to believe militias are necessary to the security of the nation today and it the militias aren't needed then there is no constitutional bases for the right to bear arms./----/ Nice try Gun Grabber. But I take the words of our Founding Fathers over yours any day of the week:The founders state in the amendment their reason for the right. Supporters of the amendment prefer to ignore their reason. If you actually take the time to read the amendment, instead of just focusing on the last phrase you will see that the founder's reason is no longer valid today. It would take a real nut case to believe the security of this nation doesn't rest with military but rather regulated militias that hardly even exist. At the time the 2nd amendment was written, the founders believed that regulated part time citizen militias composed of all citizens with firearms was necessary for the security of the state and thus the people must have the right to bear arms otherwise there could be no militias.
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
James Madison, author of the 2nd Amendment, Federalist Papers, #46, 1788
Madison clearly states what a militia is and what its purpose is; to counter the federal government. The anti-gun folks pretend this and other documents don’t exist. They wish.
No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms.
Thomas Jefferson, proposal to the Virginia Constitution.
Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom 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 bands of troops, that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States”
Noah Webster, 1787
Well.... that's stretching things a little far.
The whole point of militias is that they're needed when things have really hit the fan. If things haven't hit the fan, and you say they're not necessary because things haven't hit the fan, then you've got a real problem.
The founders unfortunately were proved wrong in their faith in militia for defense of the nation. In the War of 1812, the United States militia, because of a lack of discipline and poor training, were often routed in battle on open ground by British regulars. The need for a standing army in lieu of relying on militias became evident to all in the 19th century. As standing armies became the bulwark of the nation's defense, after the civil war militias provided law enforcement at local and state level and at times became vigilante groups. They also were called into military service. Most militias today are a far cry from that of the 18th century. Many militias see themselves as the ultimate defense of liberty. However, there is serious doubt that the Founders ever contemplated the use of the militia against the government they had established.
American Resistance to a Standing Army | Teachinghistory.org
The founders unfortunately were proved wrong in their faith in militia for defense of the nation.
Strange comment. Militias formed this nation from a British colony.
In the War of 1812, the United States militia, because of a lack of discipline and poor training, were often routed in battle on open ground by British regulars.
Really? An outnumbered force composed mostly of militias scored a lopsided victory over the best the British had (considered by the best in the world) at New Orleans after winning fights with American Indians and Spanish.
/----/ And the British learned nothing from fighting the Revolutionary War against the American militia....That may well be the view of those today that believe that militias are needed so gun toking patriots can overthrow the government when things don't go their way. However, the founders view was quite different. It was the fear of standing armies that led the founders to prefer the citizen-soldier to the professional. A near-universal assumption of the founding generation was the danger posed by a standing military force. Far from being composed of honorable citizens dutifully serving the interests of the nation, armies were held to be “nurseries of vice,” “dangerous,” and “the grand engine of despotism.” Fear of a standing army and the cost of maintaining it made the militia the overwhelming choice for the defense of the country.Like most gun nuts, you just can't stand to quote the whole 2nd amendment, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." You would have to be a little nuts to believe militias are necessary to the security of the nation today and it the militias aren't needed then there is no constitutional bases for the right to bear arms./----/ Nice try Gun Grabber. But I take the words of our Founding Fathers over yours any day of the week:
James Madison, author of the 2nd Amendment, Federalist Papers, #46, 1788
Madison clearly states what a militia is and what its purpose is; to counter the federal government. The anti-gun folks pretend this and other documents don’t exist. They wish.
No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms.
Thomas Jefferson, proposal to the Virginia Constitution.
Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom 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 bands of troops, that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States”
Noah Webster, 1787
Well.... that's stretching things a little far.
The whole point of militias is that they're needed when things have really hit the fan. If things haven't hit the fan, and you say they're not necessary because things haven't hit the fan, then you've got a real problem.
The founders unfortunately were proved wrong in their faith in militia for defense of the nation. In the War of 1812, the United States militia, because of a lack of discipline and poor training, were often routed in battle on open ground by British regulars. The need for a standing army in lieu of relying on militias became evident to all in the 19th century. As standing armies became the bulwark of the nation's defense, after the civil war militias provided law enforcement at local and state level and at times became vigilante groups. They also were called into military service. Most militias today are a far cry from that of the 18th century. Many militias see themselves as the ultimate defense of liberty. However, there is serious doubt that the Founders ever contemplated the use of the militia against the government they had established.
American Resistance to a Standing Army | Teachinghistory.org
The founders unfortunately were proved wrong in their faith in militia for defense of the nation.
Strange comment. Militias formed this nation from a British colony.
In the War of 1812, the United States militia, because of a lack of discipline and poor training, were often routed in battle on open ground by British regulars.
Really? An outnumbered force composed mostly of militias scored a lopsided victory over the best the British had (considered by the best in the world) at New Orleans after winning fights with American Indians and Spanish.
Of course they "got routed on open ground". Fighting a battle on your enemy's terms, using tactics that are badly unsuited to your troops and your equipment, is ALWAYS a bad idea. The militias won because they stuck to tactics that actually suited what they were working with.
/----/ And the British learned nothing from fighting the Revolutionary War against the American militia....That may well be the view of those today that believe that militias are needed so gun toking patriots can overthrow the government when things don't go their way. However, the founders view was quite different. It was the fear of standing armies that led the founders to prefer the citizen-soldier to the professional. A near-universal assumption of the founding generation was the danger posed by a standing military force. Far from being composed of honorable citizens dutifully serving the interests of the nation, armies were held to be “nurseries of vice,” “dangerous,” and “the grand engine of despotism.” Fear of a standing army and the cost of maintaining it made the militia the overwhelming choice for the defense of the country.Like most gun nuts, you just can't stand to quote the whole 2nd amendment, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." You would have to be a little nuts to believe militias are necessary to the security of the nation today and it the militias aren't needed then there is no constitutional bases for the right to bear arms.
Well.... that's stretching things a little far.
The whole point of militias is that they're needed when things have really hit the fan. If things haven't hit the fan, and you say they're not necessary because things haven't hit the fan, then you've got a real problem.
The founders unfortunately were proved wrong in their faith in militia for defense of the nation. In the War of 1812, the United States militia, because of a lack of discipline and poor training, were often routed in battle on open ground by British regulars. The need for a standing army in lieu of relying on militias became evident to all in the 19th century. As standing armies became the bulwark of the nation's defense, after the civil war militias provided law enforcement at local and state level and at times became vigilante groups. They also were called into military service. Most militias today are a far cry from that of the 18th century. Many militias see themselves as the ultimate defense of liberty. However, there is serious doubt that the Founders ever contemplated the use of the militia against the government they had established.
American Resistance to a Standing Army | Teachinghistory.org
The founders unfortunately were proved wrong in their faith in militia for defense of the nation.
Strange comment. Militias formed this nation from a British colony.
In the War of 1812, the United States militia, because of a lack of discipline and poor training, were often routed in battle on open ground by British regulars.
Really? An outnumbered force composed mostly of militias scored a lopsided victory over the best the British had (considered by the best in the world) at New Orleans after winning fights with American Indians and Spanish.
Of course they "got routed on open ground". Fighting a battle on your enemy's terms, using tactics that are badly unsuited to your troops and your equipment, is ALWAYS a bad idea. The militias won because they stuck to tactics that actually suited what they were working with.
/----/ And the British learned nothing from fighting the Revolutionary War against the American militia....That may well be the view of those today that believe that militias are needed so gun toking patriots can overthrow the government when things don't go their way. However, the founders view was quite different. It was the fear of standing armies that led the founders to prefer the citizen-soldier to the professional. A near-universal assumption of the founding generation was the danger posed by a standing military force. Far from being composed of honorable citizens dutifully serving the interests of the nation, armies were held to be “nurseries of vice,” “dangerous,” and “the grand engine of despotism.” Fear of a standing army and the cost of maintaining it made the militia the overwhelming choice for the defense of the country.Like most gun nuts, you just can't stand to quote the whole 2nd amendment, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." You would have to be a little nuts to believe militias are necessary to the security of the nation today and it the militias aren't needed then there is no constitutional bases for the right to bear arms.
Well.... that's stretching things a little far.
The whole point of militias is that they're needed when things have really hit the fan. If things haven't hit the fan, and you say they're not necessary because things haven't hit the fan, then you've got a real problem.
The founders unfortunately were proved wrong in their faith in militia for defense of the nation. In the War of 1812, the United States militia, because of a lack of discipline and poor training, were often routed in battle on open ground by British regulars. The need for a standing army in lieu of relying on militias became evident to all in the 19th century. As standing armies became the bulwark of the nation's defense, after the civil war militias provided law enforcement at local and state level and at times became vigilante groups. They also were called into military service. Most militias today are a far cry from that of the 18th century. Many militias see themselves as the ultimate defense of liberty. However, there is serious doubt that the Founders ever contemplated the use of the militia against the government they had established.
American Resistance to a Standing Army | Teachinghistory.org
The founders unfortunately were proved wrong in their faith in militia for defense of the nation.
Strange comment. Militias formed this nation from a British colony.
In the War of 1812, the United States militia, because of a lack of discipline and poor training, were often routed in battle on open ground by British regulars.
Really? An outnumbered force composed mostly of militias scored a lopsided victory over the best the British had (considered by the best in the world) at New Orleans after winning fights with American Indians and Spanish.
Of course they "got routed on open ground". Fighting a battle on your enemy's terms, using tactics that are badly unsuited to your troops and your equipment, is ALWAYS a bad idea. The militias won because they stuck to tactics that actually suited what they were working with.
/——/ Johnny Horton wrote pop songs to teach kids history. So learn something about the War of 1812. A better link with the lyrics:That may well be the view of those today that believe that militias are needed so gun toking patriots can overthrow the government when things don't go their way. However, the founders view was quite different. It was theLike most gun nuts, you just can't stand to quote the whole 2nd amendment, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." You would have to be a little nuts to believe militias are necessary to the security of the nation today and it the militias aren't needed then there is no constitutional bases for the right to bear arms.
Well.... that's stretching things a little far.
The whole point of militias is that they're needed when things have really hit the fan. If things haven't hit the fan, and you say they're not necessary because things haven't hit the fan, then you've got a real problem.
fear of standing armies that led the founders to prefer the citizen-soldier to the professional. A near-universal assumption of the founding generation was the danger posed by a standing military force. Far from being composed of honorable citizens dutifully serving the interests of the nation, armies were held to be “nurseries of vice,” “dangerous,” and “the grand engine of despotism.” Fear of a standing army and the cost of maintaining it made the militia the overwhelming choice for the defense of the country.
The founders unfortunately were proved wrong in their faith in militia for defense of the nation. In the War of 1812, the United States militia, because of a lack of discipline and poor training, were often routed in battle on open ground by British regulars. The need for a standing army in lieu of relying on militias became evident to all in the 19th century. As standing armies became the bulwark of the nation's defense, after the civil war militias provided law enforcement at local and state level and at times became vigilante groups. They also were called into military service. Most militias today are a far cry from that of the 18th century. Many militias see themselves as the ultimate defense of liberty. However, there is serious doubt that the Founders ever contemplated the use of the militia against the government they had established.
American Resistance to a Standing Army | Teachinghistory.org
The first thing you need to know about the War of 1812 is the Battle of New Orleans occurred two weeks after the end of the war and had no effect on the outcome. Had communications been better, there would have been no battle and Johnny Horton's greatest hit would have been, "North to Alaska"
/——/ Even left wing Wikipedia says you're wrong. The Battle of New Orleans was a series of engagements fought between December 14, 1814 and January 18, 1815, constituting the last major battle of the War of 1812.[7][8] American combatants,[9] commanded by Major General Andrew Jackson, prevented a much larger British force, commanded by Admiral Alexander Cochrane and General Edward Pakenham, from seizing New Orleans and the vast territory the United States had acquired with the Louisiana Purchase.
These are the people that the left wants in charge of running our nation.A Virginia woman running for Congress as a Democrat is now being investigated by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives after she sawed off the barrel of an AR-15 rifle in a political stunt.
/----/ Further proof gun grabbers are a menace to society.This is absolutely priceless. I literally cannot stop laughing. This ignorant Democrat candidate violated federal law trying to score political points.
These are the people that the left wants in charge of running our nation.A Virginia woman running for Congress as a Democrat is now being investigated by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives after she sawed off the barrel of an AR-15 rifle in a political stunt.
Dem candidate who sawed AR-15 in political stunt gone viral gets hit with major reality check
So slavery is outlawed - except when a person breaks the law and loses their right to freedom.Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.
Here again we see an exception. In time of war, the federal government can “quarter” soldiers in your home without your consent.No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.
Yet again we see an exception. You lose your right to “unreasonable search and seizures” when there is a probable cause.The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Absolutely no exceptions or exemptions on the 2nd Amendment. The left has tried so hard to twist and rewrite the 2nd Amendedment. Unfortunately, they never studied the U.S. Constitution so they aren’t adept at trying to twist it.A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
