True Interpretation of the 2nd Amendment

The People are the Militia; only the right wing, never gets it.
Yes, the people are the Militia. The right wing just owns more guns.
the unorganized militia does not enjoy literal protection of our Second Article of Amendment.


It's not about the militias, it's about the people's right.
The militias were there for protecting the citizens freedoms with the right of the people to bear arms.
No, it isn't. It is about, what is necessary to the security of a free State.
Yes, to defend it from people like you.
 
True Interpretation of the 2nd Amendment in laments terms:

The Right To Bear Arms

Lets say YOU as a normal average person were to speak out against a Wealthy Person, I then get a Cartel or some sort of local Mafia involved to go to your house, tie you up, RAPE and Pillage your family as you watched.
The very next day, YOU WOULD LEARN TO KEEP YOUR MOUTH SHUT.

But here in the Untied States the Second Amendment has been misinterpreted so now all the Sheeple in this land have sophisticated firearms & modern weaponry equal to or greater than Cartel's & Mafia's, so now when I try to order them to go to your house to teach you a lesson, they will risk Serious Injury or even Death, this make it much more expensive to or even impossible to SHUT YOU UP.

Yes the American Sheeple have the Right To Bear Arms, so if I was to tell the Cartel or Mafia guys to cut off your hands, they would have to do so at the base of your wrist, thus preserving YOUR arm.............. Thus the Right to Bear Arms, it doesn't say anything about Sheeple being allow to own sophisticated firearms & modern weaponry at all.

This is why the confiscation of all Fire Arms from American Sheeple should be employed, and I say ALL guns including Flint Lock Muskets......... anything that can be used in self defense, because technically......... TECHNICALLY YOU DON'T HAVE THE RIGHT TO OWN GUNS.
Come get them.
 
The People are the Militia; only the right wing, never gets it.
Yes, the people are the Militia. The right wing just owns more guns.
the unorganized militia does not enjoy literal protection of our Second Article of Amendment.


It's not about the militias, it's about the people's right.
The militias were there for protecting the citizens freedoms with the right of the people to bear arms.
He is right. We the people, you and I and every other law abiding peace loving citizen are the militia. He probably isn't.


No our state constitutions give the laws of who each state had the qualifications for militias.
Back then it was men between the ages of 18 to 45 yrs., which varied from each state, but women and children had the right to carry.
 
The People are the Militia; only the right wing, never gets it.
Yes, the people are the Militia. The right wing just owns more guns.
the unorganized militia does not enjoy literal protection of our Second Article of Amendment.


It's not about the militias, it's about the people's right.
The militias were there for protecting the citizens freedoms with the right of the people to bear arms.
No, it isn't. It is about, what is necessary to the security of a free State.


What do you think the word protecting means?
That includes security.
 
The People are the Militia; only the right wing, never gets it.
Yes, the people are the Militia. The right wing just owns more guns.
the unorganized militia does not enjoy literal protection of our Second Article of Amendment.


It's not about the militias, it's about the people's right.
The militias were there for protecting the citizens freedoms with the right of the people to bear arms.
He is right. We the people, you and I and every other law abiding peace loving citizen are the militia. He probably isn't.


No our state constitutions give the laws of who each state had the qualifications for militias.
Back then it was men between the ages of 18 to 45 yrs., which varied from each state, but women and children had the right to carry.
Let's see what the guys who wrote it said it was about:

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

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

- Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 28

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

- Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 28

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

"I ask who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers." - George Mason, Address to the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 4, 1788

"Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed, as they are in almost every country in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops." - Noah Webster, An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution, October 10, 1787

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

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


Well regulated does not mean regulations. When the Constitution specifies regulations it specifically states who and what is being regulated. The phrase "well-regulated" was in common use long before 1789, and remained so for a century thereafter. It referred to the property of something being in proper working order. Something that was well-regulated was calibrated correctly, functioning as expected. The fundamental purpose of the militia was to serve as a check upon a standing army, the words “well regulated” referred to the necessity that the armed citizens making up the militia have the necessary equipment and training necessary to be an effective and formidable check upon the national government’s standing army. Establishing government oversight of the people's arms was not only not the intent in using the phrase in the 2nd amendment, it was precisely to render the government powerless to do so that the founders wrote it.
 
LOL, State militias are not allowed to keep their firearms in their homes nor to open carry them like in the USA unlike in Switzerland. Best learn American Law!
That state militias require firearms to be kept in an armory is proof that they are well-regulated.


That does not meet "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" now does it!
It does meet the requirement for the home guard to be well-regulated as was the intent of the framers of the 2nd Amendment.

And as long as it only meets half of the Second Amendment that is all that matters to you right? I was in the only Airborne Infantry National Guard unit in the United States and while we may have been well regulated we were not free to keep and bear our arms so the peoples right as a whole were most definitely infringed upon. Try addressing the whole of the Second Amendment as it was written by the founders. It was written so that the common citizen could have a firearm at hand and be rallied a a "minutes notice" to defend the people. If you bothered to read how and why the "militias" were formed by the founding fathers but that is not your purpose now is it.
I have read the Second Amendment and I believe it was intended for states' militias, not an individual right.
Remember that the states saw the federal government as a threat on liberty similar to the English monarchy was seen then. It was meant to guarantee the safety of states to bear arms and to defend themselves should the federal government become an autocracy.

From the Constitution for the state of Indiana.

ARTICLE 12. Militia

Section 1. Composition

Section 1. A militia shall be provided and shall consist of ALL persons over the age of seventeen (17) years, except those persons who may be exempted by the laws of the United States or of this state. The militia MAY be divided into active and inactive classes and consist of such military organizations as may be provided by law.



Show me an intellectually honest liberal and I will show you a Conservative in the making.
 
True Interpretation of the 2nd Amendment in laments terms:

The Right To Bear Arms

Lets say YOU as a normal average person were to speak out against a Wealthy Person, I then get a Cartel or some sort of local Mafia involved to go to your house, tie you up, RAPE and Pillage your family as you watched.
The very next day, YOU WOULD LEARN TO KEEP YOUR MOUTH SHUT.

But here in the Untied States the Second Amendment has been misinterpreted so now all the Sheeple in this land have sophisticated firearms & modern weaponry equal to or greater than Cartel's & Mafia's, so now when I try to order them to go to your house to teach you a lesson, they will risk Serious Injury or even Death, this make it much more expensive to or even impossible to SHUT YOU UP.

Yes the American Sheeple have the Right To Bear Arms, so if I was to tell the Cartel or Mafia guys to cut off your hands, they would have to do so at the base of your wrist, thus preserving YOUR arm.............. Thus the Right to Bear Arms, it doesn't say anything about Sheeple being allow to own sophisticated firearms & modern weaponry at all.

This is why the confiscation of all Fire Arms from American Sheeple should be employed, and I say ALL guns including Flint Lock Muskets......... anything that can be used in self defense, because technically......... TECHNICALLY YOU DON'T HAVE THE RIGHT TO OWN GUNS.

/---- Barack is that you? Enjoying retirement?
 
The People are the Militia; only the right wing, never gets it.
Yes, the people are the Militia. The right wing just owns more guns.
the unorganized militia does not enjoy literal protection of our Second Article of Amendment.


It's not about the militias, it's about the people's right.
The militias were there for protecting the citizens freedoms with the right of the people to bear arms.
No, it isn't. It is about, what is necessary to the security of a free State.
Yes, to defend it from people like you.
there should be no security problems in our free States.
 
The People are the Militia; only the right wing, never gets it.
Yes, the people are the Militia. The right wing just owns more guns.
the unorganized militia does not enjoy literal protection of our Second Article of Amendment.


It's not about the militias, it's about the people's right.
The militias were there for protecting the citizens freedoms with the right of the people to bear arms.
No, it isn't. It is about, what is necessary to the security of a free State.


What do you think the word protecting means?
That includes security.
Why do any of our several States have any form of security problem?
 
Yes, the people are the Militia. The right wing just owns more guns.
the unorganized militia does not enjoy literal protection of our Second Article of Amendment.


It's not about the militias, it's about the people's right.
The militias were there for protecting the citizens freedoms with the right of the people to bear arms.
No, it isn't. It is about, what is necessary to the security of a free State.


What do you think the word protecting means?
That includes security.
Why do any of our several States have any form of security problem?
Thanks to the 2nd amendment, they don't and probably never will.

Show me an intellectually honest liberal and I will show you a Conservative in the making.
 
That state militias require firearms to be kept in an armory is proof that they are well-regulated.


That does not meet "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" now does it!
It does meet the requirement for the home guard to be well-regulated as was the intent of the framers of the 2nd Amendment.

And as long as it only meets half of the Second Amendment that is all that matters to you right? I was in the only Airborne Infantry National Guard unit in the United States and while we may have been well regulated we were not free to keep and bear our arms so the peoples right as a whole were most definitely infringed upon. Try addressing the whole of the Second Amendment as it was written by the founders. It was written so that the common citizen could have a firearm at hand and be rallied a a "minutes notice" to defend the people. If you bothered to read how and why the "militias" were formed by the founding fathers but that is not your purpose now is it.
I have read the Second Amendment and I believe it was intended for states' militias, not an individual right.
Remember that the states saw the federal government as a threat on liberty similar to the English monarchy was seen then. It was meant to guarantee the safety of states to bear arms and to defend themselves should the federal government become an autocracy.

From the Constitution for the state of Indiana.

ARTICLE 12. Militia

Section 1. Composition

Section 1. A militia shall be provided and shall consist of ALL persons over the age of seventeen (17) years, except those persons who may be exempted by the laws of the United States or of this state. The militia MAY be divided into active and inactive classes and consist of such military organizations as may be provided by law.



Show me an intellectually honest liberal and I will show you a Conservative in the making.
It looks like Indiana does not have a well-regulated militia.
 
That does not meet "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" now does it!
It does meet the requirement for the home guard to be well-regulated as was the intent of the framers of the 2nd Amendment.

And as long as it only meets half of the Second Amendment that is all that matters to you right? I was in the only Airborne Infantry National Guard unit in the United States and while we may have been well regulated we were not free to keep and bear our arms so the peoples right as a whole were most definitely infringed upon. Try addressing the whole of the Second Amendment as it was written by the founders. It was written so that the common citizen could have a firearm at hand and be rallied a a "minutes notice" to defend the people. If you bothered to read how and why the "militias" were formed by the founding fathers but that is not your purpose now is it.
I have read the Second Amendment and I believe it was intended for states' militias, not an individual right.
Remember that the states saw the federal government as a threat on liberty similar to the English monarchy was seen then. It was meant to guarantee the safety of states to bear arms and to defend themselves should the federal government become an autocracy.

From the Constitution for the state of Indiana.

ARTICLE 12. Militia

Section 1. Composition

Section 1. A militia shall be provided and shall consist of ALL persons over the age of seventeen (17) years, except those persons who may be exempted by the laws of the United States or of this state. The militia MAY be divided into active and inactive classes and consist of such military organizations as may be provided by law.



Show me an intellectually honest liberal and I will show you a Conservative in the making.
It looks like Indiana does not have a well-regulated militia.
That depends on which definition of "well regulated" you are using. The framers used it one way to stress the need for the militia to be adequately armed and trained and the left uses the definitions that mean more laws and restrictions.

Either way, Indiana can be said to be "less regulated" but so what if it is?

Show me an intellectually honest liberal and I will show you a Conservative in the making.
 
the unorganized militia does not enjoy literal protection of our Second Article of Amendment.


It's not about the militias, it's about the people's right.
The militias were there for protecting the citizens freedoms with the right of the people to bear arms.
No, it isn't. It is about, what is necessary to the security of a free State.


What do you think the word protecting means?
That includes security.
Why do any of our several States have any form of security problem?
Thanks to the 2nd amendment, they don't and probably never will.

Show me an intellectually honest liberal and I will show you a Conservative in the making.
So, we have our alleged wars on crime, drugs, and terror, merely for right wing fantasy?
 
This is why the confiscation of all Fire Arms from American Sheeple should be employed, and I say ALL guns including Flint Lock Muskets......... anything that can be used in self defense, because technically......... TECHNICALLY YOU DON'T HAVE THE RIGHT TO OWN GUNS.

How very totalitarian of you. Pathetic.
 
True Interpretation of the 2nd Amendment in laments terms:

The Right To Bear Arms

Lets say YOU as a normal average person were to speak out against a Wealthy Person, I then get a Cartel or some sort of local Mafia involved to go to your house, tie you up, RAPE and Pillage your family as you watched.
The very next day, YOU WOULD LEARN TO KEEP YOUR MOUTH SHUT.

But here in the Untied States the Second Amendment has been misinterpreted so now all the Sheeple in this land have sophisticated firearms & modern weaponry equal to or greater than Cartel's & Mafia's, so now when I try to order them to go to your house to teach you a lesson, they will risk Serious Injury or even Death, this make it much more expensive to or even impossible to SHUT YOU UP.

Yes the American Sheeple have the Right To Bear Arms, so if I was to tell the Cartel or Mafia guys to cut off your hands, they would have to do so at the base of your wrist, thus preserving YOUR arm.............. Thus the Right to Bear Arms, it doesn't say anything about Sheeple being allow to own sophisticated firearms & modern weaponry at all.

This is why the confiscation of all Fire Arms from American Sheeple should be employed, and I say ALL guns including Flint Lock Muskets......... anything that can be used in self defense, because technically......... TECHNICALLY YOU DON'T HAVE THE RIGHT TO OWN GUNS.
I will not fall into your preposterous trap and entertain an argument. God bless.
 

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top