Exactly what and why was the 2nd amendment written like it is

[danielpalos]

Unorganized militias were Infringed, as People; by well regulated militias of the United States; just like it says in our Second Amendment.

No they were not. Citizens with privately owned firearms joined militias and fought to bring the confederate states back into the Union. The militias are regulated, as our 2nd amendment says. Private citizen’s right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, just like our 2nd amendment says.

The entire South, was Infringed since they were unorganized militia.

The entire South took up arms against the federal govt. It had nothing to do with the 2nd amendment whatsoever.

Yes, it did. The unorganized militia does not have an uninfringed right to keep and bear Arms, when it involves the security of our free States or the Union.

Nonsense. The South was not attacked because their militia was unorganized.

And none of the militias that defeated the South were organized before the war started.

reading comprehension is not a right wing strong suit for story tellers.

 

[WinterBorn]

No they were not. Citizens with privately owned firearms joined militias and fought to bring the confederate states back into the Union. The militias are regulated, as our 2nd amendment says. Private citizen’s right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, just like our 2nd amendment says.

The entire South, was Infringed since they were unorganized militia.

The entire South took up arms against the federal govt. It had nothing to do with the 2nd amendment whatsoever.

Yes, it did. The unorganized militia does not have an uninfringed right to keep and bear Arms, when it involves the security of our free States or the Union.

Nonsense. The South was not attacked because their militia was unorganized.

And none of the militias that defeated the South were organized before the war started.

reading comprehension is not a right wing strong suit for story tellers.

What gives you that idea? What I I not comprehend? Or is it just more of your "I don't have any argument so I will just try to insult someone"?

 

[danielpalos]

The entire South, was Infringed since they were unorganized militia.

The entire South took up arms against the federal govt. It had nothing to do with the 2nd amendment whatsoever.

Yes, it did. The unorganized militia does not have an uninfringed right to keep and bear Arms, when it involves the security of our free States or the Union.

Nonsense. The South was not attacked because their militia was unorganized.

And none of the militias that defeated the South were organized before the war started.

reading comprehension is not a right wing strong suit for story tellers.

What gives you that idea? What I I not comprehend? Or is it just more of your "I don't have any argument so I will just try to insult someone"?

i love to practice arguing, nothing burgers with the right wing.

The unorganized militia does not have an uninfringed right to keep and bear Arms, when it involves the security of our free States or the Union.

 

[Pilot1]

The unorganized militia does not have an uninfringed right to keep and bear Arms, when it involves the security of our free States or the Union.

Actually it does. The unorganized militia retains its OWN firearms until it is called up when it becomes the organized militia. It then uses those personal firearms in service.

 

[WinterBorn]

The entire South took up arms against the federal govt. It had nothing to do with the 2nd amendment whatsoever.

Yes, it did. The unorganized militia does not have an uninfringed right to keep and bear Arms, when it involves the security of our free States or the Union.

Nonsense. The South was not attacked because their militia was unorganized.

And none of the militias that defeated the South were organized before the war started.

reading comprehension is not a right wing strong suit for story tellers.

What gives you that idea? What I I not comprehend? Or is it just more of your "I don't have any argument so I will just try to insult someone"?

i love to practice arguing, nothing burgers with the right wing.

The unorganized militia does not have an uninfringed right to keep and bear Arms, when it involves the security of our free States or the Union.

That is exactly what I thought. You have nothing to say.
YOur post is a meaningless statement.

The 2nd amendment guarantees the individual citizen the right to keep and bear arms. The organized militia referred to in the 2nd is simply armed citizens who joined or formed a militia. The Union militias are a perfect example of this. Those armed citizens were not regulated. The militia they formed was regulated, and fought for our country.

 

[danielpalos]

The unorganized militia does not have an uninfringed right to keep and bear Arms, when it involves the security of our free States or the Union.

Actually it does. The unorganized militia retains its OWN firearms until it is called up when it becomes the organized militia. It then uses those personal firearms in service.

Nobody is questioning natural rights; we are discussing who may not be Infringed, when the security of a free State is involved.

 

[danielpalos]

Yes, it did. The unorganized militia does not have an uninfringed right to keep and bear Arms, when it involves the security of our free States or the Union.

Nonsense. The South was not attacked because their militia was unorganized.

And none of the militias that defeated the South were organized before the war started.

reading comprehension is not a right wing strong suit for story tellers.

What gives you that idea? What I I not comprehend? Or is it just more of your "I don't have any argument so I will just try to insult someone"?

i love to practice arguing, nothing burgers with the right wing.

The unorganized militia does not have an uninfringed right to keep and bear Arms, when it involves the security of our free States or the Union.

That is exactly what I thought. You have nothing to say.
YOur post is a meaningless statement.

The 2nd amendment guarantees the individual citizen the right to keep and bear arms. The organized militia referred to in the 2nd is simply armed citizens who joined or formed a militia. The Union militias are a perfect example of this. Those armed citizens were not regulated. The militia they formed was regulated, and fought for our country.

You don't know what you are talking about. Well regulated militia are also, The People.

 

[WinterBorn]

Nonsense. The South was not attacked because their militia was unorganized.

And none of the militias that defeated the South were organized before the war started.

reading comprehension is not a right wing strong suit for story tellers.

What gives you that idea? What I I not comprehend? Or is it just more of your "I don't have any argument so I will just try to insult someone"?

i love to practice arguing, nothing burgers with the right wing.

The unorganized militia does not have an uninfringed right to keep and bear Arms, when it involves the security of our free States or the Union.

That is exactly what I thought. You have nothing to say.
YOur post is a meaningless statement.

The 2nd amendment guarantees the individual citizen the right to keep and bear arms. The organized militia referred to in the 2nd is simply armed citizens who joined or formed a militia. The Union militias are a perfect example of this. Those armed citizens were not regulated. The militia they formed was regulated, and fought for our country.

You don't know what you are talking about. Well regulated militia are also, The People.

The people are not necessarily the militia. The militia does come from the people. But until the militia is formed or called up, the people are not the militia. And so they are not regulated as a militia is.

The simple fact is that the founding fathers saw the militia as an alternative to a huge standing army, which they disliked. Their idea was to use citizen soldiers. So there was no huge military unless it was needed, and then citizen soldiers formed and joined militia, and served. This is all clearly documented in the writings of the day.

But your claims that the militia is perpetual is simply wrong. And the people, even those who may serve in the militia if needed, are not regulated until they join the militia.

The SCOTUS has ruled that there can be regulations on firearms. But the people are not militia until they are needed and join/form a militia.

 

[danielpalos]

reading comprehension is not a right wing strong suit for story tellers.

What gives you that idea? What I I not comprehend? Or is it just more of your "I don't have any argument so I will just try to insult someone"?

i love to practice arguing, nothing burgers with the right wing.

The unorganized militia does not have an uninfringed right to keep and bear Arms, when it involves the security of our free States or the Union.

That is exactly what I thought. You have nothing to say.
YOur post is a meaningless statement.

The 2nd amendment guarantees the individual citizen the right to keep and bear arms. The organized militia referred to in the 2nd is simply armed citizens who joined or formed a militia. The Union militias are a perfect example of this. Those armed citizens were not regulated. The militia they formed was regulated, and fought for our country.

You don't know what you are talking about. Well regulated militia are also, The People.

The people are not necessarily the militia.

Yes, they are; those are the Only options available in our Second Amendment.

 

[westwall]

What gives you that idea? What I I not comprehend? Or is it just more of your "I don't have any argument so I will just try to insult someone"?

i love to practice arguing, nothing burgers with the right wing.

The unorganized militia does not have an uninfringed right to keep and bear Arms, when it involves the security of our free States or the Union.

That is exactly what I thought. You have nothing to say.
YOur post is a meaningless statement.

The 2nd amendment guarantees the individual citizen the right to keep and bear arms. The organized militia referred to in the 2nd is simply armed citizens who joined or formed a militia. The Union militias are a perfect example of this. Those armed citizens were not regulated. The militia they formed was regulated, and fought for our country.

You don't know what you are talking about. Well regulated militia are also, The People.

The people are not necessarily the militia.

Yes, they are; those are the Only options available in our Second Amendment.

Wrong. The only thing mentioned as an entity, and not merely as a descriptor is the PEOPLE. The militia is merely mentioned as a reason, the PEOPLE are the only things recognized to have RIGHTS.

 

[Frankeneinstein]

I won't look at today. I will look at the time around 1790.

Militia Act of 1792
Every citizen, so enrolled and notified, shall, within six months thereafter, provide himself with a good musket or firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints, and a knapsack, a pouch, with a box therein, to contain not less than twenty four cartridges, suited to the bore of his musket or firelock, each cartridge to contain a proper quantity of powder and ball; or with a good rifle, knapsack, shot-pouch, and powder-horn, twenty balls suited to the bore of his rifle, and a quarter of a pound of powder; and shall appear so armed, accoutred and provided, when called out to exercise or into service, except, that when called out on company days to exercise only, he may appear without a knapsack.

First we need to look at who was a Citizen in 1790s. In the 1790s, ALL Blacks even free Blacks were prohibited from owning and carrying firearms. All People even whites that would not swear allegiance to the newly formed United States were prohibited from owning or carrying fire arms. Women were prohibited from owning or carrying firearms. Bonded Slaves, even whites were prohibited from owning or carrying firearms of any kind. It all pretty much boiled down that a Citizen was a Free White Male Land Owner deemed to be in good standing with the Existing Government both Stated and Federal Governments. It's been estimated that only about 8% of the population from that time met the full requirement to own, possess and carry firearms legally. Remember, more than half of the population of that time either supported the Crown or leaned heavily in that direction. The Newly Formed Colonist Government did exactly what the British Government tried to do themselves.

There were two rebellions that made the Militia Act of 1792 to be written and adopted. The Shays Rebellion of 1786-1787 and the Whiskey Rebellion 1791-1794. While neither amounted to much, the founding fathers were scared to death that something else might come up that might endanger the newly formed Government so they adopted the 2nd Amendment as it was written since there was no Standing Army to prevent any decent resurrection from becoming successful. It was left up to each state individually to provide the militias to prevent it from happening. As long as the states agreed and didn't go to war with each other.

Using the original definition, if you don't own your House, Farm or Business and you don't completely and blindly support our current Government then are not a Citizen in Good Standings and will not be afforded the right to own, posses or carry any form of Firearms. Oh, and you must be a Free White Male as well.

Fortunately the problem has been corrected

 

[WinterBorn]

What gives you that idea? What I I not comprehend? Or is it just more of your "I don't have any argument so I will just try to insult someone"?

i love to practice arguing, nothing burgers with the right wing.

The unorganized militia does not have an uninfringed right to keep and bear Arms, when it involves the security of our free States or the Union.

That is exactly what I thought. You have nothing to say.
YOur post is a meaningless statement.

The 2nd amendment guarantees the individual citizen the right to keep and bear arms. The organized militia referred to in the 2nd is simply armed citizens who joined or formed a militia. The Union militias are a perfect example of this. Those armed citizens were not regulated. The militia they formed was regulated, and fought for our country.

You don't know what you are talking about. Well regulated militia are also, The People.

The people are not necessarily the militia.

Yes, they are; those are the Only options available in our Second Amendment.

You have no idea what you are talking about. But then, from the way you have bounced around on this topic, I am not surprised.

The militia referred to in the 2nd amendment is not a standing army. It is called up when needed. That is why the people's right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

 

[LuckyDuck]

I won't look at today. I will look at the time around 1790.

Militia Act of 1792
Every citizen, so enrolled and notified, shall, within six months thereafter, provide himself with a good musket or firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints, and a knapsack, a pouch, with a box therein, to contain not less than twenty four cartridges, suited to the bore of his musket or firelock, each cartridge to contain a proper quantity of powder and ball; or with a good rifle, knapsack, shot-pouch, and powder-horn, twenty balls suited to the bore of his rifle, and a quarter of a pound of powder; and shall appear so armed, accoutred and provided, when called out to exercise or into service, except, that when called out on company days to exercise only, he may appear without a knapsack.

First we need to look at who was a Citizen in 1790s. In the 1790s, ALL Blacks even free Blacks were prohibited from owning and carrying firearms. All People even whites that would not swear allegiance to the newly formed United States were prohibited from owning or carrying fire arms. Women were prohibited from owning or carrying firearms. Bonded Slaves, even whites were prohibited from owning or carrying firearms of any kind. It all pretty much boiled down that a Citizen was a Free White Male Land Owner deemed to be in good standing with the Existing Government both Stated and Federal Governments. It's been estimated that only about 8% of the population from that time met the full requirement to own, possess and carry firearms legally. Remember, more than half of the population of that time either supported the Crown or leaned heavily in that direction. The Newly Formed Colonist Government did exactly what the British Government tried to do themselves.

There were two rebellions that made the Militia Act of 1792 to be written and adopted. The Shays Rebellion of 1786-1787 and the Whiskey Rebellion 1791-1794. While neither amounted to much, the founding fathers were scared to death that something else might come up that might endanger the newly formed Government so they adopted the 2nd Amendment as it was written since there was no Standing Army to prevent any decent resurrection from becoming successful. It was left up to each state individually to provide the militias to prevent it from happening. As long as the states agreed and didn't go to war with each other.

Using the original definition, if you don't own your House, Farm or Business and you don't completely and blindly support our current Government then are not a Citizen in Good Standings and will not be afforded the right to own, posses or carry any form of Firearms. Oh, and you must be a Free White Male as well.

The US Constitution doesn't mention women, but in current interpretations it is understood that when saying "all men" modern reference also includes women. It is also understood that by modern standards, blacks are included in the concept of "all men."
The 2nd Amendment was drafted to allow states to have well-regulated militias to defend against tyrannical foreign government invasion, as well as to defend against our own domestic government, should it too become tyrannical/oppressive. These well-regulated militias are not limited to only defending their own states, but also to form and fight against their own state government, should it too become tyrannical (i.e., should Marxism take hold).
To defend against a tyrannical government, whether our own, or a foreign invading power, it was anticipated that such a militia should be adequately armed to deter an armed opposing force and thus our militias should be equally armed in that defense.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

I won't look at today. I will look at the time around 1790.

Militia Act of 1792
Every citizen, so enrolled and notified, shall, within six months thereafter, provide himself with a good musket or firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints, and a knapsack, a pouch, with a box therein, to contain not less than twenty four cartridges, suited to the bore of his musket or firelock, each cartridge to contain a proper quantity of powder and ball; or with a good rifle, knapsack, shot-pouch, and powder-horn, twenty balls suited to the bore of his rifle, and a quarter of a pound of powder; and shall appear so armed, accoutred and provided, when called out to exercise or into service, except, that when called out on company days to exercise only, he may appear without a knapsack.

First we need to look at who was a Citizen in 1790s. In the 1790s, ALL Blacks even free Blacks were prohibited from owning and carrying firearms. All People even whites that would not swear allegiance to the newly formed United States were prohibited from owning or carrying fire arms. Women were prohibited from owning or carrying firearms. Bonded Slaves, even whites were prohibited from owning or carrying firearms of any kind. It all pretty much boiled down that a Citizen was a Free White Male Land Owner deemed to be in good standing with the Existing Government both Stated and Federal Governments. It's been estimated that only about 8% of the population from that time met the full requirement to own, possess and carry firearms legally. Remember, more than half of the population of that time either supported the Crown or leaned heavily in that direction. The Newly Formed Colonist Government did exactly what the British Government tried to do themselves.

There were two rebellions that made the Militia Act of 1792 to be written and adopted. The Shays Rebellion of 1786-1787 and the Whiskey Rebellion 1791-1794. While neither amounted to much, the founding fathers were scared to death that something else might come up that might endanger the newly formed Government so they adopted the 2nd Amendment as it was written since there was no Standing Army to prevent any decent resurrection from becoming successful. It was left up to each state individually to provide the militias to prevent it from happening. As long as the states agreed and didn't go to war with each other.

Using the original definition, if you don't own your House, Farm or Business and you don't completely and blindly support our current Government then are not a Citizen in Good Standings and will not be afforded the right to own, posses or carry any form of Firearms. Oh, and you must be a Free White Male as well.

The US Constitution doesn't mention women, but in current interpretations it is understood that when saying "all men" modern reference also includes women. It is also understood that by modern standards, blacks are included in the concept of "all men."
The 2nd Amendment was drafted to allow states to have well-regulated militias to defend against tyrannical foreign government invasion, as well as to defend against our own domestic government, should it too become tyrannical/oppressive. These well-regulated militias are not limited to only defending their own states, but also to form and fight against their own state government, should it too become tyrannical (i.e., should Marxism take hold).
To defend against a tyrannical government, whether our own, or a foreign invading power, it was anticipated that such a militia should be adequately armed to deter an armed opposing force and thus our militias should be equally armed in that defense.

You are somewhat reading into the 2nd amendment. It was never intended to include the State Government as becoming Tyrannical. The other state Militias would be used to prevent that as requested by the Federal Government. There was nothing in there that covered a rogue state other than it just leaving the union and going it's own way. For the first years, this was a real possibility and it made the states work together to keep it from happening. Of course, outside nations were waiting in the wings to swoop down on the fledgling nation so it was in their best interest to stay together. But there is no mention of a State becoming as you suggest.

You can't have a well regulated Militia without the State. Some entity must be the regulatory agency to regulate the militia in order for it to be a well regulated militia. Otherwise, it's just a bunch of guys dress in green playing with guns running around the wood scaring the hell out of the wild life.

 

[LuckyDuck]

I won't look at today. I will look at the time around 1790.

Militia Act of 1792
Every citizen, so enrolled and notified, shall, within six months thereafter, provide himself with a good musket or firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints, and a knapsack, a pouch, with a box therein, to contain not less than twenty four cartridges, suited to the bore of his musket or firelock, each cartridge to contain a proper quantity of powder and ball; or with a good rifle, knapsack, shot-pouch, and powder-horn, twenty balls suited to the bore of his rifle, and a quarter of a pound of powder; and shall appear so armed, accoutred and provided, when called out to exercise or into service, except, that when called out on company days to exercise only, he may appear without a knapsack.

First we need to look at who was a Citizen in 1790s. In the 1790s, ALL Blacks even free Blacks were prohibited from owning and carrying firearms. All People even whites that would not swear allegiance to the newly formed United States were prohibited from owning or carrying fire arms. Women were prohibited from owning or carrying firearms. Bonded Slaves, even whites were prohibited from owning or carrying firearms of any kind. It all pretty much boiled down that a Citizen was a Free White Male Land Owner deemed to be in good standing with the Existing Government both Stated and Federal Governments. It's been estimated that only about 8% of the population from that time met the full requirement to own, possess and carry firearms legally. Remember, more than half of the population of that time either supported the Crown or leaned heavily in that direction. The Newly Formed Colonist Government did exactly what the British Government tried to do themselves.

There were two rebellions that made the Militia Act of 1792 to be written and adopted. The Shays Rebellion of 1786-1787 and the Whiskey Rebellion 1791-1794. While neither amounted to much, the founding fathers were scared to death that something else might come up that might endanger the newly formed Government so they adopted the 2nd Amendment as it was written since there was no Standing Army to prevent any decent resurrection from becoming successful. It was left up to each state individually to provide the militias to prevent it from happening. As long as the states agreed and didn't go to war with each other.

Using the original definition, if you don't own your House, Farm or Business and you don't completely and blindly support our current Government then are not a Citizen in Good Standings and will not be afforded the right to own, posses or carry any form of Firearms. Oh, and you must be a Free White Male as well.

The US Constitution doesn't mention women, but in current interpretations it is understood that when saying "all men" modern reference also includes women. It is also understood that by modern standards, blacks are included in the concept of "all men."
The 2nd Amendment was drafted to allow states to have well-regulated militias to defend against tyrannical foreign government invasion, as well as to defend against our own domestic government, should it too become tyrannical/oppressive. These well-regulated militias are not limited to only defending their own states, but also to form and fight against their own state government, should it too become tyrannical (i.e., should Marxism take hold).
To defend against a tyrannical government, whether our own, or a foreign invading power, it was anticipated that such a militia should be adequately armed to deter an armed opposing force and thus our militias should be equally armed in that defense.

You are somewhat reading into the 2nd amendment. It was never intended to include the State Government as becoming Tyrannical. The other state Militias would be used to prevent that as requested by the Federal Government. There was nothing in there that covered a rogue state other than it just leaving the union and going it's own way. For the first years, this was a real possibility and it made the states work together to keep it from happening. Of course, outside nations were waiting in the wings to swoop down on the fledgling nation so it was in their best interest to stay together. But there is no mention of a State becoming as you suggest.

You can't have a well regulated Militia without the State. Some entity must be the regulatory agency to regulate the militia in order for it to be a well regulated militia. Otherwise, it's just a bunch of guys dress in green playing with guns running around the wood scaring the hell out of the wild life.

If our own government were to become Marxist, that would make it a tyrannical government and by the same token the states would follow suit and thus a regulated militia would need to be formed to fight the state and formerly federal government.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

I won't look at today. I will look at the time around 1790.

Militia Act of 1792
Every citizen, so enrolled and notified, shall, within six months thereafter, provide himself with a good musket or firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints, and a knapsack, a pouch, with a box therein, to contain not less than twenty four cartridges, suited to the bore of his musket or firelock, each cartridge to contain a proper quantity of powder and ball; or with a good rifle, knapsack, shot-pouch, and powder-horn, twenty balls suited to the bore of his rifle, and a quarter of a pound of powder; and shall appear so armed, accoutred and provided, when called out to exercise or into service, except, that when called out on company days to exercise only, he may appear without a knapsack.

First we need to look at who was a Citizen in 1790s. In the 1790s, ALL Blacks even free Blacks were prohibited from owning and carrying firearms. All People even whites that would not swear allegiance to the newly formed United States were prohibited from owning or carrying fire arms. Women were prohibited from owning or carrying firearms. Bonded Slaves, even whites were prohibited from owning or carrying firearms of any kind. It all pretty much boiled down that a Citizen was a Free White Male Land Owner deemed to be in good standing with the Existing Government both Stated and Federal Governments. It's been estimated that only about 8% of the population from that time met the full requirement to own, possess and carry firearms legally. Remember, more than half of the population of that time either supported the Crown or leaned heavily in that direction. The Newly Formed Colonist Government did exactly what the British Government tried to do themselves.

There were two rebellions that made the Militia Act of 1792 to be written and adopted. The Shays Rebellion of 1786-1787 and the Whiskey Rebellion 1791-1794. While neither amounted to much, the founding fathers were scared to death that something else might come up that might endanger the newly formed Government so they adopted the 2nd Amendment as it was written since there was no Standing Army to prevent any decent resurrection from becoming successful. It was left up to each state individually to provide the militias to prevent it from happening. As long as the states agreed and didn't go to war with each other.

Using the original definition, if you don't own your House, Farm or Business and you don't completely and blindly support our current Government then are not a Citizen in Good Standings and will not be afforded the right to own, posses or carry any form of Firearms. Oh, and you must be a Free White Male as well.

The US Constitution doesn't mention women, but in current interpretations it is understood that when saying "all men" modern reference also includes women. It is also understood that by modern standards, blacks are included in the concept of "all men."
The 2nd Amendment was drafted to allow states to have well-regulated militias to defend against tyrannical foreign government invasion, as well as to defend against our own domestic government, should it too become tyrannical/oppressive. These well-regulated militias are not limited to only defending their own states, but also to form and fight against their own state government, should it too become tyrannical (i.e., should Marxism take hold).
To defend against a tyrannical government, whether our own, or a foreign invading power, it was anticipated that such a militia should be adequately armed to deter an armed opposing force and thus our militias should be equally armed in that defense.

You are somewhat reading into the 2nd amendment. It was never intended to include the State Government as becoming Tyrannical. The other state Militias would be used to prevent that as requested by the Federal Government. There was nothing in there that covered a rogue state other than it just leaving the union and going it's own way. For the first years, this was a real possibility and it made the states work together to keep it from happening. Of course, outside nations were waiting in the wings to swoop down on the fledgling nation so it was in their best interest to stay together. But there is no mention of a State becoming as you suggest.

You can't have a well regulated Militia without the State. Some entity must be the regulatory agency to regulate the militia in order for it to be a well regulated militia. Otherwise, it's just a bunch of guys dress in green playing with guns running around the wood scaring the hell out of the wild life.

If our own government were to become Marxist, that would make it a tyrannical government and by the same token the states would follow suit and thus a regulated militia would need to be formed to fight the state and formerly federal government.

In order to become Marxist, the whole Constitution would have to be thrown out. It's a known fact that a Marxist Government cannot exist. It's a myth. Carl Marx made some good points but no one has ever been able to make it work. Ever. It's an Academic exercise, nothing more. There are a few "Governments" that claim to be Marxist but they really aren't. All of them are generally Kingdoms, Dictators and Oligarchs which are far from Marxist. But calling themselves Marxist sounds much better than what they really are. You will notice that Cuba claims to be Lenin/Marx. But Lenin knew that he could not achieve Marxism unless the whole world did it at the same time. He devised a method of world conquest through military and diplomatic tomfoolery. It was based on a lie. He just wanted to rule the world. But it goes down much better if you call it something else like Marxism or Communism which also cannot exist on a national level. The same name game is played by calling a government Socialist like Nazi Germany or USSR. Nazi Germany was a Dictator as was Stalin's USSR. But it sounds much better to call themselves Socialists than Dictators. Is there any doubt that Premier Kim is a Dictator and not a Socialist, Communist or Marxist?

Now, how about getting real here. You aren't making a whole lot of sense.

 

[LuckyDuck]

I won't look at today. I will look at the time around 1790.

Militia Act of 1792
Every citizen, so enrolled and notified, shall, within six months thereafter, provide himself with a good musket or firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints, and a knapsack, a pouch, with a box therein, to contain not less than twenty four cartridges, suited to the bore of his musket or firelock, each cartridge to contain a proper quantity of powder and ball; or with a good rifle, knapsack, shot-pouch, and powder-horn, twenty balls suited to the bore of his rifle, and a quarter of a pound of powder; and shall appear so armed, accoutred and provided, when called out to exercise or into service, except, that when called out on company days to exercise only, he may appear without a knapsack.

First we need to look at who was a Citizen in 1790s. In the 1790s, ALL Blacks even free Blacks were prohibited from owning and carrying firearms. All People even whites that would not swear allegiance to the newly formed United States were prohibited from owning or carrying fire arms. Women were prohibited from owning or carrying firearms. Bonded Slaves, even whites were prohibited from owning or carrying firearms of any kind. It all pretty much boiled down that a Citizen was a Free White Male Land Owner deemed to be in good standing with the Existing Government both Stated and Federal Governments. It's been estimated that only about 8% of the population from that time met the full requirement to own, possess and carry firearms legally. Remember, more than half of the population of that time either supported the Crown or leaned heavily in that direction. The Newly Formed Colonist Government did exactly what the British Government tried to do themselves.

There were two rebellions that made the Militia Act of 1792 to be written and adopted. The Shays Rebellion of 1786-1787 and the Whiskey Rebellion 1791-1794. While neither amounted to much, the founding fathers were scared to death that something else might come up that might endanger the newly formed Government so they adopted the 2nd Amendment as it was written since there was no Standing Army to prevent any decent resurrection from becoming successful. It was left up to each state individually to provide the militias to prevent it from happening. As long as the states agreed and didn't go to war with each other.

Using the original definition, if you don't own your House, Farm or Business and you don't completely and blindly support our current Government then are not a Citizen in Good Standings and will not be afforded the right to own, posses or carry any form of Firearms. Oh, and you must be a Free White Male as well.

The US Constitution doesn't mention women, but in current interpretations it is understood that when saying "all men" modern reference also includes women. It is also understood that by modern standards, blacks are included in the concept of "all men."
The 2nd Amendment was drafted to allow states to have well-regulated militias to defend against tyrannical foreign government invasion, as well as to defend against our own domestic government, should it too become tyrannical/oppressive. These well-regulated militias are not limited to only defending their own states, but also to form and fight against their own state government, should it too become tyrannical (i.e., should Marxism take hold).
To defend against a tyrannical government, whether our own, or a foreign invading power, it was anticipated that such a militia should be adequately armed to deter an armed opposing force and thus our militias should be equally armed in that defense.

You are somewhat reading into the 2nd amendment. It was never intended to include the State Government as becoming Tyrannical. The other state Militias would be used to prevent that as requested by the Federal Government. There was nothing in there that covered a rogue state other than it just leaving the union and going it's own way. For the first years, this was a real possibility and it made the states work together to keep it from happening. Of course, outside nations were waiting in the wings to swoop down on the fledgling nation so it was in their best interest to stay together. But there is no mention of a State becoming as you suggest.

You can't have a well regulated Militia without the State. Some entity must be the regulatory agency to regulate the militia in order for it to be a well regulated militia. Otherwise, it's just a bunch of guys dress in green playing with guns running around the wood scaring the hell out of the wild life.

If our own government were to become Marxist, that would make it a tyrannical government and by the same token the states would follow suit and thus a regulated militia would need to be formed to fight the state and formerly federal government.

In order to become Marxist, the whole Constitution would have to be thrown out. It's a known fact that a Marxist Government cannot exist. It's a myth. Carl Marx made some good points but no one has ever been able to make it work. Ever. It's an Academic exercise, nothing more. There are a few "Governments" that claim to be Marxist but they really aren't. All of them are generally Kingdoms, Dictators and Oligarchs which are far from Marxist. But calling themselves Marxist sounds much better than what they really are. You will notice that Cuba claims to be Lenin/Marx. But Lenin knew that he could not achieve Marxism unless the whole world did it at the same time. He devised a method of world conquest through military and diplomatic tomfoolery. It was based on a lie. He just wanted to rule the world. But it goes down much better if you call it something else like Marxism or Communism which also cannot exist on a national level. The same name game is played by calling a government Socialist like Nazi Germany or USSR. Nazi Germany was a Dictator as was Stalin's USSR. But it sounds much better to call themselves Socialists than Dictators. Is there any doubt that Premier Kim is a Dictator and not a Socialist, Communist or Marxist?

Now, how about getting real here. You aren't making a whole lot of sense.

Okay, let's drop the title, "Marxist" and go with "Socialist" government. A large government with control over most aspects of peoples lives (i.e., Venezuela, Cuba, China, et cetera).

 

[Daryl Hunt]

I won't look at today. I will look at the time around 1790.

Militia Act of 1792
Every citizen, so enrolled and notified, shall, within six months thereafter, provide himself with a good musket or firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints, and a knapsack, a pouch, with a box therein, to contain not less than twenty four cartridges, suited to the bore of his musket or firelock, each cartridge to contain a proper quantity of powder and ball; or with a good rifle, knapsack, shot-pouch, and powder-horn, twenty balls suited to the bore of his rifle, and a quarter of a pound of powder; and shall appear so armed, accoutred and provided, when called out to exercise or into service, except, that when called out on company days to exercise only, he may appear without a knapsack.

First we need to look at who was a Citizen in 1790s. In the 1790s, ALL Blacks even free Blacks were prohibited from owning and carrying firearms. All People even whites that would not swear allegiance to the newly formed United States were prohibited from owning or carrying fire arms. Women were prohibited from owning or carrying firearms. Bonded Slaves, even whites were prohibited from owning or carrying firearms of any kind. It all pretty much boiled down that a Citizen was a Free White Male Land Owner deemed to be in good standing with the Existing Government both Stated and Federal Governments. It's been estimated that only about 8% of the population from that time met the full requirement to own, possess and carry firearms legally. Remember, more than half of the population of that time either supported the Crown or leaned heavily in that direction. The Newly Formed Colonist Government did exactly what the British Government tried to do themselves.

There were two rebellions that made the Militia Act of 1792 to be written and adopted. The Shays Rebellion of 1786-1787 and the Whiskey Rebellion 1791-1794. While neither amounted to much, the founding fathers were scared to death that something else might come up that might endanger the newly formed Government so they adopted the 2nd Amendment as it was written since there was no Standing Army to prevent any decent resurrection from becoming successful. It was left up to each state individually to provide the militias to prevent it from happening. As long as the states agreed and didn't go to war with each other.

Using the original definition, if you don't own your House, Farm or Business and you don't completely and blindly support our current Government then are not a Citizen in Good Standings and will not be afforded the right to own, posses or carry any form of Firearms. Oh, and you must be a Free White Male as well.

The US Constitution doesn't mention women, but in current interpretations it is understood that when saying "all men" modern reference also includes women. It is also understood that by modern standards, blacks are included in the concept of "all men."
The 2nd Amendment was drafted to allow states to have well-regulated militias to defend against tyrannical foreign government invasion, as well as to defend against our own domestic government, should it too become tyrannical/oppressive. These well-regulated militias are not limited to only defending their own states, but also to form and fight against their own state government, should it too become tyrannical (i.e., should Marxism take hold).
To defend against a tyrannical government, whether our own, or a foreign invading power, it was anticipated that such a militia should be adequately armed to deter an armed opposing force and thus our militias should be equally armed in that defense.

You are somewhat reading into the 2nd amendment. It was never intended to include the State Government as becoming Tyrannical. The other state Militias would be used to prevent that as requested by the Federal Government. There was nothing in there that covered a rogue state other than it just leaving the union and going it's own way. For the first years, this was a real possibility and it made the states work together to keep it from happening. Of course, outside nations were waiting in the wings to swoop down on the fledgling nation so it was in their best interest to stay together. But there is no mention of a State becoming as you suggest.

You can't have a well regulated Militia without the State. Some entity must be the regulatory agency to regulate the militia in order for it to be a well regulated militia. Otherwise, it's just a bunch of guys dress in green playing with guns running around the wood scaring the hell out of the wild life.

If our own government were to become Marxist, that would make it a tyrannical government and by the same token the states would follow suit and thus a regulated militia would need to be formed to fight the state and formerly federal government.

In order to become Marxist, the whole Constitution would have to be thrown out. It's a known fact that a Marxist Government cannot exist. It's a myth. Carl Marx made some good points but no one has ever been able to make it work. Ever. It's an Academic exercise, nothing more. There are a few "Governments" that claim to be Marxist but they really aren't. All of them are generally Kingdoms, Dictators and Oligarchs which are far from Marxist. But calling themselves Marxist sounds much better than what they really are. You will notice that Cuba claims to be Lenin/Marx. But Lenin knew that he could not achieve Marxism unless the whole world did it at the same time. He devised a method of world conquest through military and diplomatic tomfoolery. It was based on a lie. He just wanted to rule the world. But it goes down much better if you call it something else like Marxism or Communism which also cannot exist on a national level. The same name game is played by calling a government Socialist like Nazi Germany or USSR. Nazi Germany was a Dictator as was Stalin's USSR. But it sounds much better to call themselves Socialists than Dictators. Is there any doubt that Premier Kim is a Dictator and not a Socialist, Communist or Marxist?

Now, how about getting real here. You aren't making a whole lot of sense.

Okay, let's drop the title, "Marxist" and go with "Socialist" government. A large government with control over most aspects of peoples lives (i.e., Venezuela, Cuba, China, et cetera).

Sure am glad you brought those three up. Yes, they call themselves Socialist. But they aren't.

Venezuela is a Dictatorship that masquerades as a Socialist state.
Cuba is a Dictatorship that is also pretends to be a Socialist State.
China is an Oligarchy that pretends to be a Socialist state.

In order to be a Socialist State unfettered and fair elections must be held and the will of the people must be help above all else. None of the 3 you mentioned has that. In fact, Cuba and China don't have elections for the common people at all. And Venezuela tightly controls the elections so that only the "Leader" will win. The only real Socialist Country I know of is Denmark and no one in Denmark claims to actually have a Socialist Country although they do fit the criteria all the way. It seems these other "Fake" Socialist countries have given the name Socialism a really bad name. The reason that these countries don't use what they really are is that if they did they could not stand in front of the "Oppressed" and make them think that things are going so well. So they call their selves much nicer names and don't allow their subjects the ability to see any different.

Socialism is a very hard act to accomplish and only a handful in the world is doing it. But it can't be done by countries the size of the US. Socialism can't exist in large populations much like Democratic Governments can't either. Both are wonderful thoughts but can't happen once you get past a room full of people. So we use parts of them in our Government. Any real successful government does this. We should do the same for Capitalism. We borrow from all three. What you end up with is a Federal Republic. But beware, it's a tight rope act. Right now, we are heavily into leaning towards the Capitalism which also doesn't work in large populations. In the past, we have also leaned too far in the Socialism way but we always go back to the center. But we have NEVER been this far into one thing or the other like we are today. The Total Collapse happens when you get too far away from the happy balance. And we are quickly headed that way again. Not to worry, with the system our FFs setup, the swing will bring it back again.

We need a bit of Socialism for some things. We need a bit of Capitalism for other things and we need Democracy for others. Just be very careful that we don't swing too far from the center like we are today. And it ain't Socialism that is the enemy right now. We need to get Corporations out of owning the Government. You fight to do that and you would be surprised at how low what you fear from Socialism gets weaker when more people actually get to work and the need of crime goes down.

 

[LuckyDuck]

The US Constitution doesn't mention women, but in current interpretations it is understood that when saying "all men" modern reference also includes women. It is also understood that by modern standards, blacks are included in the concept of "all men."
The 2nd Amendment was drafted to allow states to have well-regulated militias to defend against tyrannical foreign government invasion, as well as to defend against our own domestic government, should it too become tyrannical/oppressive. These well-regulated militias are not limited to only defending their own states, but also to form and fight against their own state government, should it too become tyrannical (i.e., should Marxism take hold).
To defend against a tyrannical government, whether our own, or a foreign invading power, it was anticipated that such a militia should be adequately armed to deter an armed opposing force and thus our militias should be equally armed in that defense.

You are somewhat reading into the 2nd amendment. It was never intended to include the State Government as becoming Tyrannical. The other state Militias would be used to prevent that as requested by the Federal Government. There was nothing in there that covered a rogue state other than it just leaving the union and going it's own way. For the first years, this was a real possibility and it made the states work together to keep it from happening. Of course, outside nations were waiting in the wings to swoop down on the fledgling nation so it was in their best interest to stay together. But there is no mention of a State becoming as you suggest.

You can't have a well regulated Militia without the State. Some entity must be the regulatory agency to regulate the militia in order for it to be a well regulated militia. Otherwise, it's just a bunch of guys dress in green playing with guns running around the wood scaring the hell out of the wild life.

If our own government were to become Marxist, that would make it a tyrannical government and by the same token the states would follow suit and thus a regulated militia would need to be formed to fight the state and formerly federal government.

In order to become Marxist, the whole Constitution would have to be thrown out. It's a known fact that a Marxist Government cannot exist. It's a myth. Carl Marx made some good points but no one has ever been able to make it work. Ever. It's an Academic exercise, nothing more. There are a few "Governments" that claim to be Marxist but they really aren't. All of them are generally Kingdoms, Dictators and Oligarchs which are far from Marxist. But calling themselves Marxist sounds much better than what they really are. You will notice that Cuba claims to be Lenin/Marx. But Lenin knew that he could not achieve Marxism unless the whole world did it at the same time. He devised a method of world conquest through military and diplomatic tomfoolery. It was based on a lie. He just wanted to rule the world. But it goes down much better if you call it something else like Marxism or Communism which also cannot exist on a national level. The same name game is played by calling a government Socialist like Nazi Germany or USSR. Nazi Germany was a Dictator as was Stalin's USSR. But it sounds much better to call themselves Socialists than Dictators. Is there any doubt that Premier Kim is a Dictator and not a Socialist, Communist or Marxist?

Now, how about getting real here. You aren't making a whole lot of sense.

Okay, let's drop the title, "Marxist" and go with "Socialist" government. A large government with control over most aspects of peoples lives (i.e., Venezuela, Cuba, China, et cetera).

Sure am glad you brought those three up. Yes, they call themselves Socialist. But they aren't.

Venezuela is a Dictatorship that masquerades as a Socialist state.
Cuba is a Dictatorship that is also pretends to be a Socialist State.
China is an Oligarchy that pretends to be a Socialist state.

In order to be a Socialist State unfettered and fair elections must be held and the will of the people must be help above all else. None of the 3 you mentioned has that. In fact, Cuba and China don't have elections for the common people at all. And Venezuela tightly controls the elections so that only the "Leader" will win. The only real Socialist Country I know of is Denmark and no one in Denmark claims to actually have a Socialist Country although they do fit the criteria all the way. It seems these other "Fake" Socialist countries have given the name Socialism a really bad name. The reason that these countries don't use what they really are is that if they did they could not stand in front of the "Oppressed" and make them think that things are going so well. So they call their selves much nicer names and don't allow their subjects the ability to see any different.

Socialism is a very hard act to accomplish and only a handful in the world is doing it. But it can't be done by countries the size of the US. Socialism can't exist in large populations much like Democratic Governments can't either. Both are wonderful thoughts but can't happen once you get past a room full of people. So we use parts of them in our Government. Any real successful government does this. We should do the same for Capitalism. We borrow from all three. What you end up with is a Federal Republic. But beware, it's a tight rope act. Right now, we are heavily into leaning towards the Capitalism which also doesn't work in large populations. In the past, we have also leaned too far in the Socialism way but we always go back to the center. But we have NEVER been this far into one thing or the other like we are today. The Total Collapse happens when you get too far away from the happy balance. And we are quickly headed that way again. Not to worry, with the system our FFs setup, the swing will bring it back again.

We need a bit of Socialism for some things. We need a bit of Capitalism for other things and we need Democracy for others. Just be very careful that we don't swing too far from the center like we are today. And it ain't Socialism that is the enemy right now. We need to get Corporations out of owning the Government. You fight to do that and you would be surprised at how low what you fear from Socialism gets weaker when more people actually get to work and the need of crime goes down.

To quote Vladimir Lenin: "Democracy is essential for Socialism to exist."
We are a Capitalist "Republic" and this is what we must stay. If this nation becomes Socialist, I will take up arms against it.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

You are somewhat reading into the 2nd amendment. It was never intended to include the State Government as becoming Tyrannical. The other state Militias would be used to prevent that as requested by the Federal Government. There was nothing in there that covered a rogue state other than it just leaving the union and going it's own way. For the first years, this was a real possibility and it made the states work together to keep it from happening. Of course, outside nations were waiting in the wings to swoop down on the fledgling nation so it was in their best interest to stay together. But there is no mention of a State becoming as you suggest.

You can't have a well regulated Militia without the State. Some entity must be the regulatory agency to regulate the militia in order for it to be a well regulated militia. Otherwise, it's just a bunch of guys dress in green playing with guns running around the wood scaring the hell out of the wild life.

If our own government were to become Marxist, that would make it a tyrannical government and by the same token the states would follow suit and thus a regulated militia would need to be formed to fight the state and formerly federal government.

In order to become Marxist, the whole Constitution would have to be thrown out. It's a known fact that a Marxist Government cannot exist. It's a myth. Carl Marx made some good points but no one has ever been able to make it work. Ever. It's an Academic exercise, nothing more. There are a few "Governments" that claim to be Marxist but they really aren't. All of them are generally Kingdoms, Dictators and Oligarchs which are far from Marxist. But calling themselves Marxist sounds much better than what they really are. You will notice that Cuba claims to be Lenin/Marx. But Lenin knew that he could not achieve Marxism unless the whole world did it at the same time. He devised a method of world conquest through military and diplomatic tomfoolery. It was based on a lie. He just wanted to rule the world. But it goes down much better if you call it something else like Marxism or Communism which also cannot exist on a national level. The same name game is played by calling a government Socialist like Nazi Germany or USSR. Nazi Germany was a Dictator as was Stalin's USSR. But it sounds much better to call themselves Socialists than Dictators. Is there any doubt that Premier Kim is a Dictator and not a Socialist, Communist or Marxist?

Now, how about getting real here. You aren't making a whole lot of sense.

Okay, let's drop the title, "Marxist" and go with "Socialist" government. A large government with control over most aspects of peoples lives (i.e., Venezuela, Cuba, China, et cetera).

Sure am glad you brought those three up. Yes, they call themselves Socialist. But they aren't.

Venezuela is a Dictatorship that masquerades as a Socialist state.
Cuba is a Dictatorship that is also pretends to be a Socialist State.
China is an Oligarchy that pretends to be a Socialist state.

In order to be a Socialist State unfettered and fair elections must be held and the will of the people must be help above all else. None of the 3 you mentioned has that. In fact, Cuba and China don't have elections for the common people at all. And Venezuela tightly controls the elections so that only the "Leader" will win. The only real Socialist Country I know of is Denmark and no one in Denmark claims to actually have a Socialist Country although they do fit the criteria all the way. It seems these other "Fake" Socialist countries have given the name Socialism a really bad name. The reason that these countries don't use what they really are is that if they did they could not stand in front of the "Oppressed" and make them think that things are going so well. So they call their selves much nicer names and don't allow their subjects the ability to see any different.

Socialism is a very hard act to accomplish and only a handful in the world is doing it. But it can't be done by countries the size of the US. Socialism can't exist in large populations much like Democratic Governments can't either. Both are wonderful thoughts but can't happen once you get past a room full of people. So we use parts of them in our Government. Any real successful government does this. We should do the same for Capitalism. We borrow from all three. What you end up with is a Federal Republic. But beware, it's a tight rope act. Right now, we are heavily into leaning towards the Capitalism which also doesn't work in large populations. In the past, we have also leaned too far in the Socialism way but we always go back to the center. But we have NEVER been this far into one thing or the other like we are today. The Total Collapse happens when you get too far away from the happy balance. And we are quickly headed that way again. Not to worry, with the system our FFs setup, the swing will bring it back again.

We need a bit of Socialism for some things. We need a bit of Capitalism for other things and we need Democracy for others. Just be very careful that we don't swing too far from the center like we are today. And it ain't Socialism that is the enemy right now. We need to get Corporations out of owning the Government. You fight to do that and you would be surprised at how low what you fear from Socialism gets weaker when more people actually get to work and the need of crime goes down.

To quote Vladimir Lenin: "Democracy is essential for Socialism to exist."
We are a Capitalist "Republic" and this is what we must stay. If this nation becomes Socialist, I will take up arms against it.

You honestly believe that Lenin believed what he said? He said so the Rubes would believe him. He didn't believe in Democracy or that every person had the right to vote. He set up a system that was the end result was for world domination, nothing more. It was a Oligarch Government where only Party Members in Good Standings had the right to vote. All others served the Party. There wasn't one bit of Democracy in his form of Marxism. In fact, there was very little Communism nor Marxism in it as well. It had more in common with the Tzar Ruling system than anything else. In fact, the Romonofs were a far better ruler than the Lenins. But Lenin was a better Bull Shit Artist.

We were founded on Democratic Principles, not Capitalist principles. When you have a Capilalist Governed Country you have a ruling class of Oligarchs and all others serve the masters. We don't need Capitalism for Ruling purposes, we need it for economic purposes. Without it, things get mess up real fast and a community can't grow. But you really don't want it as a Ruling Class. It works out real well if you are one of the Masters but not everyone can be a master.

Under a government that is controlled by Capitalists only a Rube actually believes their vote counts. When was the last time you actually got to pick the major candidates in either party? A good case in point is how in hell did we get down to the choice of Trump V Clinton? Satan V Lucifer. There were hundreds of better choices available but we ended up having to choose between those two. You don't even have a real voice in your House and Senate choices. I was offered support to run for City Council just to see if I was cut out for it. But along with it came the grooming by the party. And that party was the Republican Party which I lean towards but am not part of. In the end, I would be programmed in Party thinking and would be influenced by the Party where I would vote along Party Lines. And it would be a small group of old white dudes in a back room that decides those policies. This also applies to the Democrat Party. And what is the driving factor of both? Serving the Corporate Masters in the end. We are screwed.