REMINDER: The Second Amendment Is Not About Hunting

[nodoginnafight]

I don't have real strong opinions about gun regulations because I haven't seen any of the proposed restrictions.

But I'm just telling you ... if you try to argue that you have a right to own weapons in order to use them against the U.S. Government, they are going to take ALL your guns (and your sling shots too) and dump your butt in jail with the full support and approval of the overwhelming majority of the American people.

So keep falling all over yourselves trying to be the ultimate badass, and your gonna screw the pooch for everyone.

 

[bripat9643]

I don't have real strong opinions about gun regulations because I haven't seen any of the proposed restrictions.

But I'm just telling you ... if you try to argue that you have a right to own weapons in order to use them against the U.S. Government, they are going to take ALL your guns (and your sling shots too) and dump your butt in jail with the full support and approval of the overwhelming majority of the American people.

No they aren't, you bootlicking toad. They can't throw you in jail simply for stating an argument.

So keep falling all over yourselves trying to be the ultimate badass, and your gonna screw the pooch for everyone.

All you're saying is that we have good reason to fear our government and arm ourselves.

 

[bripat9643]

If they are coming to take you to the Gulag, then that's exactly why it exists.

Tell that to David Koresh ....

You aren't helping your case with that argument.

 

[bripat9643]

A partial list of those who thought they had a right to use their weapons against the authority of the U.S. Government:
Timothy McVeigh - dead
Osama Bin Laden - dead
Eric Rudolph - in jail (plea deal - lucky fellow)
David Koresh - dead

Here's a partial list of those who thought they had a right to use arms against their government

George Washington
Benjamin Franklin
Thomas Jefferson
John Adams
John Hancock
James Madison
Alexander Hamilton
Patrick Henry
Sam Adams
Thomas Paine
George Mason

Which ones of those didn't acknowledge they were committing treason?

All of them. Does the Declaration of Independence use the word "treason" anywhere?

 

[Missourian]

I don't have real strong opinions about gun regulations because I haven't seen any of the proposed restrictions.

But I'm just telling you ... if you try to argue that you have a right to own weapons in order to use them against the U.S. Government, they are going to take ALL your guns (and your sling shots too) and dump your butt in jail with the full support and approval of the overwhelming majority of the American people.

So keep falling all over yourselves trying to be the ultimate badass, and your gonna screw the pooch for everyone.

It has nothing to do with being a badass.

Another important source further illustrating this point is William Blackstone's Commentaries on the Laws of England, in which he explains the underlying purpose of the right to keep and bear arms as understood in the English common law.[25] According to Blackstone, [Page 209] the liberties of Englishmen are reducible into three principal rights: the right of personal security, the right of personal liberty, and the right of private property.[26] However, Blackstone asserted that any declaration of these rights would be meaningless "if the constitution had provided no other method to secure their actual enjoyment."[27]




The common law, therefore, developed barriers against infringement upon these rights.[28] According to Blackstone, whenever the government infringed upon any of the three principal rights, the people could employ certain auxiliary rights to ameliorate the problem.[29] First, the people had the right to apply to the court system for redress of injuries.[30] Second, the people had the right to "petition[] the king, or either house of parliament, for the redress of grievances."[31] However, if these branches of government failed to provide the necessary relief, then the people had the right of having and using arms for their defense and self-preservation "when the sanctions of society and laws are found insufficient to restrain the violence of oppression."[32]




According to Blackstone, English common law recognized the right to own guns as a way for an individual to protect himself and "the three great and primary rights"[33] in the face of an actual violation or attack by a tyrannical government.[34] In essence, under the common law, individual gun ownership is to serve as the final safeguard when the government fails to protect the rights of the people.[35]


THE SECOND AMENDMENT: A GUARD FOR OUR FUTURE SECURITY


​

^This.

If you are interested in the topic, and don't mind a little dry reading, visit the link and read the rest of the document.

 

[nodoginnafight]

Go ahead - HURT your cause by pigheadedly advocating absurdities.

I don't care one way or another.

You have MUCH better arguments, but if you insist on losing with the bad ones, that's your problem.

 

[M14 Shooter]

So the founding fathers create "a more perfect union", put in all kinds of checks and balances, fought tooth and nail to make it the best government they could, and then they threw in a clause saying "oh yeah, if you want to overthrow it go right ahead".

Nope. That's not what they said.
Nice strawman, though.

 

[M14 Shooter]

So the founding fathers create "a more perfect union", put in all kinds of checks and balances, fought tooth and nail to make it the best government they could, and then they threw in a clause saying "oh yeah, if you want to overthrow it go right ahead".

And no Amendment is not not without legal exceptions.

No one has argued otherwise.
Another nice strawman.

 

[edthecynic]

Wrong. The 2nd Amendment is to prevent Oppression at the hands of a Tyrannical Gov't, just as the Founding Fathers suffered under the hand of the British.

Sure, the 'oppressed' founding fathers were more worried about the common man being oppressed than having their 'perfect union' go down in history as a failure.

Put yourself in their shoes. Governments are getting overthrown all over the place. You are a rich landowner who just created a new government which might not be overwhelmingly popular with the masses. I know! Let's give them all guns.

Some of them might have thought so but the clause 'a well regulated militia' got thrown in there as a safety mechanism. Sorry but that is just the way it went down.

________________________________________________________


Well Regulated

The Random House College Dictionary (1980) gives four definitions for the word "regulate," which were all in use during the Colonial period and one more definition dating from 1690 (Oxford English Dictionary, 2nd Edition, 1989). They are:

1) To control or direct by a rule, principle, method, etc.
2) To adjust to some standard or requirement as for amount, degree, etc.

3) To adjust so as to ensure accuracy of operation.

4) To put in good order.

[obsolete sense]
b. Of troops: Properly disciplined. Obs. rare-1.

1690 Lond. Gaz. No. 2568/3 We hear likewise that the French are in a great Allarm in Dauphine and Bresse, not having at present 1500 Men of regulated Troops on that side.
We can begin to deduce what well-regulated meant from Alexander Hamilton's words in Federalist Paper No. 29:

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

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

[Excerpt]

Read more:
Meaning of the words in the Second Amendment

You just shot your OP in the foot, as Hamilton clearly makes a distinction between "yeomanry" and a "well regulated militia!" The Constitution guarantees the right to bare arms for a "well regulated militia" but not for the "yeomanry." The NRA wants to create a new extra Constitutional 2nd Amendment that extends that right to the yeomanry.

 

[nodoginnafight]

OMG - could we PLEASE have a strawman workshop? People are tossing that phrase around here like it is confetti and the vast majority of them obviously have no clue what it really means.

 

[M14 Shooter]

So the founding fathers create "a more perfect union", put in all kinds of checks and balances, fought tooth and nail to make it the best government they could, and then they threw in a clause saying "oh yeah, if you want to overthrow it go right ahead".

Wrong. The 2nd Amendment is to prevent Oppression at the hands of a Tyrannical Gov't, just as the Founding Fathers suffered under the hand of the British.

The 2nd amendment is neither an endorsement nor facilitator of the right of the people to engage in armed rebellion against the government.

Congrats for finally putting up a post that isn't completely wrong.

You are correct in that the 2nd is not an endorsement of the right to rebellion.
The 2nd facilitates any necessary rebellion by ensuring that the people will always have access to the means necessary to do so.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Federalist 46 tends more to support the argument of some that the 2nd amendment protects the right of states to form and arm militias,
not the right of any individual to own any sort of weapon.

Your opinion deliberatly runs contrary to established jurisprudence.

The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home

 

[emptystep]

The 2nd Amendment refers to militias AND citizens. It's not being redundant.

That's a new one. Whose says the right does not believe in evolution?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

A partial list of those who thought they had a right to use their weapons against the authority of the U.S. Government:
Timothy McVeigh - dead
Osama Bin Laden - dead
Eric Rudolph - in jail (plea deal - lucky fellow)
David Koresh - dead

WOW bin Ladin was an American citizen?

 

[jgarden]

REMINDER: The Second Amendment Is Not About Hunting​

By Michael Geer
01/11/2013

You know it. I know it. The unspoken truth is the Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America is about citizens resisting and overcoming tyranny. A common law and natural law right considered for 200+ years as an inalienable right. Speaking plainly, the 2nd is our bulwark against government which becomes despotic. Armed free citizens are the final bulwark against tyranny by local, state or federal government. When the Declaration, the Constitution and the Bill of Rights committed our people to founding a new Nation guns were natural and necessary. For putting food on the table and wait for it, personal defense against hostilities.

Armed citizens have a long history of taking action to correct despotic governments. Feudal economies faded away due in no small part to enough peasants acquiring arms. And the will to use them.

Federalist 46. James Madison, known as the author of most of the Bill of Rights said of arms and the common man ...


Read more:
Blog: The Second Amendment Is Not About Hunting

Just how does "Wehrwolfen" and the "gun-lobby" attempt to explain the existance of Canada, and virtually every other modern democracy, that managed to achieve personal freedoms without the benefit of the 2nd Amendment?

Detroit has all the benefits of the 2nd Amendment and averages 1 homicide a day - 1900 feet across the Detroit River to the north is Windsor Ontario, with its strict gun laws, that recently went 27 months without 1 homicide.

A recent survey indicated that 50% of Detroit's resident would leave today if they could because of the high crime rate - you don't see the citizens from "The People's Republic of Canada" trying to escape from an oppressive regime to take their place.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Sure, the 'oppressed' founding fathers were more worried about the common man being oppressed than having their 'perfect union' go down in history as a failure.

Put yourself in their shoes. Governments are getting overthrown all over the place. You are a rich landowner who just created a new government which might not be overwhelmingly popular with the masses. I know! Let's give them all guns.

Some of them might have thought so but the clause 'a well regulated militia' got thrown in there as a safety mechanism. Sorry but that is just the way it went down.

________________________________________________________


Well Regulated

The Random House College Dictionary (1980) gives four definitions for the word "regulate," which were all in use during the Colonial period and one more definition dating from 1690 (Oxford English Dictionary, 2nd Edition, 1989). They are:

1) To control or direct by a rule, principle, method, etc.
2) To adjust to some standard or requirement as for amount, degree, etc.

3) To adjust so as to ensure accuracy of operation.

4) To put in good order.

[obsolete sense]
b. Of troops: Properly disciplined. Obs. rare-1.

1690 Lond. Gaz. No. 2568/3 We hear likewise that the French are in a great Allarm in Dauphine and Bresse, not having at present 1500 Men of regulated Troops on that side.
We can begin to deduce what well-regulated meant from Alexander Hamilton's words in Federalist Paper No. 29:

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

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

[Excerpt]

Read more:
Meaning of the words in the Second Amendment

I am not sure if I understand your post. You show the definition of regulated as being controlled. Then you post something from Alexander Hamilton that that states that it is a futile effort. You just stated that while Alexander Hamilton stated it was futile to try, it was written stating regulation was required nonetheless.

You were given the 18th century of the meaning of well regulated here is the 20th century meaning of regulated. When talking about the second amendment address it by using the 18th century term. Hell well regulated isn't a word you will find in a 20th century dictionary. It's regulated meaning governmental control.
reg·u·late
/ˈregyəˌlāt/
Verb
Control or maintain the rate or speed of (a machine or process) so that it operates properly.
Control or supervise (something, esp. a company or business activity) by means of rules and regulations.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

REMINDER: The Second Amendment Is Not About Hunting​

By Michael Geer
01/11/2013

You know it. I know it. The unspoken truth is the Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America is about citizens resisting and overcoming tyranny. A common law and natural law right considered for 200+ years as an inalienable right. Speaking plainly, the 2nd is our bulwark against government which becomes despotic. Armed free citizens are the final bulwark against tyranny by local, state or federal government. When the Declaration, the Constitution and the Bill of Rights committed our people to founding a new Nation guns were natural and necessary. For putting food on the table and wait for it, personal defense against hostilities

Armed citizens have a long history of taking action to correct despotic governments. Feudal economies faded away due in no small part to enough peasants acquiring arms. And the will to use them.

Federalist 46. James Madison, known as the author of most of the Bill of Rights said of arms and the common man ...


Read more:
Blog: The Second Amendment Is Not About Hunting

The 2nd amendment doesn't exist so you can murder federal agents you disagree with. You are protected from tyranny by the Constitution, not some non-existent right to kill government officials.

The governments the 2nd amendment is intended to protect you from are the foreign ones. The founders wanted an armed civilian populace to protect our nation from BRITAIN and other foreign invaders, not from the Republic they just formed. Don't be ridiculous.

How are you protected by the Constitution when the government disregards it?
Killing of U.S. Citizens without a trial
Having U.S. Citizens detained indefinitely
Disregard of private ownership.
Spying on U.S. Citizens.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

A partial list of those who thought they had a right to use their weapons against the authority of the U.S. Government:
Timothy McVeigh - dead
Osama Bin Laden - dead
Eric Rudolph - in jail (plea deal - lucky fellow)
David Koresh - dead

Here's a partial list of those who thought they had a right to use arms against their government

George Washington
Benjamin Franklin
Thomas Jefferson
John Adams
John Hancock
James Madison
Alexander Hamilton
Patrick Henry
Sam Adams
Thomas Paine
George Mason

All these guys are rich white guys. Show me one rich white guy who wants to allow the poor a gun.

here's a short list.
George Mason (the father of the bill of rights)
George Washington
Benjamin Franklin
Thomas Jefferson
John Adams
John Hancock
James Madison
Alexander Hamilton
Patrick Henry
Sam Adams
Thomas Paine

 

[Nosmo King]

You people and your esoteric fight against "tyranny"! You have no idea what tyranny is!

Have any of you been told you cannot vote? Have any of you been told you cannot trade at certain stores? Have any of you ever been lynched? Have any of you ever been told where to sit at lunch counters? On buses? In movie houses?

Well, there was an entire class of American citizens who endured precisely that style of state sanctioned tyranny.

Did they resort to open insurrection? Did they arm themselves and fight the clear oppression they were living under?

No. They took to the streets and peacefully marched. They boycotted. The performed other acts of civil disobedience. And they won their rights under the protection of a well regulated militia; the National Guard.

But some of them were not satisfied with the speed of the government response to their demands. They advocated arming themselves. They advocated open armed insurrection. And that's when some folks got very very nervous.

The Black Panthers made people very nervous. And who got nervous the most? Why Conservatives! The very people who are advocating arming the population and being prepared for open armed insurrection. Ironic, ain't it?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

You people and your esoteric fight against "tyranny"! You have no idea what tyranny is!

Have any of you been told you cannot vote? Have any of you been told you cannot trade at certain stores? Have any of you ever been lynched? Have any of you ever been told where to sit at lunch counters? On buses? In movie houses?

Well, there was an entire class of American citizens who endured precisely that style of state sanctioned tyranny.

Did they resort to open insurrection? Did they arm themselves and fight the clear oppression they were living under?

No. They took to the streets and peacefully marched. They boycotted. The performed other acts of civil disobedience. And they won their rights under the protection of a well regulated militia; the National Guard.

But some of them were not satisfied with the speed of the government response to their demands. They advocated arming themselves. They advocated open armed insurrection. And that's when some folks got very very nervous.

The Black Panthers made people very nervous. And who got nervous the most? Why Conservatives! The very people who are advocating arming the population and being prepared for open armed insurrection. Ironic, ain't it?

A militia is not the national guard