The 2nd Amendment Was The Founding Fathers' 'Carry Permit' Right ('Constitutional Carry') Established For American Citizens

[2aguy]

View attachment 493490


"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

"....shall not be infringed"....PERIOD!


"With over one-third of U.S. states having adopted constitutional carry laws, it seems apropos to point out the Second Amendment was the Founding Fathers’ carry permit.

Which, by the way, is why permitless carry is called constitutional carry, as it is a return to carrying guns for self-defense based on the authority of the Bill of Rights rather than the possession of government-issued permit."



WHY have Liberals / Pro-Big Government Rule Democrats been allowed to indoctrinate Americans into believing that our freedoms of Speech, Religion, private property, and security of ourselves, homes, and possessions do NOT require government permits yet an eqaul right to own weapons DO require government permits / permissions?



"After all, those first ten amendments in the Bill of Rights protect natural rights the Founding Fathers purposely kept from being under the government’s purview. Freedom of speech, religion, and assembly, all protected by the First Amendment, and the right to keep and bear arms, protected by the Second, private property and security in our “persons, houses, papers, and effects,” protected by the Third and Fourth Amendments, and so on.

Do we need a permit from the government to speak freely?
No.

Do we need a permit to practice our religion?
No.

Do we need a permit in order to be secure in our “persons, houses, papers, and effects?”
Again, the answer is no.

Yet we have been conditioned, via decades of incremental government action and establishment media blah-blah-blah, to go along with the push for a permit in order to exercise our right to bear arms for self-defense."



What part of "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" do Power-hungry, Un-Constitutional Power-Assuming / Wielding Liberal Progressive Socialist Democrats NOT understand?

"The Second Amendment was easily accepted because of widespread agreement that the federal government should not have the power to infringe the right of the people to keep and bear arms, any more than it should have the power to abridge the freedom of speech or prohibit the free exercise of religion."



"By adopting a constitutional carry framework, states are simply returning to the view of bearing arms held by our Founding Fathers in 1791, the year the Second Amendment was ratified. This view was well presented in the masterful book, The Right to Bear Arms: A Constitutional Right or a Privilege of the Ruling Class?, where Stephen Halbrook writes, “At the beginning of the early Republic, citizens were at liberty to peaceably carry arms outside the home in public, openly or concealed, without any restrictions. Legal commentators acclaimed the constitutional right to bear arms as the palladium of liberty of a free state.”

Hawkins: Second Amendment Was the Founding Fathers' Carry Permit

With over one-third of states adopting constitutional carry, it is apropos to note the 2nd Amendment was the Founding Fathers' carry permit.

www.breitbart.com

The U.S. Constitution | Constitution Center

Learn about the text, history, and meaning of the U.S. Constitution from leading scholars of diverse legal and philosophical perspectives.

constitutioncenter.org

The words well regulated is in there as well. It allows for regulation. Only a far right wing Nazi would come up with this garbage.

Or someone spreading Russian BS

You mean like CBS, NBC, ABC, NPR, PBS, CNN MSNBC, New York Times, Washington post.......?

 

[BluesLegend]

Do you seriously believe calling people names in such juvenile fashion is any way substantiates your personal opinions and hatred for this country, our Founding Fathers, and the Constitution?

Bwuhahahaha.....

If you had any respect for the Founding Fathers, then you would recognize that they did not have all of the information necessary for designing a Constitution that could handle the expansion of government that the keenest founders could envision.

I find your post particularly ignorant, did you attend public school? The founding fathers had just fought a war to free the people from an oppressive corrupt government, in a world full of countries ruled by oppressive corrupt governments.

And the only crime set forth in the constitution was treason, ihit. The right to a gin was to defend the governments. they said well-regulated militia because there was no standing army at that time.

thanks for once again pricing the lack of education exhibited every day by ignorant trumpscum.

^^^ suspected communist sympathizer.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

As far as concealed carry permits being lawful or rather constitutional you're arguing semantics because once SCOTUS makes a ruling then we're stuck with that ruling for the most part - it doesn't mean it was correct.

I’m not ‘arguing’ anything, ‘semantics’ or otherwise.

I’ve simply pointed out the fact that laws requiring a permit to carry a concealed weapon are perfectly Constitutional.

I’ve also simply pointed out the fact that the OP is wrong, concealed carry permits do not ‘infringe’ on the Second Amendment right and that the notion of ‘constitutional carry’ is political theater and rightwing nonsense – requiring a permit to carry a concealed firearm is likewise ‘constitutional carry.’

You stated you agree with the OP’s premise, rendering you as wrong as the OP.

Your disagreement is with the Supreme Court, not me – that’s just a kill the messenger fallacy.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Do we need a permit from the government to speak freely?
No.

Wrong.

Many jurisdictions require a permit for speaking at a rally, and to otherwise assemble to protest.

Consequently, a government permit is not unique to the Second Amendment, the Second Amendment is not being ‘singled-out’ by government for this sort of requirement.

And just as requiring a permit to hold a demonstration or rally is perfectly Constitutional, so too is a permit to carry a concealed firearm.

 

[NewsVine_Mariyam]

As far as concealed carry permits being lawful or rather constitutional you're arguing semantics because once SCOTUS makes a ruling then we're stuck with that ruling for the most part - it doesn't mean it was correct.

I’m not ‘arguing’ anything, ‘semantics’ or otherwise.

I’ve simply pointed out the fact that laws requiring a permit to carry a concealed weapon are perfectly Constitutional.

You're kind of splitting hairs here. I've already stated that concealed carry is "considered" Constitutional (only because the current SCOTUS interpretation has stated it as such) nonetheless, there is nothing "perfect" about an infringement of a constitutionally protected right particularly since each of the 50 states gets to determine how much of an infringement it's residents have to endure.

Basically, just call it what it is, don't pretend that it's something that it's not.

 

[NewsVine_Mariyam]

Do we need a permit from the government to speak freely?
No.

Wrong.

Many jurisdictions require a permit for speaking at a rally, and to otherwise assemble to protest.

Consequently, a government permit is not unique to the Second Amendment, the Second Amendment is not being ‘singled-out’ by government for this sort of requirement.

And just as requiring a permit to hold a demonstration or rally is perfectly Constitutional, so too is a permit to carry a concealed firearm.

Just because there are exceptions to the times and places you can speak freely doesn't mean that his statement is not in fact correct, which it is.

We don't need a permit to freely speak our minds in normal circumstances. The fact that we can freely discuss our government and elected officials here on U.S. Message and other places on line without government permission is proof of that.

 

[NewsVine_Mariyam]

Do we need a permit from the government to speak freely?
No.

Wrong.

Many jurisdictions require a permit for speaking at a rally, and to otherwise assemble to protest.

Consequently, a government permit is not unique to the Second Amendment, the Second Amendment is not being ‘singled-out’ by government for this sort of requirement.

And just as requiring a permit to hold a demonstration or rally is perfectly Constitutional, so too is a permit to carry a concealed firearm.

So if requiring a permit to carry a concealed firearm is "perfectly" Constitutional, what is it called and what is the remedy for a state that refuses to allow carry at all? If a permit is Constitutional then wouldn't refusing to issue be an "absolute" infringement?

 

[emilynghiem]

Thanks easyt65

What Liberals don't understand is
citizens enforcing the 2A
WITHIN the context of the rest of the
Bill of Rights and Constitution.

Since Liberals don't believe in the Authority of these Laws, they require
Additional legislation to ensure guns are
Not abused to violate other laws and rights.

Constitutionalists, however, already assume responsibility for defending laws
is inherent with the 2A that cannot be taken out of context with the rest of the Bill of Rights.

That's why Liberals require additional regulations or rulings to specify that guns are used to defend laws not violate them.

View attachment 493490


"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

"....shall not be infringed"....PERIOD!


"With over one-third of U.S. states having adopted constitutional carry laws, it seems apropos to point out the Second Amendment was the Founding Fathers’ carry permit.

Which, by the way, is why permitless carry is called constitutional carry, as it is a return to carrying guns for self-defense based on the authority of the Bill of Rights rather than the possession of government-issued permit."



WHY have Liberals / Pro-Big Government Rule Democrats been allowed to indoctrinate Americans into believing that our freedoms of Speech, Religion, private property, and security of ourselves, homes, and possessions do NOT require government permits yet an eqaul right to own weapons DO require government permits / permissions?



"After all, those first ten amendments in the Bill of Rights protect natural rights the Founding Fathers purposely kept from being under the government’s purview. Freedom of speech, religion, and assembly, all protected by the First Amendment, and the right to keep and bear arms, protected by the Second, private property and security in our “persons, houses, papers, and effects,” protected by the Third and Fourth Amendments, and so on.

Do we need a permit from the government to speak freely?
No.

Do we need a permit to practice our religion?
No.

Do we need a permit in order to be secure in our “persons, houses, papers, and effects?”
Again, the answer is no.

Yet we have been conditioned, via decades of incremental government action and establishment media blah-blah-blah, to go along with the push for a permit in order to exercise our right to bear arms for self-defense."



What part of "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" do Power-hungry, Un-Constitutional Power-Assuming / Wielding Liberal Progressive Socialist Democrats NOT understand?

"The Second Amendment was easily accepted because of widespread agreement that the federal government should not have the power to infringe the right of the people to keep and bear arms, any more than it should have the power to abridge the freedom of speech or prohibit the free exercise of religion."



"By adopting a constitutional carry framework, states are simply returning to the view of bearing arms held by our Founding Fathers in 1791, the year the Second Amendment was ratified. This view was well presented in the masterful book, The Right to Bear Arms: A Constitutional Right or a Privilege of the Ruling Class?, where Stephen Halbrook writes, “At the beginning of the early Republic, citizens were at liberty to peaceably carry arms outside the home in public, openly or concealed, without any restrictions. Legal commentators acclaimed the constitutional right to bear arms as the palladium of liberty of a free state.”

Hawkins: Second Amendment Was the Founding Fathers' Carry Permit

With over one-third of states adopting constitutional carry, it is apropos to note the 2nd Amendment was the Founding Fathers' carry permit.

www.breitbart.com

The U.S. Constitution | Constitution Center

Learn about the text, history, and meaning of the U.S. Constitution from leading scholars of diverse legal and philosophical perspectives.

constitutioncenter.org

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

What Liberals don't understand is

Wrong.

Liberals have a perfect understanding of the Second Amendment.

In fact, liberals support and follow Second Amendment case law, unlike conservatives.

Indeed, it’s conservatives who have nothing but unwarranted contempt for Second Amendment case law, particularly the idiotic, wrongheaded notion that the right is ‘unlimited.’

 

[2aguy]

As far as concealed carry permits being lawful or rather constitutional you're arguing semantics because once SCOTUS makes a ruling then we're stuck with that ruling for the most part - it doesn't mean it was correct.

I’m not ‘arguing’ anything, ‘semantics’ or otherwise.

I’ve simply pointed out the fact that laws requiring a permit to carry a concealed weapon are perfectly Constitutional.

I’ve also simply pointed out the fact that the OP is wrong, concealed carry permits do not ‘infringe’ on the Second Amendment right and that the notion of ‘constitutional carry’ is political theater and rightwing nonsense – requiring a permit to carry a concealed firearm is likewise ‘constitutional carry.’

You stated you agree with the OP’s premise, rendering you as wrong as the OP.

Your disagreement is with the Supreme Court, not me – that’s just a kill the messenger fallacy.

They are not Constitutional......Poll taxes, fees, and tests for the exercise of a Right are not Constitutional.....

How about having to get a permit to vote, you doofus......how about that? How about getting a permit to write a political book? How about that, doofus....?

 

[2aguy]

Do we need a permit from the government to speak freely?
No.

Wrong.

Many jurisdictions require a permit for speaking at a rally, and to otherwise assemble to protest.

Consequently, a government permit is not unique to the Second Amendment, the Second Amendment is not being ‘singled-out’ by government for this sort of requirement.

And just as requiring a permit to hold a demonstration or rally is perfectly Constitutional, so too is a permit to carry a concealed firearm.

Just because there are exceptions to the times and places you can speak freely doesn't mean that his statement is not in fact correct, which it is.

We don't need a permit to freely speak our minds in normal circumstances. The fact that we can freely discuss our government and elected officials here on U.S. Message and other places on line without government permission is proof of that.

Clayton and the others use the permit for assembling in a public space in the dishonest way they make every argument..

The only reason you need a permit to assemble is because it is a "public space," and multiple parties might want to assemble and use the space...so actual physics dictates they have to take turns, and permits allow for an orderly use of the public space....

The permit is not required to assemble or to speak...it is simply necessary because of managing space and time....

don't let those asshats use that argument...

 

[jillian]

View attachment 493490


"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

"....shall not be infringed"....PERIOD!


"With over one-third of U.S. states having adopted constitutional carry laws, it seems apropos to point out the Second Amendment was the Founding Fathers’ carry permit.

Which, by the way, is why permitless carry is called constitutional carry, as it is a return to carrying guns for self-defense based on the authority of the Bill of Rights rather than the possession of government-issued permit."



WHY have Liberals / Pro-Big Government Rule Democrats been allowed to indoctrinate Americans into believing that our freedoms of Speech, Religion, private property, and security of ourselves, homes, and possessions do NOT require government permits yet an eqaul right to own weapons DO require government permits / permissions?



"After all, those first ten amendments in the Bill of Rights protect natural rights the Founding Fathers purposely kept from being under the government’s purview. Freedom of speech, religion, and assembly, all protected by the First Amendment, and the right to keep and bear arms, protected by the Second, private property and security in our “persons, houses, papers, and effects,” protected by the Third and Fourth Amendments, and so on.

Do we need a permit from the government to speak freely?
No.

Do we need a permit to practice our religion?
No.

Do we need a permit in order to be secure in our “persons, houses, papers, and effects?”
Again, the answer is no.

Yet we have been conditioned, via decades of incremental government action and establishment media blah-blah-blah, to go along with the push for a permit in order to exercise our right to bear arms for self-defense."



What part of "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" do Power-hungry, Un-Constitutional Power-Assuming / Wielding Liberal Progressive Socialist Democrats NOT understand?

"The Second Amendment was easily accepted because of widespread agreement that the federal government should not have the power to infringe the right of the people to keep and bear arms, any more than it should have the power to abridge the freedom of speech or prohibit the free exercise of religion."



"By adopting a constitutional carry framework, states are simply returning to the view of bearing arms held by our Founding Fathers in 1791, the year the Second Amendment was ratified. This view was well presented in the masterful book, The Right to Bear Arms: A Constitutional Right or a Privilege of the Ruling Class?, where Stephen Halbrook writes, “At the beginning of the early Republic, citizens were at liberty to peaceably carry arms outside the home in public, openly or concealed, without any restrictions. Legal commentators acclaimed the constitutional right to bear arms as the palladium of liberty of a free state.”

Hawkins: Second Amendment Was the Founding Fathers' Carry Permit

With over one-third of states adopting constitutional carry, it is apropos to note the 2nd Amendment was the Founding Fathers' carry permit.

www.breitbart.com

The U.S. Constitution | Constitution Center

Learn about the text, history, and meaning of the U.S. Constitution from leading scholars of diverse legal and philosophical perspectives.

constitutioncenter.org

The words well regulated is in there as well. It allows for regulation. Only a far right wing Nazi would come up with this garbage.

Or someone spreading Russian BS

You mean like CBS, NBC, ABC, NPR, PBS, CNN MSNBC, New York Times, Washington post.......?

No

you’ve never been very bright, troll

 

[Pellinore]

The argument that the Second Amendment must remain absolute does not work. The authors of the Constitution accepted that society would change, and built a method of updating into the document. Regarding weaponry, the weapons of 1791 clearly are not the same as those of 1934, or those of today. I bring up 1934 because that was the year that the National Firearms Act placed automatic weapons (and others) behind the Class III license wall, in response to the proliferation of Tommy Guns on the streets. Many could classify that as an outright "infringing" of the right to bear arms that the Second Amendment prohibits, but the law was passed, defended, and updated several times. Why?

The answer is because it was required for society to operate; flying bullets present a public health risk that was not present in 1791. The government balanced the rights of citizens to own automatic weapons against ensuring that everyone has the freedom to walk down the street without getting perforated, and chose to protect the latter. Now, it has become precedent and widely accepted by most; you'll notice you don't see many automatic weapons on the street any more.

Now, it's up for debate who should limit what, from whom, and when; we can have that debate all day, but the idea that the 2A makes gun ownership untouchable by regulation and invincible to limitation doesn't hold up.

 

[Rigby5]

Do you seriously believe calling people names in such juvenile fashion is any way substantiates your personal opinions and hatred for this country, our Founding Fathers, and the Constitution?

Bwuhahahaha.....

If you had any respect for the Founding Fathers, then you would recognize that they did not have all of the information necessary for designing a Constitution that could handle the expansion of government that the keenest founders could envision.

I find your post particularly ignorant, did you attend public school? The founding fathers had just fought a war to free the people from an oppressive corrupt government, in a world full of countries ruled by oppressive corrupt governments.

And the only crime set forth in the constitution was treason, ihit. The right to a gun was to defend the governments. they said well-regulated militia because there was no standing army at that time.

thanks for once again pricing the lack of education exhibited every day by ignorant trumpscum.

That makes no sense.
What you are saying is that the federal government was prohibited from disarming its own military reserve.
Obviously that makes no sense.
Any federal government would be smart enough to realize an armed reserve force was needed for defense.
The only reason you need a 2nd amendment is so that the federal government does not deliberately disarm state, municipal, or individual defense forces, not federal defense forces.

 

[Rigby5]

View attachment 493490


"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

"....shall not be infringed"....PERIOD!


"With over one-third of U.S. states having adopted constitutional carry laws, it seems apropos to point out the Second Amendment was the Founding Fathers’ carry permit.

Which, by the way, is why permitless carry is called constitutional carry, as it is a return to carrying guns for self-defense based on the authority of the Bill of Rights rather than the possession of government-issued permit."



WHY have Liberals / Pro-Big Government Rule Democrats been allowed to indoctrinate Americans into believing that our freedoms of Speech, Religion, private property, and security of ourselves, homes, and possessions do NOT require government permits yet an eqaul right to own weapons DO require government permits / permissions?



"After all, those first ten amendments in the Bill of Rights protect natural rights the Founding Fathers purposely kept from being under the government’s purview. Freedom of speech, religion, and assembly, all protected by the First Amendment, and the right to keep and bear arms, protected by the Second, private property and security in our “persons, houses, papers, and effects,” protected by the Third and Fourth Amendments, and so on.

Do we need a permit from the government to speak freely?
No.

Do we need a permit to practice our religion?
No.

Do we need a permit in order to be secure in our “persons, houses, papers, and effects?”
Again, the answer is no.

Yet we have been conditioned, via decades of incremental government action and establishment media blah-blah-blah, to go along with the push for a permit in order to exercise our right to bear arms for self-defense."



What part of "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" do Power-hungry, Un-Constitutional Power-Assuming / Wielding Liberal Progressive Socialist Democrats NOT understand?

"The Second Amendment was easily accepted because of widespread agreement that the federal government should not have the power to infringe the right of the people to keep and bear arms, any more than it should have the power to abridge the freedom of speech or prohibit the free exercise of religion."



"By adopting a constitutional carry framework, states are simply returning to the view of bearing arms held by our Founding Fathers in 1791, the year the Second Amendment was ratified. This view was well presented in the masterful book, The Right to Bear Arms: A Constitutional Right or a Privilege of the Ruling Class?, where Stephen Halbrook writes, “At the beginning of the early Republic, citizens were at liberty to peaceably carry arms outside the home in public, openly or concealed, without any restrictions. Legal commentators acclaimed the constitutional right to bear arms as the palladium of liberty of a free state.”

Hawkins: Second Amendment Was the Founding Fathers' Carry Permit

With over one-third of states adopting constitutional carry, it is apropos to note the 2nd Amendment was the Founding Fathers' carry permit.

www.breitbart.com

The U.S. Constitution | Constitution Center

Learn about the text, history, and meaning of the U.S. Constitution from leading scholars of diverse legal and philosophical perspectives.

constitutioncenter.org

The words well regulated is in there as well. It allows for regulation. Only a far right wing Nazi would come up with this garbage.

Wrong.
At the time of the founders, "well regulated" mean smoothly functioning, as in a well regulated clock or regular digestion of food.
You can tell by other references in the Constitution, such as "regulating interstate commerce" refers to keeping commerce free from blockage by individual states. It did not imply any authority to create blockages of any kind.

 

[CowboyTed]

Waiting for the obligatory "the Second Amendment applied to flintlocks not weapons of war" (ignoring that private citizens owned cannons, gatling guns and warships at the time)

Or "the Second Amendment applies to the state militia which is the National Guard" (ignoring that the militia statement is explanatory not conditional, and that the National Guard did not even exist at the time)

Fortunately I wont see those posts because I think I have all of those idiots on ignore.

Just explain to us which well regulated militia you are member off...

Can you give us the mandatory training, Gun registry, mental health checks, etc... performed by your well regulated militia...

This is what the constitution says...

 

[Rigby5]

View attachment 493490


"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

"....shall not be infringed"....PERIOD!


"With over one-third of U.S. states having adopted constitutional carry laws, it seems apropos to point out the Second Amendment was the Founding Fathers’ carry permit.

Which, by the way, is why permitless carry is called constitutional carry, as it is a return to carrying guns for self-defense based on the authority of the Bill of Rights rather than the possession of government-issued permit."



WHY have Liberals / Pro-Big Government Rule Democrats been allowed to indoctrinate Americans into believing that our freedoms of Speech, Religion, private property, and security of ourselves, homes, and possessions do NOT require government permits yet an eqaul right to own weapons DO require government permits / permissions?



"After all, those first ten amendments in the Bill of Rights protect natural rights the Founding Fathers purposely kept from being under the government’s purview. Freedom of speech, religion, and assembly, all protected by the First Amendment, and the right to keep and bear arms, protected by the Second, private property and security in our “persons, houses, papers, and effects,” protected by the Third and Fourth Amendments, and so on.

Do we need a permit from the government to speak freely?
No.

Do we need a permit to practice our religion?
No.

Do we need a permit in order to be secure in our “persons, houses, papers, and effects?”
Again, the answer is no.

Yet we have been conditioned, via decades of incremental government action and establishment media blah-blah-blah, to go along with the push for a permit in order to exercise our right to bear arms for self-defense."



What part of "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" do Power-hungry, Un-Constitutional Power-Assuming / Wielding Liberal Progressive Socialist Democrats NOT understand?

"The Second Amendment was easily accepted because of widespread agreement that the federal government should not have the power to infringe the right of the people to keep and bear arms, any more than it should have the power to abridge the freedom of speech or prohibit the free exercise of religion."



"By adopting a constitutional carry framework, states are simply returning to the view of bearing arms held by our Founding Fathers in 1791, the year the Second Amendment was ratified. This view was well presented in the masterful book, The Right to Bear Arms: A Constitutional Right or a Privilege of the Ruling Class?, where Stephen Halbrook writes, “At the beginning of the early Republic, citizens were at liberty to peaceably carry arms outside the home in public, openly or concealed, without any restrictions. Legal commentators acclaimed the constitutional right to bear arms as the palladium of liberty of a free state.”

Hawkins: Second Amendment Was the Founding Fathers' Carry Permit

With over one-third of states adopting constitutional carry, it is apropos to note the 2nd Amendment was the Founding Fathers' carry permit.

www.breitbart.com

The U.S. Constitution | Constitution Center

Learn about the text, history, and meaning of the U.S. Constitution from leading scholars of diverse legal and philosophical perspectives.

constitutioncenter.org

The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia.

The 2nd Amendment rights 'will not be infringed.'

Again, after just defeating tyrannical leaders who ruled over them, the Founding Fathers created rights intended to prohibit future governments from becoming so and from stripping away their rights and freedoms.

Also wrong.

“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.” ibid

An individual right pursuant to lawful self-defense – not to ‘combat’ crime, or act in the capacity of ‘law enforcement,’ and certainly not to oppose ‘tyranny.’

There’s nothing in Second Amendment case law that supports wrongheaded insurrectionist dogma – the ‘Red Dawn’ fantasy of the right.

The Second Amendment does not authorize a minority of citizens to overthrow a lawfully, constitutionally elected government reflecting the will of the people because those citizens incorrectly and subjectively perceive government to have become ‘tyrannical.’

The Framers did not amend the Constitution to allow the destruction of the Republic they had just created.

Totally wrong.
The whole point of a democratic republic is that the majority has to prevent a minority from taking over.
And that can only be done if the majority remains at least close to the same arms that any minority can obtain.
They most certainly did add that amendment specifically to ensure the destruction of any republic that were to become corrupt.
They had just fought a rebellion to be free of a government that at one time had been a republic but had become corrupt, not allowing representation.
They were well aware that ALL governments always tend to become corrupt over time, and that rebellion always becomes necessary.

 

[CowboyTed]

Do you seriously believe calling people names in such juvenile fashion is any way substantiates your personal opinions and hatred for this country, our Founding Fathers, and the Constitution?

Bwuhahahaha.....

If you had any respect for the Founding Fathers, then you would recognize that they did not have all of the information necessary for designing a Constitution that could handle the expansion of government that the keenest founders could envision.

I find your post particularly ignorant, did you attend public school? The founding fathers had just fought a war to free the people from an oppressive corrupt government, in a world full of countries ruled by oppressive corrupt governments.

That is why to have a gun, to be apart of a well regulated militia... So please tell me those well regulated militias ye are all members off?

Also the if the are well regulated than the government is duty bound to check on these militias and make sure they are well regulated... So the country is ready for invasion, this means they have a list of registered gun owners...

 

[Rigby5]

Waiting for the obligatory "the Second Amendment applied to flintlocks not weapons of war" (ignoring that private citizens owned cannons, gatling guns and warships at the time)

Or "the Second Amendment applies to the state militia which is the National Guard" (ignoring that the militia statement is explanatory not conditional, and that the National Guard did not even exist at the time)

Fortunately I wont see those posts because I think I have all of those idiots on ignore.

Just explain to us which well regulated militia you are member off...

Can you give us the mandatory training, Gun registry, mental health checks, etc... performed by your well regulated militia...

This is what the constitution says...

Wrong.
The wording, "well regulated" simply means practiced and familiar with weapons.
There is zero implication of mandatory training, registration, background checks, etc.
In fact, the idea of any governmental level differentiating between individuals back then would have been entirely abhorrent, except by race.
And even the disarming of Blacks, immigrants, HIspanics, natives, etc., was consistently ruled as illegal.
There is ZERO historical basis for any or all gun control.
The most you will find are municipal laws against concealed carry.

 

[Rigby5]

Do you seriously believe calling people names in such juvenile fashion is any way substantiates your personal opinions and hatred for this country, our Founding Fathers, and the Constitution?

Bwuhahahaha.....

If you had any respect for the Founding Fathers, then you would recognize that they did not have all of the information necessary for designing a Constitution that could handle the expansion of government that the keenest founders could envision.

I find your post particularly ignorant, did you attend public school? The founding fathers had just fought a war to free the people from an oppressive corrupt government, in a world full of countries ruled by oppressive corrupt governments.

That is why to have a gun, to be apart of a well regulated militia... So please tell me those well regulated militias ye are all members off?

Also the if the are well regulated than the government is duty bound to check on these militias and make sure they are well regulated... So the country is ready for invasion, this means they have a list of registered gun owners...

Wrong.
The word "regulated" means practiced, familiar, functioning, ready to go, etc.
It does not at all in any way mean controlled, restricted, registered, or in any way denied.
Since the need for an well functioning militia was more for state, municipal, or personal home defense, the federal government was simply denied any and all jurisdiction over weapons at all.
The federal government is strictly prohibited from registering or restricting any firearms at all, in any way.
No lists were allowed back then, so clearly none can be allowed now either.
The last thing any democracy would ever want is for there to be a list of who are enemies should target.