The 2nd Amendment (Why we our Founders wrote it)

[rightwinger]

History has proven the Founding Fathers wrong

Even in the Revolutionary War where local militias were actually used, they were found to be minimally effective. It was not the local minuteman that won the war.......It was the Continental Army and the French Navy

The Founders disdained the idea of a standing Army....once again, history proved them wrong. Lack of a standing Army almost cost us the country in 1812. We also suffered for it during WWI and WWII

Armies are not a bunch of guys with guns running around and shooting at stuff.

I don't believe history has proven the Founding Fathers wrong that a well armed populace is the best protection of freedom and liberty. I believe you making fringe arguments that don't go to the heart of addressing what the Founding Fathers knew and history has proven.

1911 – Turkey disarmed it’s citizens, and between 1915 – 1917 they murdered 1.5 million Armenians.

1929 – Russia disarmed it’s citizens, and between 1929 – 1953 they murdered 20 million Russians.

1935 – China disarmed it’s citizens, and between 1948 – 1952 they murdered 20 million Chinese.

1938 – Germany disarmed it’s citizens, and between 1939 – 1945 they murdered 16 million Jews.

1956 – Cambodia disarmed it’s citizens, and between 1975 – 1977 they murdered 1 million Educated people.

1964 – Guatemala disarmed it’s citizens, and between 1964 – 1981 they murdered 100,000 Mayan Indians.

1970 – Uganda disarmed it’s citizens, and between 1971 – 1979 they murdered 300,000 Christians.

Death by "Gun Control"

Nice try but proves nothing

None of your examples prove that if the population had been armed they would have overwhelmed the government forces. In fact, it would have led to greater slaughter

Most importantly, none of them had a free press, freedom of speech or a vote that would have prevented the despotic rulers to come into power

If you have a strong first amendment, you have no need for a second

It proves everything as those are all examples of nations which disarmed their people. Your fringe arguments proved nothing.

Again, you make the assumption that an armed population would have stopped them

Lets look at the Nazis

They faced an armed population in many of the nations the conquered...France, Norway, Netherlands, Belgium

In no cases were an armed community able to hold off the German Army. Those individuals who tried met with swift retribution with not only themselves, but their families and in some cases entire towns wiped out in retaliation of civilians killing German soldiers

you do know that even though the French government rolled over and sucked Hitler's dick that there was a strong French resistance that played a significant part in WWII don't you?

Very much so...there was a French Resistance

But they were saboteurs and provided intelligence to the allies. They were not involved in armed combat with German forces and they did not drive the Nazis out of France

 

[rightwinger]

France was not disarmed.
Neither was Norway, Belgium or the Netherlands

Given enough time, power corrupts. Our 2nd Amendment is our last check against tyranny. They have none.

Hasn't corrupted in over 230 years

That is because we have a vote and a strong First Amendment....we have never needed the second

Keep telling yourself that comrade. That is exactly the argument I would expect a subversive enemy agent to make.

Comrade?

Do you realize how ridiculous that reply is on a post supporting the strength of freedom of speech, the press and voting?

Are you still in High School?

You have too much faith in voters

We will see on Tuesday, Comrade

 

[Skull Pilot]

I don't believe history has proven the Founding Fathers wrong that a well armed populace is the best protection of freedom and liberty. I believe you making fringe arguments that don't go to the heart of addressing what the Founding Fathers knew and history has proven.

1911 – Turkey disarmed it’s citizens, and between 1915 – 1917 they murdered 1.5 million Armenians.

1929 – Russia disarmed it’s citizens, and between 1929 – 1953 they murdered 20 million Russians.

1935 – China disarmed it’s citizens, and between 1948 – 1952 they murdered 20 million Chinese.

1938 – Germany disarmed it’s citizens, and between 1939 – 1945 they murdered 16 million Jews.

1956 – Cambodia disarmed it’s citizens, and between 1975 – 1977 they murdered 1 million Educated people.

1964 – Guatemala disarmed it’s citizens, and between 1964 – 1981 they murdered 100,000 Mayan Indians.

1970 – Uganda disarmed it’s citizens, and between 1971 – 1979 they murdered 300,000 Christians.

Death by "Gun Control"

Nice try but proves nothing

None of your examples prove that if the population had been armed they would have overwhelmed the government forces. In fact, it would have led to greater slaughter

Most importantly, none of them had a free press, freedom of speech or a vote that would have prevented the despotic rulers to come into power

If you have a strong first amendment, you have no need for a second

It proves everything as those are all examples of nations which disarmed their people. Your fringe arguments proved nothing.

Again, you make the assumption that an armed population would have stopped them

Lets look at the Nazis

They faced an armed population in many of the nations the conquered...France, Norway, Netherlands, Belgium

In no cases were an armed community able to hold off the German Army. Those individuals who tried met with swift retribution with not only themselves, but their families and in some cases entire towns wiped out in retaliation of civilians killing German soldiers

you do know that even though the French government rolled over and sucked Hitler's dick that there was a strong French resistance that played a significant part in WWII don't you?

Very much so...there was a French Resistance

But they were saboteurs and provided intelligence to the allies. They were not involved in armed combat with German forces and they did not drive the Nazis out of France

What you don't understand is that a small force of armed resistance fighters does not have to overwhelm the larger governmental force they just have to make it too painful for that governemnt to keep doing what it's doing

 

[ding]

Don't need to. This is what our Founding Fathers believed and this is the basis for the 2nd Amendment. Deal with it.

Founding Fathers were wrong

An armed population is not needed for the security of a free state....it takes standing armies to do that

You are free to disagree with the Founding Fathers, comrade, but not free to change the Constitution. I have already provided the proof that they were correct. They had their own proof back in their day.

Even if you look at the "proof" during their own day, they drew the wrong conclusion

While there is a romantic vision of the Minutemen during the Revolutionary War, Militias were not effective in fighting regular British troops. They were best known for running away. It was not until the Continental Army was trained into a fighting force that we started to make progress. It was the entrance of the French with their experience and navy that finally won the war.

After the war our nation was bankrupt. We thought we could get away without having a standing army......our founders were wrong

They didn't draw their conclusion from fighting the British, you moron. They drew it from the history of Europe.

Oh...I just gotta see your link on that one

It was in the OP, you idiot.

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

 

[Skull Pilot]

Given enough time, power corrupts. Our 2nd Amendment is our last check against tyranny. They have none.

Hasn't corrupted in over 230 years

That is because we have a vote and a strong First Amendment....we have never needed the second

Keep telling yourself that comrade. That is exactly the argument I would expect a subversive enemy agent to make.

Comrade?

Do you realize how ridiculous that reply is on a post supporting the strength of freedom of speech, the press and voting?

Are you still in High School?

You have too much faith in voters

We will see on Tuesday, Comrade

Nothing to do with the topic but whatever

Besides only about half of people who legally can vote do

 

[ding]

Sure. After the country had been disarmed.

France was not disarmed.
Neither was Norway, Belgium or the Netherlands

Given enough time, power corrupts. Our 2nd Amendment is our last check against tyranny. They have none.

Hasn't corrupted in over 230 years

That is because we have a vote and a strong First Amendment....we have never needed the second

Keep telling yourself that comrade. That is exactly the argument I would expect a subversive enemy agent to make.

Comrade?

Do you realize how ridiculous that reply is on a post supporting the strength of freedom of speech, the press and voting?

Are you still in High School?

No. I wish. I'm 55. And no, that doesn't sound ridiculous as you ARE making the exact same argument that a subversive enemy agent would make.

 

[rightwinger]

lol,no. I wish I was though.

Founding Fathers were wrong

An armed population is not needed for the security of a free state....it takes standing armies to do that

You are free to disagree with the Founding Fathers, comrade, but not free to change the Constitution. I have already provided the proof that they were correct. They had their own proof back in their day.

Even if you look at the "proof" during their own day, they drew the wrong conclusion

While there is a romantic vision of the Minutemen during the Revolutionary War, Militias were not effective in fighting regular British troops. They were best known for running away. It was not until the Continental Army was trained into a fighting force that we started to make progress. It was the entrance of the French with their experience and navy that finally won the war.

After the war our nation was bankrupt. We thought we could get away without having a standing army......our founders were wrong

They didn't draw their conclusion from fighting the British, you moron. They drew it from the history of Europe.

Oh...I just gotta see your link on that one

It was in the OP, you idiot.

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

Can you imagine how naïve a time that was?...what romantic bullshit

A time when if you owned a musket, you thought you were on par with a standing Army
Even then, peasants were no match for a trained, properly led fighting force

 

[ding]

Oh...I just gotta see your link on that one

It was in the OP, you idiot.

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

Can you imagine how naïve a time that was?...what romantic bullshit A time when if you owned a musket, you thought you were on par with a standing Army Even then, peasants were no match for a trained, properly led fighting force

can you imagine how foolish I just made you look?

 

[emilynghiem]

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

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

- Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 28

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

- Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 28

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Well regulated does not mean regulations. When the Constitution specifies regulations it specifically states who and what is being regulated. The phrase "well-regulated" was in common use long before 1789, and remained so for a century thereafter. It referred to the property of something being in proper working order. Something that was well-regulated was calibrated correctly, functioning as expected. The fundamental purpose of the militia was to serve as a check upon a standing army, the words “well regulated” referred to the necessity that the armed citizens making up the militia have the necessary equipment and training necessary to be an effective and formidable check upon the national government’s standing army. Establishing government oversight of the people's arms was not only not the intent in using the phrase in the 2nd amendment, it was precisely to render the government powerless to do so that the founders wrote it.

Firstly the right to bear arms doesn't give you an armed populace. That's the right to keep arms. The right to bear arms is the right to be in the militia.

i.e., the militia with citizen soldiers, that means you need people with the guns for the militia, and you need people to use the guns in the militia.

Dear frigidweirdo At the time these laws were written and passed,
some states didn't even have a militia and but had similar state laws.
so this couldn't have required to belong to state militia.

 

[emilynghiem]

lol,no. I wish I was though.

You are free to disagree with the Founding Fathers, comrade, but not free to change the Constitution. I have already provided the proof that they were correct. They had their own proof back in their day.

Even if you look at the "proof" during their own day, they drew the wrong conclusion

While there is a romantic vision of the Minutemen during the Revolutionary War, Militias were not effective in fighting regular British troops. They were best known for running away. It was not until the Continental Army was trained into a fighting force that we started to make progress. It was the entrance of the French with their experience and navy that finally won the war.

After the war our nation was bankrupt. We thought we could get away without having a standing army......our founders were wrong

They didn't draw their conclusion from fighting the British, you moron. They drew it from the history of Europe.

Oh...I just gotta see your link on that one

It was in the OP, you idiot.

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

Can you imagine how naïve a time that was?...what romantic bullshit

A time when if you owned a musket, you thought you were on par with a standing Army
Even then, peasants were no match for a trained, properly led fighting force

Dear rightwinger the same holds true today, where people want their right to defense,
regardless how much greater armed forces they may be up against.

Also, at a time where British were trying to disarm the populace,
it makes sense to me the people wanted both personal right to keep and bear arms,
and they wanted militias if they could support them.

This isn't either or. It's wanting to preserve right to all of the above.

What we also need is equal right to legal defense, and laws against abusing this to violate the laws.
Otherwise, as with guns, we aren't enforcing the agreement that gun rights are to enforce laws, not violate them.
And the same is happening with legal and judicial abuse, where the right to defense
gets abused to violate instead of enforce laws.

 

[emilynghiem]

Firstly the right to bear arms doesn't give you an armed populace. That's the right to keep arms. The right to bear arms is the right to be in the militia.

i.e., the militia with citizen soldiers, that means you need people with the guns for the militia, and you need people to use the guns in the militia.

I believe you are splitting hairs that were not meant to be split.

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

I find on this topic there is a mass of disinformation and looking the wrong way deliberately. I'm not splitting hairs, you said it wrong and I'm happy to point people in the right direction, even if most of the times people ignore it.

The right to keep arms is the right to own weapons so the militia will have a ready supply of weapons in times of need.
The right to bear arms is the right to be in the militia so the militia will have a ready supply of personnel to use those weapons in times of need.

There's no splitting hairs. Just fact.

I disagree. To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them." - Richard Henry Lee, Federal Farmer No. 18, January 25, 1788

No where here does it say have access or have a ready supply. It literally says possess.

possess: have as belonging to one; own.

Furthermore, at the time of ratification, how did they have a ready supply if it were not for each citizen owning his own weapon?

I'm sorry, but throwing quotes at me doesn't change a thing.

Read this and come back to me: Amendment II: House of Representatives, Amendments to the Constitution

Dear frigidweirdo This is very helpful, thanks for posting it, but not complete.
There is an entire context around the right to bear arms and the militia references,
which cannot possibly be covered by just a few people as you cite here.

In the Origin of the Bill of Rights, the history of different states all contributing to this
Article was covered. And at least one of the states didn't even have a militia. So it could not have required that.

I agree with ding reference that this right is for people to use with PEACEFUL intent.
And other posts cited closer to how I would interpret this as "law abiding citizens"

So if people in a district pass a law requiring militia training and membership,
that is following the laws. And if other district don't but require citizens
take training on laws and process similar as officers, that is still law abiding.

So this interpretation would cover both.

 

[rightwinger]

Oh...I just gotta see your link on that one

It was in the OP, you idiot.

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

Can you imagine how naïve a time that was?...what romantic bullshit A time when if you owned a musket, you thought you were on par with a standing Army Even then, peasants were no match for a trained, properly led fighting force

can you imagine how foolish I just made you look?

View attachment 96837

Self proclaimed victories are so shallow

 

[ding]

Oh...I just gotta see your link on that one

It was in the OP, you idiot.

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

Can you imagine how naïve a time that was?...what romantic bullshit A time when if you owned a musket, you thought you were on par with a standing Army Even then, peasants were no match for a trained, properly led fighting force

can you imagine how foolish I just made you look?

View attachment 96837

Self proclaimed victories are so shallow

Not the ones where you demand a reference which was already in the OP. Those are priceless.

 

[rightwinger]

lol,no. I wish I was though.

Even if you look at the "proof" during their own day, they drew the wrong conclusion

While there is a romantic vision of the Minutemen during the Revolutionary War, Militias were not effective in fighting regular British troops. They were best known for running away. It was not until the Continental Army was trained into a fighting force that we started to make progress. It was the entrance of the French with their experience and navy that finally won the war.

After the war our nation was bankrupt. We thought we could get away without having a standing army......our founders were wrong

They didn't draw their conclusion from fighting the British, you moron. They drew it from the history of Europe.

Oh...I just gotta see your link on that one

It was in the OP, you idiot.

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

Can you imagine how naïve a time that was?...what romantic bullshit

A time when if you owned a musket, you thought you were on par with a standing Army
Even then, peasants were no match for a trained, properly led fighting force

Dear rightwinger the same holds true today, where people want their right to defense,
regardless how much greater armed forces they may be up against.

Also, at a time where British were trying to disarm the populace,
it makes sense to me the people wanted both personal right to keep and bear arms,
and they wanted militias if they could support them.

This isn't either or. It's wanting to preserve right to all of the above.

What we also need is equal right to legal defense, and laws against abusing this to violate the laws.
Otherwise, as with guns, we aren't enforcing the agreement that gun rights are to enforce laws, not violate them.
And the same is happening with legal and judicial abuse, where the right to defense
gets abused to violate instead of enforce laws.

Dear Emily

Anyone who thinks they need their gun to fight off the government is not a real American

If I am not satisfied with my government, I vote them out of office and use my freedom of speech to voice my displeasure. That is the glory of our Constitution and has kept government in check for 235 years

 

[ding]

lol,no. I wish I was though.

They didn't draw their conclusion from fighting the British, you moron. They drew it from the history of Europe.

Oh...I just gotta see your link on that one

It was in the OP, you idiot.

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

Can you imagine how naïve a time that was?...what romantic bullshit

A time when if you owned a musket, you thought you were on par with a standing Army
Even then, peasants were no match for a trained, properly led fighting force

Dear rightwinger the same holds true today, where people want their right to defense,
regardless how much greater armed forces they may be up against.

Also, at a time where British were trying to disarm the populace,
it makes sense to me the people wanted both personal right to keep and bear arms,
and they wanted militias if they could support them.

This isn't either or. It's wanting to preserve right to all of the above.

What we also need is equal right to legal defense, and laws against abusing this to violate the laws.
Otherwise, as with guns, we aren't enforcing the agreement that gun rights are to enforce laws, not violate them.
And the same is happening with legal and judicial abuse, where the right to defense
gets abused to violate instead of enforce laws.

Dear Emily

Anyone who thinks they need their gun to fight off the government is not a real American

If I am not satisfied with my government, I vote them out of office and use my freedom of speech to voice my displeasure. That is the glory of our Constitution and has kept government in check for 235 years

You are naive. The useful idiots are the first ones to go.

 

[emilynghiem]

lol,no. I wish I was though.

They didn't draw their conclusion from fighting the British, you moron. They drew it from the history of Europe.

Oh...I just gotta see your link on that one

It was in the OP, you idiot.

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

Can you imagine how naïve a time that was?...what romantic bullshit

A time when if you owned a musket, you thought you were on par with a standing Army
Even then, peasants were no match for a trained, properly led fighting force

Dear rightwinger the same holds true today, where people want their right to defense,
regardless how much greater armed forces they may be up against.

Also, at a time where British were trying to disarm the populace,
it makes sense to me the people wanted both personal right to keep and bear arms,
and they wanted militias if they could support them.

This isn't either or. It's wanting to preserve right to all of the above.

What we also need is equal right to legal defense, and laws against abusing this to violate the laws.
Otherwise, as with guns, we aren't enforcing the agreement that gun rights are to enforce laws, not violate them.
And the same is happening with legal and judicial abuse, where the right to defense
gets abused to violate instead of enforce laws.

Dear Emily

Anyone who thinks they need their gun to fight off the government is not a real American

If I am not satisfied with my government, I vote them out of office and use my freedom of speech to voice my displeasure. That is the glory of our Constitution and has kept government in check for 235 years

Dear rightwinger
It's not the gun but the choice they want.
Like people who fight for abortion rights, don't all want abortions, they want the
choice not to have govt interfere that personally with them. Similar with gun rights.
They don't trust govt to regulate those, just like not trusting govt to regulate abortion rights.

It symbolizes a line in the sand where govt cannot tell you to give up your free choice.

Same with voting rights that are sacred to people.
They don't want these regulated because that opens the door to all manner of restrictions.
So even if it means fraud, they'd rather have rights.

And even with gun violence and abuse, people would rather have rights and choice.

It's symbolic of freedom to defend one's beliefs, rights principles and persons.

I don't think it says anything against anyone
if they believe such a right is sacred.

I just ask that people be honest about their beliefs and consent,
so we can make govt policies that respect each other's limits
on what we are or are not willing to go with these laws.

Everyone has their own pet issues.

I don't need Courts telling me I have the right to marriage to
write out my own contract and decide what I believe about marriage.
But other people, that means something to them when
the Supreme Court recognizes this right to marriage
I say people already have by religious freedom.

So everyone has a different sacred cow that symbolizes freedom to them.
Let them have their sacred cows.

 

[rightwinger]

lol,no. I wish I was though.

Oh...I just gotta see your link on that one

It was in the OP, you idiot.

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

Can you imagine how naïve a time that was?...what romantic bullshit

A time when if you owned a musket, you thought you were on par with a standing Army
Even then, peasants were no match for a trained, properly led fighting force

Dear rightwinger the same holds true today, where people want their right to defense,
regardless how much greater armed forces they may be up against.

Also, at a time where British were trying to disarm the populace,
it makes sense to me the people wanted both personal right to keep and bear arms,
and they wanted militias if they could support them.

This isn't either or. It's wanting to preserve right to all of the above.

What we also need is equal right to legal defense, and laws against abusing this to violate the laws.
Otherwise, as with guns, we aren't enforcing the agreement that gun rights are to enforce laws, not violate them.
And the same is happening with legal and judicial abuse, where the right to defense
gets abused to violate instead of enforce laws.

Dear Emily

Anyone who thinks they need their gun to fight off the government is not a real American

If I am not satisfied with my government, I vote them out of office and use my freedom of speech to voice my displeasure. That is the glory of our Constitution and has kept government in check for 235 years

You are naive. The useful idiots are the first ones to go.

Never in the history of our nation has it been necessary to use weapons to keep the government in check

Those who have tried have been arrested or executed for treason

 

[rightwinger]

lol,no. I wish I was though.

Oh...I just gotta see your link on that one

It was in the OP, you idiot.

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

Can you imagine how naïve a time that was?...what romantic bullshit

A time when if you owned a musket, you thought you were on par with a standing Army
Even then, peasants were no match for a trained, properly led fighting force

Dear rightwinger the same holds true today, where people want their right to defense,
regardless how much greater armed forces they may be up against.

Also, at a time where British were trying to disarm the populace,
it makes sense to me the people wanted both personal right to keep and bear arms,
and they wanted militias if they could support them.

This isn't either or. It's wanting to preserve right to all of the above.

What we also need is equal right to legal defense, and laws against abusing this to violate the laws.
Otherwise, as with guns, we aren't enforcing the agreement that gun rights are to enforce laws, not violate them.
And the same is happening with legal and judicial abuse, where the right to defense
gets abused to violate instead of enforce laws.

Dear Emily

Anyone who thinks they need their gun to fight off the government is not a real American

If I am not satisfied with my government, I vote them out of office and use my freedom of speech to voice my displeasure. That is the glory of our Constitution and has kept government in check for 235 years

Dear rightwinger
It's not the gun but the choice they want.
Like people who fight for abortion rights, don't all want abortions, they want the
choice not to have govt interfere that personally with them. Similar with gun rights.
They don't trust govt to regulate those, just like not trusting govt to regulate abortion rights.

It symbolizes a line in the sand where govt cannot tell you to give up your free choice.

Same with voting rights that are sacred to people.
They don't want these regulated because that opens the door to all manner of restrictions.
So even if it means fraud, they'd rather have rights.

And even with gun violence and abuse, people would rather have rights and choice.

It's symbolic of freedom to defend one's beliefs, rights principles and persons.

I don't think it says anything against anyone
if they believe such a right is sacred.

I just ask that people be honest about their beliefs and consent,
so we can make govt policies that respect each other's limits
on what we are or are not willing to go with these laws.

Everyone has their own pet issues.

I don't need Courts telling me I have the right to marriage to
write out my own contract and decide what I believe about marriage.
But other people, that means something to them when
the Supreme Court recognizes this right to marriage
I say people already have by religious freedom.

So everyone has a different sacred cow that symbolizes freedom to them.
Let them have their sacred cows.

Dear Emily

Using guns to resolve your grievances is not a choice.

 

[ding]

lol,no. I wish I was though.
It was in the OP, you idiot.

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

Can you imagine how naïve a time that was?...what romantic bullshit

A time when if you owned a musket, you thought you were on par with a standing Army
Even then, peasants were no match for a trained, properly led fighting force

Dear rightwinger the same holds true today, where people want their right to defense,
regardless how much greater armed forces they may be up against.

Also, at a time where British were trying to disarm the populace,
it makes sense to me the people wanted both personal right to keep and bear arms,
and they wanted militias if they could support them.

This isn't either or. It's wanting to preserve right to all of the above.

What we also need is equal right to legal defense, and laws against abusing this to violate the laws.
Otherwise, as with guns, we aren't enforcing the agreement that gun rights are to enforce laws, not violate them.
And the same is happening with legal and judicial abuse, where the right to defense
gets abused to violate instead of enforce laws.

Dear Emily

Anyone who thinks they need their gun to fight off the government is not a real American

If I am not satisfied with my government, I vote them out of office and use my freedom of speech to voice my displeasure. That is the glory of our Constitution and has kept government in check for 235 years

You are naive. The useful idiots are the first ones to go.

Never in the history of our nation has it been necessary to use weapons to keep the government in check

Those who have tried have been arrested or executed for treason

That's because we have guns.

 

[Tennyson]

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

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

- Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 28

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

- Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 28

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Well regulated does not mean regulations. When the Constitution specifies regulations it specifically states who and what is being regulated. The phrase "well-regulated" was in common use long before 1789, and remained so for a century thereafter. It referred to the property of something being in proper working order. Something that was well-regulated was calibrated correctly, functioning as expected. The fundamental purpose of the militia was to serve as a check upon a standing army, the words “well regulated” referred to the necessity that the armed citizens making up the militia have the necessary equipment and training necessary to be an effective and formidable check upon the national government’s standing army. Establishing government oversight of the people's arms was not only not the intent in using the phrase in the 2nd amendment, it was precisely to render the government powerless to do so that the founders wrote it.

Firstly the right to bear arms doesn't give you an armed populace. That's the right to keep arms. The right to bear arms is the right to be in the militia.

i.e., the militia with citizen soldiers, that means you need people with the guns for the militia, and you need people to use the guns in the militia.

Dear frigidweirdo At the time these laws were written and passed,
some states didn't even have a militia and but had similar state laws.
so this couldn't have required to belong to state militia.

Emilynghiem,

There is a Supreme Court ruling from 1886, I believe, called Presser v. Illinois. It is a short read and touches on the concept in your posts. I think you can find the ruling on Google Scholar.