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

[Boss]

You are sort of right and sort of confused at the same time. When we were debating Federalism vs. Anti-federalism, the arguments were BOTH opposed to a central federal power over everyone. Federalists argued that we could have a very limited small federal government which left most of our liberty to be determined by the states and people respectively. Anti-federalists feared exactly what has happened in history, that even a small federal government, limited in power, would eventually become a large centralized power enforcing it's will on society.

Today, we have a different argument. The Federalists are still arguing for a small and limited federal authority where states and people decide most of their own parameters of liberty and we have Statists who believe in a large central authority. Ironically, even though Anti-federalists no longer exist, their arguments proved to be true... we simply couldn't maintain a small limited government over time because the nature of any government is to grow in power over the individual.

So Boss now there are three groups
1. Statists are the ones who WANT the power to grow on the federal level and even fight against enforcing limits on it
2. Federalists who argue we can manage a centralized govt are split between the "new anti-federalists" who still believe in the Constitution but fear the whole thing needs to be shut down and stopped vs. the Constitutonalists saying we can use the given system and restore the limitations (and the Statists saying we can keep the given system and don't need to enforce limitations)
3. anarchists and independents who don't believe in parties or Constitutional laws at all as being able to stop abuses

I think the Statists have taken over the position of anti-federalists
in being opposed to the Constitution as limited govt, but for the opposite reason.
Before, the anti-federalists didn't think it was strong enough to PREVENT big govt from dominating over individuals.
Today, the Statists don't want the Constitutional limits as "obstruction" to get in the way of this.

So the term you use for people who want central govt as the default authority
in charge of public programs and policies is STATIST. Is that correct?

That's correct but they are not taking anything near an anti-federalist position. Their position is exactly what made an anti-federalist an anti-federalist. They were opposed to a central federal government, even in a small limited role. They sought to have us remain a confederation of states without a federal government. The Federalists made the case that a Constitution would limit and restrict the powers of Federal government and rejected the idea that it would grow out of control because they though the people would prevent it.

It's confusing today because many of the anti-federalist complaints have become the concerns of the modern federalists. Again, both Federalists and Anti-Federalists opposed a large centralized Federal government.

Can todays Feneralists and antifederalists rise up against the Statists? Why not demand the Statists set up their own programs and not impose through govt on others.

Which Party leaders would have to agree to such a resolution or demand to make it heard? Who do recommend, or what form of petition should the people present? Boss

I think you see the true Federalists standing strong with Constitutional Conservatives. It's reflected in who we are electing to Congress.

I don't understand your question with regard to the Statists... do you understand that a Statist seeks to use the power of government to impose it's programs and control on others? So your question is, why not demand Statists not be Statists? I think that's a great idea.

Well Boss if we set it up right, they will still act as Statists for themselves within their own govt structure. Just not for anyone else who doesn't freely chose that affiliation. We can call it a model or internal govt run by Parliament of each party. Each party can claim sovereignty of their own realm over their own membership. So if health care or social benefits are set up to be self sustaining, it should work whether there are 1 million members or 10 million in the pool. Let them figure it out how to make the numbers and budget work on a smaller local scale, before expanding on a higher or national scale. So they can have collective will established for all members through central govt, but organize this by party so they can agree on political beliefs that otherwise divide states. With like minded members of one party belief, they can mandate all they want and it only applies to them who already agree on and believe in the same policies.

emilynghiem we don't need to set anything up. We have a beautiful system that is unique and exceptional. Our framers didn't want us to be Statists and even the people who opposed the framers didn't want us to be Statists... but here you are, trying to somehow accommodate the Statists. A Statist is a Communist. Why would you want some cockamamie system that allows Communism?

Much of what you are saying can be accomplished already through returning the power to the states as it was intended to be. If California wants to set up their little Socialist Utopia, they can do that... but don't expect the rest of us to bail you out when it all goes tits up.

 

[emilynghiem]

So Boss now there are three groups
1. Statists are the ones who WANT the power to grow on the federal level and even fight against enforcing limits on it
2. Federalists who argue we can manage a centralized govt are split between the "new anti-federalists" who still believe in the Constitution but fear the whole thing needs to be shut down and stopped vs. the Constitutonalists saying we can use the given system and restore the limitations (and the Statists saying we can keep the given system and don't need to enforce limitations)
3. anarchists and independents who don't believe in parties or Constitutional laws at all as being able to stop abuses

I think the Statists have taken over the position of anti-federalists
in being opposed to the Constitution as limited govt, but for the opposite reason.
Before, the anti-federalists didn't think it was strong enough to PREVENT big govt from dominating over individuals.
Today, the Statists don't want the Constitutional limits as "obstruction" to get in the way of this.

So the term you use for people who want central govt as the default authority
in charge of public programs and policies is STATIST. Is that correct?

That's correct but they are not taking anything near an anti-federalist position. Their position is exactly what made an anti-federalist an anti-federalist. They were opposed to a central federal government, even in a small limited role. They sought to have us remain a confederation of states without a federal government. The Federalists made the case that a Constitution would limit and restrict the powers of Federal government and rejected the idea that it would grow out of control because they though the people would prevent it.

It's confusing today because many of the anti-federalist complaints have become the concerns of the modern federalists. Again, both Federalists and Anti-Federalists opposed a large centralized Federal government.

Can todays Feneralists and antifederalists rise up against the Statists? Why not demand the Statists set up their own programs and not impose through govt on others.

Which Party leaders would have to agree to such a resolution or demand to make it heard? Who do recommend, or what form of petition should the people present? Boss

I think you see the true Federalists standing strong with Constitutional Conservatives. It's reflected in who we are electing to Congress.

I don't understand your question with regard to the Statists... do you understand that a Statist seeks to use the power of government to impose it's programs and control on others? So your question is, why not demand Statists not be Statists? I think that's a great idea.

Well Boss if we set it up right, they will still act as Statists for themselves within their own govt structure. Just not for anyone else who doesn't freely chose that affiliation. We can call it a model or internal govt run by Parliament of each party. Each party can claim sovereignty of their own realm over their own membership. So if health care or social benefits are set up to be self sustaining, it should work whether there are 1 million members or 10 million in the pool. Let them figure it out how to make the numbers and budget work on a smaller local scale, before expanding on a higher or national scale. So they can have collective will established for all members through central govt, but organize this by party so they can agree on political beliefs that otherwise divide states. With like minded members of one party belief, they can mandate all they want and it only applies to them who already agree on and believe in the same policies.

emilynghiem we don't need to set anything up. We have a beautiful system that is unique and exceptional. Our framers didn't want us to be Statists and even the people who opposed the framers didn't want us to be Statists... but here you are, trying to somehow accommodate the Statists. A Statist is a Communist. Why would you want some cockamamie system that allows Communism?

Much of what you are saying can be accomplished already through returning the power to the states as it was intended to be. If California wants to set up their little Socialist Utopia, they can do that... but don't expect the rest of us to bail you out when it all goes tits up.

Dear Boss Doesn't everyone deserve equal opportunity to set up their own state govt. to learn and teach by experience?
Why not set up 4-5 campus city-states along the border. All the other candidates can govern their own followers like a state. Not interfere with others.

 

[Tennyson]

So Boss now there are three groups
1. Statists are the ones who WANT the power to grow on the federal level and even fight against enforcing limits on it
2. Federalists who argue we can manage a centralized govt are split between the "new anti-federalists" who still believe in the Constitution but fear the whole thing needs to be shut down and stopped vs. the Constitutonalists saying we can use the given system and restore the limitations (and the Statists saying we can keep the given system and don't need to enforce limitations)
3. anarchists and independents who don't believe in parties or Constitutional laws at all as being able to stop abuses

I think the Statists have taken over the position of anti-federalists
in being opposed to the Constitution as limited govt, but for the opposite reason.
Before, the anti-federalists didn't think it was strong enough to PREVENT big govt from dominating over individuals.
Today, the Statists don't want the Constitutional limits as "obstruction" to get in the way of this.

So the term you use for people who want central govt as the default authority
in charge of public programs and policies is STATIST. Is that correct?

That's correct but they are not taking anything near an anti-federalist position. Their position is exactly what made an anti-federalist an anti-federalist. They were opposed to a central federal government, even in a small limited role. They sought to have us remain a confederation of states without a federal government. The Federalists made the case that a Constitution would limit and restrict the powers of Federal government and rejected the idea that it would grow out of control because they though the people would prevent it.

It's confusing today because many of the anti-federalist complaints have become the concerns of the modern federalists. Again, both Federalists and Anti-Federalists opposed a large centralized Federal government.

Can todays Feneralists and antifederalists rise up against the Statists? Why not demand the Statists set up their own programs and not impose through govt on others.

Which Party leaders would have to agree to such a resolution or demand to make it heard? Who do recommend, or what form of petition should the people present? Boss

I think you see the true Federalists standing strong with Constitutional Conservatives. It's reflected in who we are electing to Congress.

I don't understand your question with regard to the Statists... do you understand that a Statist seeks to use the power of government to impose it's programs and control on others? So your question is, why not demand Statists not be Statists? I think that's a great idea.

Well Boss if we set it up right, they will still act as Statists for themselves within their own govt structure. Just not for anyone else who doesn't freely chose that affiliation. We can call it a model or internal govt run by Parliament of each party. Each party can claim sovereignty of their own realm over their own membership. So if health care or social benefits are set up to be self sustaining, it should work whether there are 1 million members or 10 million in the pool. Let them figure it out how to make the numbers and budget work on a smaller local scale, before expanding on a higher or national scale. So they can have collective will established for all members through central govt, but organize this by party so they can agree on political beliefs that otherwise divide states. With like minded members of one party belief, they can mandate all they want and it only applies to them who already agree on and believe in the same policies.

emilynghiem we don't need to set anything up. We have a beautiful system that is unique and exceptional. Our framers didn't want us to be Statists and even the people who opposed the framers didn't want us to be Statists... but here you are, trying to somehow accommodate the Statists. A Statist is a Communist. Why would you want some cockamamie system that allows Communism?

Much of what you are saying can be accomplished already through returning the power to the states as it was intended to be. If California wants to set up their little Socialist Utopia, they can do that... but don't expect the rest of us to bail you out when it all goes tits up.

That's correct but they are not taking anything near an anti-federalist position. Their position is exactly what made an anti-federalist an anti-federalist. They were opposed to a central federal government, even in a small limited role. They sought to have us remain a confederation of states without a federal government. The Federalists made the case that a Constitution would limit and restrict the powers of Federal government and rejected the idea that it would grow out of control because they though the people would prevent it.

It's confusing today because many of the anti-federalist complaints have become the concerns of the modern federalists. Again, both Federalists and Anti-Federalists opposed a large centralized Federal government.

Can todays Feneralists and antifederalists rise up against the Statists? Why not demand the Statists set up their own programs and not impose through govt on others.

Which Party leaders would have to agree to such a resolution or demand to make it heard? Who do recommend, or what form of petition should the people present? Boss

I think you see the true Federalists standing strong with Constitutional Conservatives. It's reflected in who we are electing to Congress.

I don't understand your question with regard to the Statists... do you understand that a Statist seeks to use the power of government to impose it's programs and control on others? So your question is, why not demand Statists not be Statists? I think that's a great idea.

Well Boss if we set it up right, they will still act as Statists for themselves within their own govt structure. Just not for anyone else who doesn't freely chose that affiliation. We can call it a model or internal govt run by Parliament of each party. Each party can claim sovereignty of their own realm over their own membership. So if health care or social benefits are set up to be self sustaining, it should work whether there are 1 million members or 10 million in the pool. Let them figure it out how to make the numbers and budget work on a smaller local scale, before expanding on a higher or national scale. So they can have collective will established for all members through central govt, but organize this by party so they can agree on political beliefs that otherwise divide states. With like minded members of one party belief, they can mandate all they want and it only applies to them who already agree on and believe in the same policies.

emilynghiem we don't need to set anything up. We have a beautiful system that is unique and exceptional. Our framers didn't want us to be Statists and even the people who opposed the framers didn't want us to be Statists... but here you are, trying to somehow accommodate the Statists. A Statist is a Communist. Why would you want some cockamamie system that allows Communism?

Much of what you are saying can be accomplished already through returning the power to the states as it was intended to be. If California wants to set up their little Socialist Utopia, they can do that... but don't expect the rest of us to bail you out when it all goes tits up.

Dear Boss Doesn't everyone deserve equal opportunity to set up their own state govt. to learn and teach by experience?
Why not set up 4-5 campus city-states along the border. All the other candidates can govern their own followers like a state. Not interfere with others.

Article IV would prevent that from happening.

 

[Boss]

That's correct but they are not taking anything near an anti-federalist position. Their position is exactly what made an anti-federalist an anti-federalist. They were opposed to a central federal government, even in a small limited role. They sought to have us remain a confederation of states without a federal government. The Federalists made the case that a Constitution would limit and restrict the powers of Federal government and rejected the idea that it would grow out of control because they though the people would prevent it.

It's confusing today because many of the anti-federalist complaints have become the concerns of the modern federalists. Again, both Federalists and Anti-Federalists opposed a large centralized Federal government.

Can todays Feneralists and antifederalists rise up against the Statists? Why not demand the Statists set up their own programs and not impose through govt on others.

Which Party leaders would have to agree to such a resolution or demand to make it heard? Who do recommend, or what form of petition should the people present? Boss

I think you see the true Federalists standing strong with Constitutional Conservatives. It's reflected in who we are electing to Congress.

I don't understand your question with regard to the Statists... do you understand that a Statist seeks to use the power of government to impose it's programs and control on others? So your question is, why not demand Statists not be Statists? I think that's a great idea.

Well Boss if we set it up right, they will still act as Statists for themselves within their own govt structure. Just not for anyone else who doesn't freely chose that affiliation. We can call it a model or internal govt run by Parliament of each party. Each party can claim sovereignty of their own realm over their own membership. So if health care or social benefits are set up to be self sustaining, it should work whether there are 1 million members or 10 million in the pool. Let them figure it out how to make the numbers and budget work on a smaller local scale, before expanding on a higher or national scale. So they can have collective will established for all members through central govt, but organize this by party so they can agree on political beliefs that otherwise divide states. With like minded members of one party belief, they can mandate all they want and it only applies to them who already agree on and believe in the same policies.

emilynghiem we don't need to set anything up. We have a beautiful system that is unique and exceptional. Our framers didn't want us to be Statists and even the people who opposed the framers didn't want us to be Statists... but here you are, trying to somehow accommodate the Statists. A Statist is a Communist. Why would you want some cockamamie system that allows Communism?

Much of what you are saying can be accomplished already through returning the power to the states as it was intended to be. If California wants to set up their little Socialist Utopia, they can do that... but don't expect the rest of us to bail you out when it all goes tits up.

Dear Boss Doesn't everyone deserve equal opportunity to set up their own state govt. to learn and teach by experience?
Why not set up 4-5 campus city-states along the border. All the other candidates can govern their own followers like a state. Not interfere with others.

First and foremost, as Tennyson said, it would be unconstitutional. Second, I have no desire whatsoever to participate in such an experiment. I like the system we have now but I would like the power to be returned to the states as our founders intended for it to be. Now, you're a Big Compromise gal... why can't each state decide if it wants to be a "socialist" state within the United States? I have no problem with that under the condition there will be no Federal bailouts... if your socialist state fails, that's your bag of donuts. Your state will either have to get bailed out by one of it's neighbors, annexed or carved up among several neighboring states.

 

[emilynghiem]

That's correct but they are not taking anything near an anti-federalist position. Their position is exactly what made an anti-federalist an anti-federalist. They were opposed to a central federal government, even in a small limited role. They sought to have us remain a confederation of states without a federal government. The Federalists made the case that a Constitution would limit and restrict the powers of Federal government and rejected the idea that it would grow out of control because they though the people would prevent it.

It's confusing today because many of the anti-federalist complaints have become the concerns of the modern federalists. Again, both Federalists and Anti-Federalists opposed a large centralized Federal government.

Can todays Feneralists and antifederalists rise up against the Statists? Why not demand the Statists set up their own programs and not impose through govt on others.

Which Party leaders would have to agree to such a resolution or demand to make it heard? Who do recommend, or what form of petition should the people present? Boss

I think you see the true Federalists standing strong with Constitutional Conservatives. It's reflected in who we are electing to Congress.

I don't understand your question with regard to the Statists... do you understand that a Statist seeks to use the power of government to impose it's programs and control on others? So your question is, why not demand Statists not be Statists? I think that's a great idea.

Well Boss if we set it up right, they will still act as Statists for themselves within their own govt structure. Just not for anyone else who doesn't freely chose that affiliation. We can call it a model or internal govt run by Parliament of each party. Each party can claim sovereignty of their own realm over their own membership. So if health care or social benefits are set up to be self sustaining, it should work whether there are 1 million members or 10 million in the pool. Let them figure it out how to make the numbers and budget work on a smaller local scale, before expanding on a higher or national scale. So they can have collective will established for all members through central govt, but organize this by party so they can agree on political beliefs that otherwise divide states. With like minded members of one party belief, they can mandate all they want and it only applies to them who already agree on and believe in the same policies.

emilynghiem we don't need to set anything up. We have a beautiful system that is unique and exceptional. Our framers didn't want us to be Statists and even the people who opposed the framers didn't want us to be Statists... but here you are, trying to somehow accommodate the Statists. A Statist is a Communist. Why would you want some cockamamie system that allows Communism?

Much of what you are saying can be accomplished already through returning the power to the states as it was intended to be. If California wants to set up their little Socialist Utopia, they can do that... but don't expect the rest of us to bail you out when it all goes tits up.

Dear Boss Doesn't everyone deserve equal opportunity to set up their own state govt. to learn and teach by experience?
Why not set up 4-5 campus city-states along the border. All the other candidates can govern their own followers like a state. Not interfere with others.

Dear Boss and TheProgressivePatriot
You both asked me similar questions and I would like to hear your answers and insights.

Boss asks why include Statists who believe in imposing federal rulings by judicial authority
instead of going through legislative process by States.

TPP asked why would I insist on including "Bigots" (if all they do is enforce
discrimination and obstruction/exclusion and not equal recognition.)

Can you se e that both sides would push to EXCLUDE the people with beliefs they disagree with.

So HOW can we INCLUDE representation of these PEOPLE
WITHOUT enabling the imposition of either their Statist or Bigot beliefs on others?

Is it working to depend on majority rule (manipulated by media and party
and corporate interests operating outside the Constitutional govt)
to shut each other out when either side goes too far?

Is there some way to set up a system that allows
INPUT and CONTENT of objections by these people of these beliefs,
but doesn't allow IMPOSITION through govt at the expense of other beliefs?

That's why I was pushing for a consensus model of inclusion.
But is there a better way to stop this ABUSE???

the SAME problem happens with Greens when using consensus based representation
and decision making.

the OBSTRUCTIONISTS who vote no/objection aren't required to resolve
the issue causing it, so it stalls and deadlocks or shuts down the process.

How do we prevent this clashing from shutting down Congress
or turning elections into YES/NO wars for one belief over the other?

or is that REALLY the only way to change this?
To outvote the other BELIEFS to cut them OUT of the process, really?

We can't have inclusion because they will ABUSE it, really?

I'm asking you both, because if you BOTH got your way,
TPP would veto anyone considered a BIGOT
and Boss would overrule anyone considered a STATIST.

is that what we need?
what do we do to improve or correct this?
what do you suggest for dealing with
Statists and Bigots who don't get equal inclusion
and don't respect the beliefs of others they trample?

 

[Boss]

I don't know if I even comprehend what you're asking me emily. I don't give two rips about the beliefs, opinions, arguments or concerns of statists or bigots. We can't have any objective targeted toward "equal inclusion" because we have 350 million individuals. What we have is a system of constitutional republicanism. It's a brilliant system which allows maximum individual liberty and protection of individual liberty but with the capability of self-governance that serves the needs of most.

If you belong to the group of statists, bigots, anarchists, Christians, trannies... whatever... you have equal opportunity to petition for redress of your grievances. We call that thing, Freedom of Speech. So we already have the perfect system... it doesn't need fixing.

 

[Deleted member 61768]

We the people are the last keepers of our own rights and freedoms against all who may try to abrogate or take them away.

 

[emilynghiem]

I don't know if I even comprehend what you're asking me emily. I don't give two rips about the beliefs, opinions, arguments or concerns of statists or bigots. We can't have any objective targeted toward "equal inclusion" because we have 350 million individuals. What we have is a system of constitutional republicanism. It's a brilliant system which allows maximum individual liberty and protection of individual liberty but with the capability of self-governance that serves the needs of most.

If you belong to the group of statists, bigots, anarchists, Christians, trannies... whatever... you have equal opportunity to petition for redress of your grievances. We call that thing, Freedom of Speech. So we already have the perfect system... it doesn't need fixing.

Dear Boss don't you think the given system can be IMPROVED
by teaching/agreeing that ANY and ALL beliefs (such as LGBT beliefs
in same sex marriage or right to life/health care beliefs) count as part
of religious freedom, and govt should neither PROHIBIT nor ESTABLISH them?

 

[danielpalos]

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.

Wellness of regulation must be prescribed by our federal Congress for the Militia of the United States. It is in Article 1, Section 8.

 

[ding]

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.

Wellness of regulation must be prescribed by our federal Congress for the Militia of the United States. It is in Article 1, Section 8.

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.

 

[Spare_change]

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.

Wellness of regulation must be prescribed by our federal Congress for the Militia of the United States. It is in Article 1, Section 8.

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.

OMG!!!

You exceed the left's capacity for logic wayyy too much!!! Daniel's head probably exploded. We'll never hear from him again --- or he will be exceedingly brain damaged.

The real question is: Will we notice?

 

[Boss]

I don't know if I even comprehend what you're asking me emily. I don't give two rips about the beliefs, opinions, arguments or concerns of statists or bigots. We can't have any objective targeted toward "equal inclusion" because we have 350 million individuals. What we have is a system of constitutional republicanism. It's a brilliant system which allows maximum individual liberty and protection of individual liberty but with the capability of self-governance that serves the needs of most.

If you belong to the group of statists, bigots, anarchists, Christians, trannies... whatever... you have equal opportunity to petition for redress of your grievances. We call that thing, Freedom of Speech. So we already have the perfect system... it doesn't need fixing.

Dear Boss don't you think the given system can be IMPROVED
by teaching/agreeing that ANY and ALL beliefs (such as LGBT beliefs
in same sex marriage or right to life/health care beliefs) count as part
of religious freedom, and govt should neither PROHIBIT nor ESTABLISH them?

The idea behind our form of government is to ensure as much individual freedom as possible. Federal government was given very limited power to do essential things and nothing more. States were given power within the constructs of a constitution. The People were given the most power. Ultimately, the most individual liberty comes from the individual themselves. Next comes the household... then the community, township, county... eventually the state. The state and the people are left to determine their own boundaries and regulations governing their social societies because this ensures the maximum individual liberty.

 

[Spare_change]

I don't know if I even comprehend what you're asking me emily. I don't give two rips about the beliefs, opinions, arguments or concerns of statists or bigots. We can't have any objective targeted toward "equal inclusion" because we have 350 million individuals. What we have is a system of constitutional republicanism. It's a brilliant system which allows maximum individual liberty and protection of individual liberty but with the capability of self-governance that serves the needs of most.

If you belong to the group of statists, bigots, anarchists, Christians, trannies... whatever... you have equal opportunity to petition for redress of your grievances. We call that thing, Freedom of Speech. So we already have the perfect system... it doesn't need fixing.

Dear Boss don't you think the given system can be IMPROVED
by teaching/agreeing that ANY and ALL beliefs (such as LGBT beliefs
in same sex marriage or right to life/health care beliefs) count as part
of religious freedom, and govt should neither PROHIBIT nor ESTABLISH them?

The idea behind our form of government is to ensure as much individual freedom as possible. Federal government was given very limited power to do essential things and nothing more. States were given power within the constructs of a constitution. The People were given the most power. Ultimately, the most individual liberty comes from the individual themselves. Next comes the household... then the community, township, county... eventually the state. The state and the people are left to determine their own boundaries and regulations governing their social societies because this ensures the maximum individual liberty.

Theoretically .... Dems killed it long ago.

 

[danielpalos]

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.

Wellness of regulation must be prescribed by our federal Congress for the Militia of the United States. It is in Article 1, Section 8.

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.

Yes, it does. To claim otherwise is to appeal to ignorance of the law. Wellness of Regulation Must be Prescribed by our federal Congress, for the Militia of the United States.

 

[danielpalos]

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.

Wellness of regulation must be prescribed by our federal Congress for the Militia of the United States. It is in Article 1, Section 8.

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.

OMG!!!

You exceed the left's capacity for logic wayyy too much!!! Daniel's head probably exploded. We'll never hear from him again --- or he will be exceedingly brain damaged.

The real question is: Will we notice?

all the right wing knows how to do, is appeal to ignorance of the law and blame less fortunate illegals, for being illegal.

 

[Skull Pilot]

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.

Wellness of regulation must be prescribed by our federal Congress for the Militia of the United States. It is in Article 1, Section 8.

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.

OMG!!!

You exceed the left's capacity for logic wayyy too much!!! Daniel's head probably exploded. We'll never hear from him again --- or he will be exceedingly brain damaged.

The real question is: Will we notice?

all the right wing knows how to do, is appeal to ignorance of the law and blame less fortunate illegals, for being illegal.

tell me who do you blame if a criminal commits a crime?

 

[danielpalos]

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.

Wellness of regulation must be prescribed by our federal Congress for the Militia of the United States. It is in Article 1, Section 8.

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.

OMG!!!

You exceed the left's capacity for logic wayyy too much!!! Daniel's head probably exploded. We'll never hear from him again --- or he will be exceedingly brain damaged.

The real question is: Will we notice?

all the right wing knows how to do, is appeal to ignorance of the law and blame less fortunate illegals, for being illegal.

tell me who do you blame if a criminal commits a crime?

10USC311 is federal law; DC v Heller is a simple error in judicial judgment. who should we blame?

 

[Skull Pilot]

Wellness of regulation must be prescribed by our federal Congress for the Militia of the United States. It is in Article 1, Section 8.

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.

OMG!!!

You exceed the left's capacity for logic wayyy too much!!! Daniel's head probably exploded. We'll never hear from him again --- or he will be exceedingly brain damaged.

The real question is: Will we notice?

all the right wing knows how to do, is appeal to ignorance of the law and blame less fortunate illegals, for being illegal.

tell me who do you blame if a criminal commits a crime?

10USC311 is federal law; DC v Heller is a simple error in judicial judgment. who should we blame?

Heller has nothing to do with the question I asked you

an illegal alien is a criminal and you seem to think we shouldn't blame them for being criminals so who do you blame if criminal commits a crime?

 

[danielpalos]

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.

OMG!!!

You exceed the left's capacity for logic wayyy too much!!! Daniel's head probably exploded. We'll never hear from him again --- or he will be exceedingly brain damaged.

The real question is: Will we notice?

all the right wing knows how to do, is appeal to ignorance of the law and blame less fortunate illegals, for being illegal.

tell me who do you blame if a criminal commits a crime?

10USC311 is federal law; DC v Heller is a simple error in judicial judgment. who should we blame?

Heller has nothing to do with the question I asked you

an illegal alien is a criminal and you seem to think we shouldn't blame them for being criminals so who do you blame if criminal commits a crime?

yes, it does; unless you only believe in pander and not the law.

 

[ding]

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.

Wellness of regulation must be prescribed by our federal Congress for the Militia of the United States. It is in Article 1, Section 8.

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.

Yes, it does. To claim otherwise is to appeal to ignorance of the law. Wellness of Regulation Must be Prescribed by our federal Congress, for the Militia of the United States.

I'm happy enough to let others decide who has made the more compelling argument.