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

[Boss]

You overstate the number of Americans who have guns and their willingness to take up arms against our country

You treat those who would take up arms against their country as heroes when in effect they would be bands of poorly trained, poorly led thugs against the strongest Army in the history of mankind

No, you're trying to change the scenario around from a tyrannical coup to some rogue uprising among the populace. I'm not overstating anything.. there are currently over 350 million firearms and 200 million firearms owners. Should some tyrant entity take over our government, those people would rise up and there would be hell to pay. The "strongest army in the history of mankind" would quickly dissipate as most soldiers would not remain loyal to the tyrant.

So, I don't know... unless you invented some kind of mind control drug where you could turn the military into a bunch of zombies who would turn on the population... I don't see any sort of a scenario where such a thing could happen. Even IF it did, there are 350 million guns among the population. That will overwhelm anything you could muster with military armament. Again... it took us months to secure Fallujah in Iraq and that was just a few thousand people with guns. 200 million is a LOT of people with guns.

 

[Vandalshandle]

And who is the militia, tard?

I doubt you would be one. I'll let Founding Fathers Richard Lee, James Madison, Noah Webster and George Mason respond to your insolent question.

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 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

"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

"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

Now do you understand?

I never did not understand.

If they try to drive a Abrams tank up to my house, I'm going top shoot out their headlights with my .22!

Who are you trying to fool, you don't even own a peashooter let alone a rimfire.

If I buy an imaginary AK-47, will I be allowed to join the Super Heros, and be allowed to learn the password to the secret treehouse?

 

[ding]

And who is the militia, tard?

I doubt you would be one. I'll let Founding Fathers Richard Lee, James Madison, Noah Webster and George Mason respond to your insolent question.

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 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

"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

"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

Now do you understand?

I never did not understand.

You could have fooled me that you never did not understand.

 

[ding]

And who is the militia, tard?

I doubt you would be one. I'll let Founding Fathers Richard Lee, James Madison, Noah Webster and George Mason respond to your insolent question.

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 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

"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

"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

Now do you understand?

I never did not understand.

If they try to drive a Abrams tank up to my house, I'm going top shoot out their headlights with my .22!

Who are you trying to fool, you don't even own a peashooter let alone a rimfire.

If I buy an imaginary AK-47, will I be allowed to join the Super Heros, and be allowed to learn the password to the secret treehouse?

No. It's a mens only club.

 

[ding]

And who is the militia, tard?

I doubt you would be one. I'll let Founding Fathers Richard Lee, James Madison, Noah Webster and George Mason respond to your insolent question.

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 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

"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

"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

Now do you understand?

I never did not understand.

If they try to drive a Abrams tank up to my house, I'm going top shoot out their headlights with my .22!

Who are you trying to fool, you don't even own a peashooter let alone a rimfire.

With all due respect, most liberals do have peashooters. They keep them in their pants.

That's probably true. No wonder they don't want anyone to own a weapon.

 

[miketx]

And who is the militia, tard?

I doubt you would be one. I'll let Founding Fathers Richard Lee, James Madison, Noah Webster and George Mason respond to your insolent question.

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 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

"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

"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

Now do you understand?

I never did not understand.

You could have fooled me that you never did not understand.

Then you're fooling yourself. I'm as conservative as they come. When I asked you who were the militia I thought you were another libtard hammering against guns.

 

[Vandalshandle]

Drat! And I just invested $400 in new Camos to wear when I play in the woods....

 

[Vandalshandle]

If you let me in, I'll Bring my entire collection of Rambo movies!

 

[frigidweirdo]

No mind reader, and you clearly didn't read what I had actually written either. You decided what I had written meant something that it didn't say. It happens too much for me not to get annoyed at it.

I am absolutely 100% positive that I read every single word.

Well it's not what light infantry would have. It was always the weapons that citizens carried around in their normal daily life.

I read militia as light infantry because that's what a militia is.

I didn't say there was a limitation on the number of arms. I said what the Amendment means, which is that the feds can't prevent individuals from having arms. If you have a handgun, have I prevented you from having arms? No, I have not. If I prevent you having two guns, am I preventing you from having arms? No, I'm not.

Actually, yes. Yes to are preventing me from having arms. Allowing one and preventing another still is preventing arms. The dead give way is the word preventing.

Maybe you read every word, however a lot of people end up thinking from their preconceived ideas on the subject, rather than trying to understand what is actually there.

The militia isn't "light infantry" at all. The militia is a citizen army. You look at rebel groups, which is what the militia would become if it ever had to fight against the US armed forces, and you see that they use all sorts of weaponry. However in the modern era they'd need more than just guns. In the past it was merely the sort of guns that people had for normal use, and that would be handguns for the most part.

No, allowing one and banning another is NOT preventing you from having arms. It is preventing you from having specific arms. However no one has ever argued that individuals be allowed to have nuclear weaponry, SAM missiles, or other such things. There are clearly limits to what arms can be had.

 

[frigidweirdo]

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.

And who is the militia, tard?

Wow, insults.

 

[rightwinger]

History has shown that because we have such a powerful 1st amendment, we have never needed a 2nd. While the people had a small chance to overthrow the Government using muskets in1776, they have no chance against a modern army Citizens militia did not win the RevolutionaryWar

Maybe not with muskets but with a superior number of citizens armed with modern day semi-automatic rifles, they do. But as I have already written, we won't need to do that because we are armed and an armed populace in and of itself serves as a deterrent to prevent tyranny the same way that nuclear weapons serves as a deterrent to prevent nuclear war. It seems that Founding Fathers, Noah Webster and Alexander Hamilton agree with me on both points too.

"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

"If 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

Now do you understand.

More gun nut fantasies...

Gubmint fucks wit me, I'm gunna grab my shooting iron and me and the boys will put them in their fucking place

Modern Army with modern weapons and tactics will put you in your place

 

[rightwinger]

If you let me in, I'll Bring my entire collection of Rambo movies!

Red Dawn......Wolverine!

 

[ding]

No mind reader, and you clearly didn't read what I had actually written either. You decided what I had written meant something that it didn't say. It happens too much for me not to get annoyed at it.

I am absolutely 100% positive that I read every single word.

Well it's not what light infantry would have. It was always the weapons that citizens carried around in their normal daily life.

I read militia as light infantry because that's what a militia is.

I didn't say there was a limitation on the number of arms. I said what the Amendment means, which is that the feds can't prevent individuals from having arms. If you have a handgun, have I prevented you from having arms? No, I have not. If I prevent you having two guns, am I preventing you from having arms? No, I'm not.

Actually, yes. Yes to are preventing me from having arms. Allowing one and preventing another still is preventing arms. The dead give way is the word preventing.

Maybe you read every word, however a lot of people end up thinking from their preconceived ideas on the subject, rather than trying to understand what is actually there.

The militia isn't "light infantry" at all. The militia is a citizen army. You look at rebel groups, which is what the militia would become if it ever had to fight against the US armed forces, and you see that they use all sorts of weaponry. However in the modern era they'd need more than just guns. In the past it was merely the sort of guns that people had for normal use, and that would be handguns for the most part.

No, allowing one and banning another is NOT preventing you from having arms. It is preventing you from having specific arms. However no one has ever argued that individuals be allowed to have nuclear weaponry, SAM missiles, or other such things. There are clearly limits to what arms can be had.

Semi automatic rifles with high capacity magazine is all we need to maintain liberty and freedom. Plus a good semi-automatic sidearm and shottie. Gotta have the shottie.

 

[ding]

Drat! And I just invested $400 in new Camos to wear when I play in the woods....

If you let me in, I'll Bring my entire collection of Rambo movies!

Let me think about it a minute.

ummmm.... no.

 

[ding]

More gun nut fantasies... Gubmint fucks wit me, I'm gunna grab my shooting iron and me and the boys will put them in their fucking place Modern Army with modern weapons and tactics will put you in your place

Red Dawn......Wolverine!

"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

"If 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

Now do you understand.

 

[rightwinger]

More gun nut fantasies... Gubmint fucks wit me, I'm gunna grab my shooting iron and me and the boys will put them in their fucking place Modern Army with modern weapons and tactics will put you in your place

Red Dawn......Wolverine!

"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

"If 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

Now do you understand.

You make it sound like if you take up arms against our country, you will be the good guys...you won't.

Large numbers of armed citizens without training, leadership, command and control or a logistics system are just targets

 

[ding]

More gun nut fantasies... Gubmint fucks wit me, I'm gunna grab my shooting iron and me and the boys will put them in their fucking place Modern Army with modern weapons and tactics will put you in your place

Red Dawn......Wolverine!

"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

"If 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

Now do you understand.

You make it sound like if you take up arms against our country, you will be the good guys...you won't.

Large numbers of armed citizens without training, leadership, command and control or a logistics system are just targets

Why would I need to take up arms against my country? Like I've already mentioned at least 5 times in this thread, before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed. Do you think you know something I don't, skippy?

Now do you understand?

 

[Dr Grump]

It does negate your point if your point is that citizens are not allowed to own guns unless they are in a militia.

That is my point. Why put the word 'militia' in in the first place? Why not say "All free People, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

it's superfluous otherwise.

 

[Skull Pilot]

More gun nut fantasies... Gubmint fucks wit me, I'm gunna grab my shooting iron and me and the boys will put them in their fucking place Modern Army with modern weapons and tactics will put you in your place

Red Dawn......Wolverine!

"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

"If 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

Now do you understand.

You make it sound like if you take up arms against our country, you will be the good guys...you won't.

Large numbers of armed citizens without training, leadership, command and control or a logistics system are just targets

That's just more of the never gonna happen shit you people love to use as fact like Trump will start a nuclear war

The overwhelming majority of gun owners have no fantasies about taking up arms against the government they like me just know that the government cannot protect you and your family when it is needed the most

 

[frigidweirdo]

No mind reader, and you clearly didn't read what I had actually written either. You decided what I had written meant something that it didn't say. It happens too much for me not to get annoyed at it.

I am absolutely 100% positive that I read every single word.

Well it's not what light infantry would have. It was always the weapons that citizens carried around in their normal daily life.

I read militia as light infantry because that's what a militia is.

I didn't say there was a limitation on the number of arms. I said what the Amendment means, which is that the feds can't prevent individuals from having arms. If you have a handgun, have I prevented you from having arms? No, I have not. If I prevent you having two guns, am I preventing you from having arms? No, I'm not.

Actually, yes. Yes to are preventing me from having arms. Allowing one and preventing another still is preventing arms. The dead give way is the word preventing.

Maybe you read every word, however a lot of people end up thinking from their preconceived ideas on the subject, rather than trying to understand what is actually there.

The militia isn't "light infantry" at all. The militia is a citizen army. You look at rebel groups, which is what the militia would become if it ever had to fight against the US armed forces, and you see that they use all sorts of weaponry. However in the modern era they'd need more than just guns. In the past it was merely the sort of guns that people had for normal use, and that would be handguns for the most part.

No, allowing one and banning another is NOT preventing you from having arms. It is preventing you from having specific arms. However no one has ever argued that individuals be allowed to have nuclear weaponry, SAM missiles, or other such things. There are clearly limits to what arms can be had.

Semi automatic rifles with high capacity magazine is all we need to maintain liberty and freedom. Plus a good semi-automatic sidearm and shottie. Gotta have the shottie.

Liberty and freedom huh? A murder rate 4 times the norm is what you get with less than that. You'd not get liberty and freedom, but fear and killing.

Ever wondered why the US has the highest murder rate in the first world? And why the Americas are much worse than other continents?