The REAL purpose of 2nd Amendment; The no B.S. truth

[M14 Shooter]

[

I dont know where you got the concept that if something can be taken away, it is not a "right." You just dont like guns, and therefore have to justify doing something unconsitutional by calling it a "privlidge. Its the basic intellectual dishonesty i have come to expect from you.

And how does a criminal conpsiracy have a website?

I'm not sure. WTF are you doing visiting the NAMBLA website? Please don't post a link to it if it actually exists.

I have no desire to get the FBI involved in this thread.

If something can be taken away by the government, by society or by other people in general, it isn't a right. It's a privilage.

THat's the cost of living as a social animal.

Probably has been since the first ape-thing got driven out of the pack for doing something the other apes didn't like.

So now that we've established that gun ownership is a privilage, is it one you need?

And the answer is, probably not.

Its not a privlidge, its a right, and nothing you say can change that. You have established nothing, and proven nothing except your intellectual dishonesty.

Also The website is a link at the wikipedia article on it, and No, i didnt click on it.

and clicking on a website does not equal supporting said website. I own a copy of Mein Kampf, it doesnt mean I am a Nazi.

You do recognize that you're arguing with someone who deliberatly sticks his head up his ass just to see how far it will go...

 

[martybegan]

I'm not sure. WTF are you doing visiting the NAMBLA website? Please don't post a link to it if it actually exists.

I have no desire to get the FBI involved in this thread.

If something can be taken away by the government, by society or by other people in general, it isn't a right. It's a privilage.

THat's the cost of living as a social animal.

Probably has been since the first ape-thing got driven out of the pack for doing something the other apes didn't like.

So now that we've established that gun ownership is a privilage, is it one you need?

And the answer is, probably not.

Its not a privlidge, its a right, and nothing you say can change that. You have established nothing, and proven nothing except your intellectual dishonesty.

Also The website is a link at the wikipedia article on it, and No, i didnt click on it.

and clicking on a website does not equal supporting said website. I own a copy of Mein Kampf, it doesnt mean I am a Nazi.

You do recognize that you're arguing with someone who deliberatly sticks his head up his ass just to see how far it will go...

Yep, but his points are a combination of fascist scary and idiot comical that they have to be countered at every turn.

 

[bodecea]

One of our founding fathers was legally blown away. This is how our founders felt about our gun rights!

Legally?

 

[Sallow]

Having read the Federalist Papers, written by the framers of the Constitution, it is clear that the the government was not intending to encourage citizens to arm themselves against a tyranical government. If anything, they were assuming that no standing army would ever be needed in this country, and that the defense of the nation, against domestic and foreign threats, rested permenantly with the militia, and NOT with a standing army. Consequently, the militia must be allowed to be armed, and the government was not going to pay for stocking arsanals for them.

Did you read Hamilton's essays where he acknowledges that the government cannot function effectively without a standing army? Mostly because of expansionism.

 

[Contumacious]

But much to the disappointment of right wing fanatics, the 2nd was, and is, meant to allow citizens to fight WITH their government, NOT against it.

Exaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaactly.

Just be careful when you pry my rifle from my dead cold hands, the barrel will be hot.

.

 

[Sallow]

One of our founding fathers was legally blown away. This is how our founders felt about our gun rights!

Legally?

Not really.

There was no real law "against" dueling. It was frowned upon.

After Hamilton's death, it was pretty much banned.

 

[Sallow]

[

Rights are not privlidges, no matter how many times you run that thought through your feeble little mind. Just because you dont like a given right doesnt mean it instantly loses its right status.

Yes, the Religon would be looked at, but you couldnt do squat about it until they actually performed an illegal act. How do you think NAMBLA can exist?

NAMBLA doesn't exist as a legal organization. It's considered a criminal conspiracy.

(It's also not a religion, BTW)

There are no rights.

There are only privilages society lets you have.

It cannot be a "Right" if it can be taken away from you, as every "Right" in the consitution can be and has at various points in our history.

Just ask the Japanese Americans of 1942 about "rights".

I dont know where you got the concept that if something can be taken away, it is not a "right." You just dont like guns, and therefore have to justify doing something unconsitutional by calling it a "privlidge. Its the basic intellectual dishonesty i have come to expect from you.

And how does a criminal conpsiracy have a website?

Gun ownership isn't the "right" you think it is..

And it's been corrupted by lobbyists and the supreme court.

 

[martybegan]

NAMBLA doesn't exist as a legal organization. It's considered a criminal conspiracy.

(It's also not a religion, BTW)

There are no rights.

There are only privilages society lets you have.

It cannot be a "Right" if it can be taken away from you, as every "Right" in the consitution can be and has at various points in our history.

Just ask the Japanese Americans of 1942 about "rights".

I dont know where you got the concept that if something can be taken away, it is not a "right." You just dont like guns, and therefore have to justify doing something unconsitutional by calling it a "privlidge. Its the basic intellectual dishonesty i have come to expect from you.

And how does a criminal conpsiracy have a website?

Gun ownership isn't the "right" you think it is..

And it's been corrupted by lobbyists and the supreme court.

Please explain, considering I have the wording of the 2nd amendment to consitutionally enforce my intrinsic right to be able to defend myself.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Having read the Federalist Papers, written by the framers of the Constitution, it is clear that the the government was not intending to encourage citizens to arm themselves against a tyranical government. If anything, they were assuming that no standing army would ever be needed in this country, and that the defense of the nation, against domestic and foreign threats, rested permenantly with the militia, and NOT with a standing army. Consequently, the militia must be allowed to be armed, and the government was not going to pay for stocking arsanals for them.

Did you read Hamilton's essays where he acknowledges that the government cannot function effectively without a standing army? Mostly because of expansionism.

Says she who continues to refuse to understand that the constitution does indeed give the federal government the power to raise such an army.

 

[M14 Shooter]

NAMBLA doesn't exist as a legal organization. It's considered a criminal conspiracy.

(It's also not a religion, BTW)

There are no rights.

There are only privilages society lets you have.

It cannot be a "Right" if it can be taken away from you, as every "Right" in the consitution can be and has at various points in our history.

Just ask the Japanese Americans of 1942 about "rights".

I dont know where you got the concept that if something can be taken away, it is not a "right." You just dont like guns, and therefore have to justify doing something unconsitutional by calling it a "privlidge. Its the basic intellectual dishonesty i have come to expect from you.

And how does a criminal conpsiracy have a website?

Gun ownership isn't the "right" you think it is..

This is a lie; gun ownership is EXACTLY the right that I think it is.

And it's been corrupted by lobbyists and the supreme court.

Another lie.

 

[Survivalist]

Stalkers and Shooters: A History of Snipers: Kevin Dockery: 9780425215425: Amazon.com: Books

Read this book last weekend, "Stalkers and Shooters: History of Snipers"; it was fantastic. Documents the history of snipers, from the early 1300's with arrows, up to the Revolutionary and Civil Wars, all the way to modern day military and swat snipers fighting terrorism. More of a detailed history than techincal teaching book.

Anyway, it spoke about the 2nd Amendment. And the real meaning of it within context of what was going on in the country at the time. This is not a political book. Its for no-B.S. military and police people. And here is basically how it lays it out:

The Revolutionary War depended a lot on volunteer militia to fight alongside official military. The problem was, the militia were being provided ammo by the regular troops, and they had to make 7 different types of ammo due to the militia all having different rifles.

The Revolutionary War was turned in large part due to American snipers and their marksmanship and guerilla tactics. They fought ALONGSIDE their government's official troops to fight off the British.

So, to put it bluntly, as the book lays it out, the CONTEXT of the idea behind the 2nd Amendment immediately after the Revolutionary War was a "well regulated" militia, MEANING that the standing government could provide ammunition in times of emergency to the citizens, and with "well regulated" militia, they'd all have a standard caliber ammo so the government could focus on mass producing one type of ammo, and thus, supply as much ammo as possible to it's people.

And that would allow the people to fight ALONG SIDE the regular troops in times of national defense.

THAT, in my opinion, is the true, no bullshit meaning, with historical context and purpose. To have armed citizens, in a common caliber of ammo, that the government can open up the hordes of ammo to should a national emergency or invasion happen.

Its not to allow the citizens to fight against their own government, its to allow them to fight WITH their government. The Revolutionary War showed this, when the Americans tried to supply 7 different types of ammo to the militia, and it was hard, so they determined that a "well regulated" (aka, common caliber) amongst the militia would be a good idea.

And it is. The standard ammo of choice seems to be 5.56/.223, 12 guage, and .45 or 9mm, all very common rounds that the federal, state and local governments use. And they are very popular among citizens.

It seems the 2nd Amendment works, accidentally or on purpose, in that if America were subjected to a mass invasion, the governments could distribute ammo to the people, most of whom would have guns that could fire the most common calibers government uses.



But much to the disappointment of right wing fanatics, the 2nd was, and is, meant to allow citizens to fight WITH their government, NOT against it.

You are only partly right, but on the right track.

Well regulated means the members of the militia(s) are regulated well under a chain of command. They should be well led, well fed, disciplined and armed. You can't have irregular troops running around without supervision. The Founders were NOT talking about gun control, as the gun-phobes imagine.

To see what the Founders expected their troops to be armed with, read the Militia Act of 1792. This allowed the free men to carry whatever they wanted. The cavarly should have pistols. Cannons were even allowed, but not because they were "bad"---but because they were rare, expensive and cumbersome.

no, to understand what is meant by the militia, read what the author, james Madison said about it. he was specific it was a public militia with leaders of their own choosing. not a government run and led militia. what he was talking about had nothing to do with a government managed militia

Let's see what Militia Act of 1792 says about the militia:

III. And be it further enacted, That within one year after the passing of the Act, the militia of the respective states shall be arranged into divisions, brigades, regiments, battalions, and companies, as the legislature of each state shall direct; and each division, brigade, and regiment, shall be numbered at the formation thereof; and a record made of such numbers of the Adjutant-General's office in the state; and when in the field, or in serviced in the state, such division, brigade, and regiment shall, respectively, take rank according to their numbers, reckoning the first and lowest number highest in rank. That if the same be convenient, each brigade shall consist of four regiments; each regiment or two battalions; each battalion of five companies; each company of sixty-four privates. That the said militia shall be officered by the respective states, as follows: To each division on Major-General, with two Aids-de-camp, with the rank of major; to each brigade, one brigadier-major, with the rank of a major; to each company, one captain, one lieutenant, one ensign, four serjeants, four corporals, one drummer, and one fifer and bugler. That there shall be a regimental staff, to consist of one adjutant, and one quartermaster, to rank as lieutenants; one paymaster; one surgeon, and one surgeon's mate; one serjeant-major; one drum- major, and one fife-major.

IV. And be it further enacted, That out of the militia enrolled as is herein directed, there shall be formed for each battalion, as least one company of grenadiers, light infantry or riflemen; and that each division there shall be, at least, one company of artillery, and one troop of horse: There shall be to each company of artillery, one captain, two lieutenants, four serjeants, four corporals, six gunners, six bombardiers, one drummer, and one fifer. The officers to be armed with a sword or hanger, a fusee, bayonet and belt, with a cartridge box to contain twelve cartridges; and each private of matoss shall furnish themselves with good horses of at least fourteen hands and an half high, and to be armed with a sword and pair of pistols, the holsters of which to be covered with bearskin caps. Each dragoon to furnish himself with a serviceable horse, at least fourteen hands and an half high, a good saddle, bridle, mail-pillion and valise, holster, and a best plate and crupper, a pair of boots and spurs; a pair of pistols, a sabre, and a cartouchbox to contain twelve cartridges for pistols. That each company of artillery and troop of house shall be formed of volunteers from the brigade, at the discretion of the Commander in Chief of the State, not exceeding one company of each to a regiment, nor more in number than one eleventh part of the infantry, and shall be uniformly clothed in raiments, to be furnished at their expense, the colour and fashion to be determined by the Brigadier commanding the brigade to which they belong

VI. And be it further enacted, That there shall be an adjutant general appointed in each state, whose duty it shall be to distribute all orders for the Commander in Chief of the State to the several corps; to attend all publick reviews, when the Commander in Chief of the State shall review the militia, or any part thereof; to obey all orders from him relative to carrying into execution, and perfecting, the system of military discipline established by this Act; to furnish blank forms of different returns that may be required; and to explain the principles of which they should be made; to receive from the several officers of the different corps throughout the state, returns of the militia under their command, reporting the actual situation of their arms, accoutrements, and ammunition, their delinquencies, and every other thing which relates to the general advancement of good order and and discipline: All which, the several officers of the division, brigades, regiments, and battalions are hereby required to make in the usual manner, so that the said adjutant general may be duly furnished therewith: From all which returns be shall make proper abstracts, and by the same annually before the Commander in Chief of the State.

The Militia Act of 1792

Look at the next to the last sentance, GOOD ORDER AND DISCIPLINE. I do have a limited military background, and this is the substance I get from "well regulated."

 

[Spoonman]

You are only partly right, but on the right track.

Well regulated means the members of the militia(s) are regulated well under a chain of command. They should be well led, well fed, disciplined and armed. You can't have irregular troops running around without supervision. The Founders were NOT talking about gun control, as the gun-phobes imagine.

To see what the Founders expected their troops to be armed with, read the Militia Act of 1792. This allowed the free men to carry whatever they wanted. The cavarly should have pistols. Cannons were even allowed, but not because they were "bad"---but because they were rare, expensive and cumbersome.

no, to understand what is meant by the militia, read what the author, james Madison said about it. he was specific it was a public militia with leaders of their own choosing. not a government run and led militia. what he was talking about had nothing to do with a government managed militia

Let's see what Militia Act of 1792 says about the militia:

III. And be it further enacted, That within one year after the passing of the Act, the militia of the respective states shall be arranged into divisions, brigades, regiments, battalions, and companies, as the legislature of each state shall direct; and each division, brigade, and regiment, shall be numbered at the formation thereof; and a record made of such numbers of the Adjutant-General's office in the state; and when in the field, or in serviced in the state, such division, brigade, and regiment shall, respectively, take rank according to their numbers, reckoning the first and lowest number highest in rank. That if the same be convenient, each brigade shall consist of four regiments; each regiment or two battalions; each battalion of five companies; each company of sixty-four privates. That the said militia shall be officered by the respective states, as follows: To each division on Major-General, with two Aids-de-camp, with the rank of major; to each brigade, one brigadier-major, with the rank of a major; to each company, one captain, one lieutenant, one ensign, four serjeants, four corporals, one drummer, and one fifer and bugler. That there shall be a regimental staff, to consist of one adjutant, and one quartermaster, to rank as lieutenants; one paymaster; one surgeon, and one surgeon's mate; one serjeant-major; one drum- major, and one fife-major.

IV. And be it further enacted, That out of the militia enrolled as is herein directed, there shall be formed for each battalion, as least one company of grenadiers, light infantry or riflemen; and that each division there shall be, at least, one company of artillery, and one troop of horse: There shall be to each company of artillery, one captain, two lieutenants, four serjeants, four corporals, six gunners, six bombardiers, one drummer, and one fifer. The officers to be armed with a sword or hanger, a fusee, bayonet and belt, with a cartridge box to contain twelve cartridges; and each private of matoss shall furnish themselves with good horses of at least fourteen hands and an half high, and to be armed with a sword and pair of pistols, the holsters of which to be covered with bearskin caps. Each dragoon to furnish himself with a serviceable horse, at least fourteen hands and an half high, a good saddle, bridle, mail-pillion and valise, holster, and a best plate and crupper, a pair of boots and spurs; a pair of pistols, a sabre, and a cartouchbox to contain twelve cartridges for pistols. That each company of artillery and troop of house shall be formed of volunteers from the brigade, at the discretion of the Commander in Chief of the State, not exceeding one company of each to a regiment, nor more in number than one eleventh part of the infantry, and shall be uniformly clothed in raiments, to be furnished at their expense, the colour and fashion to be determined by the Brigadier commanding the brigade to which they belong

VI. And be it further enacted, That there shall be an adjutant general appointed in each state, whose duty it shall be to distribute all orders for the Commander in Chief of the State to the several corps; to attend all publick reviews, when the Commander in Chief of the State shall review the militia, or any part thereof; to obey all orders from him relative to carrying into execution, and perfecting, the system of military discipline established by this Act; to furnish blank forms of different returns that may be required; and to explain the principles of which they should be made; to receive from the several officers of the different corps throughout the state, returns of the militia under their command, reporting the actual situation of their arms, accoutrements, and ammunition, their delinquencies, and every other thing which relates to the general advancement of good order and and discipline: All which, the several officers of the division, brigades, regiments, and battalions are hereby required to make in the usual manner, so that the said adjutant general may be duly furnished therewith: From all which returns be shall make proper abstracts, and by the same annually before the Commander in Chief of the State.

The Militia Act of 1792

Look at the next to the last sentance, GOOD ORDER AND DISCIPLINE. I do have a limited military background, and this is the substance I get from "well regulated."

i don't care what the militia act says. it didn't write the 2nd amendment. Madison did. and madison said the militia was to be a militia of private citizens to be led by leaders of their own choosing. He went on to say how a militia of this caliber and capacity would stad up against a government controlled army and how this militia would be able to provide the people protection against the government

 

[Contumacious]

Gun ownership isn't the "right" you think it is..

And it's been corrupted by lobbyists and the supreme court.

Amazing, gun rights - the right to defend one's life - may have been "corrupted" by lobbyists and the courts.

But welfare rights- the "right" to enslave the taxpayers and force them to support their neighbors - hasn't.

Go fig.

.

 

[hunarcy]

Because the 2nd amendment itself uses the word "militia." Never heard of a militia that included just 1 person.

And yet, it doesn't say, "...the right of the militia to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." which shows your argument is invalid.

It says people as an obvious synonym for the word militia because militia was used earlier in the very same sentence.

So, if it was used earlier, obviously they could spell it. They CHOSE not to, meaning it wasn't limited just to the militia.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

the 2nd was, and is, meant to allow citizens to fight WITH their government, NOT against it.

If that were true, they would have written it that way.

But they didn't.

It simply says that the right of the people cannot be taken away or restricted. And it provides an explanation why... but makes no conditions on its mandate.

Even if somebody managed to prove that a well-regulated militia were NOT necessary for the security of a free states, the 2nd would still be a command that the right shall not be infringed. Period.

Much to the disappointment of left-wing fanatics.

Thats probably because back then, in this new nation, they couldnt forsee a time when people hated the United States government so much. That they could only imagine supporting it and showing patriotism towards it.

They probably couldn't forsee people wanting to fight against the very government that partly makes this country so great.

A "poorly" or non-regulated militia would just be everybody having guns. And thats it.

The "well regulated" part, meaning it has some standards, referred to a common caliber of ammo, so in times of crisis, the government could arm the people with that standard caliber. The sources used in the book explain that. About how the Revolutionary War showed trouble by the American military trying to supply the citizens 7 different calibers of ammo to fight the British, when one.....or a "well regulated" militia.....would have been far more efficient.

If the Founders had wanted to be sure the citizens had the power to overthrow the government, they would've said "The people shall have the right to own weapons far superior to that of the government; And the government shall not own any weapons that are equal or greater than that of common citizens."

But thats not what they said.

Well except that 1/3 of the "people" fought for Great Britain and another 1/3 stayed neutral..

 

[The2ndAmendment]

Thank god this thread was destroyed in post number 3.