The Right To Bear Arms

[P@triot]

Thank God this man has the right to keep and bear arms (despite the left’s deepest desire to strip him of that right)...

Crooks break into home, beat owner with metal pipe. But victim grabs his gun — and the tables turn.

 

[basquebromance]

throughout history, we've seen oppressive governments consolidate and ensure their control over those they govern by taking away the means necessary for citizens to defend themselves.

Wonderful James Madison pointed out that the right to bear arms was a unique historical protection when he said that the Constitution preserves "the advantage of being armed, which Americans possess over the people of almost any other nation where governments are afraid to trust the people with arms."

 

[Flopper]

The deplorable gun fanatics are a bit inconsistent, either you take the sacred constitution literally or you don't.

So if you can carry a fifty caliber you should have the right to own one..

And you must become part of a well regulated militia of course

/----/ Ahhhh, the first straw man argument of the day.
View attachment 180027

The founders state in the amendment their reason for the right. Supporters of the amendment prefer to ignore their reason. If you actually take the time to read the amendment, instead of just focusing on the last phrase you will see that the founder's reason is no longer valid today. It would take a real nut case to believe the security of this nation doesn't rest with military but rather regulated militias that hardly even exist. At the time the 2nd amendment was written, the founders believed that regulated part time citizen militias composed of all citizens with firearms was necessary for the security of the state and thus the people must have the right to bear arms otherwise there could be no militias.

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

/----/ Nice try Gun Grabber. But I take the words of our Founding Fathers over yours any day of the week:

James Madison, author of the 2nd Amendment, Federalist Papers, #46, 1788

Madison clearly states what a militia is and what its purpose is; to counter the federal government. The anti-gun folks pretend this and other documents don’t exist. They wish.

No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms.

Thomas Jefferson, proposal to the Virginia Constitution.

Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom 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 bands of troops, that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States”

Noah Webster, 1787

Like most gun nuts, you just can't stand to quote the whole 2nd amendment, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." You would have to be a little nuts to believe militias are necessary to the security of the nation today and it the militias aren't needed then there is no constitutional bases for the right to bear arms.

Well.... that's stretching things a little far.

The whole point of militias is that they're needed when things have really hit the fan. If things haven't hit the fan, and you say they're not necessary because things haven't hit the fan, then you've got a real problem.

That may well be the view of those today that believe that militias are needed so gun toking patriots can overthrow the government when things don't go their way. However, the founders view was quite different. It was the fear of standing armies that led the founders to prefer the citizen-soldier to the professional. A near-universal assumption of the founding generation was the danger posed by a standing military force. Far from being composed of honorable citizens dutifully serving the interests of the nation, armies were held to be “nurseries of vice,” “dangerous,” and “the grand engine of despotism.” Fear of a standing army and the cost of maintaining it made the militia the overwhelming choice for the defense of the country.

The founders unfortunately were proved wrong in their faith in militia for defense of the nation. In the War of 1812, the United States militia, because of a lack of discipline and poor training, were often routed in battle on open ground by British regulars. The need for a standing army in lieu of relying on militias became evident to all in the 19th century. As standing armies became the bulwark of the nation's defense, after the civil war militias provided law enforcement at local and state level and at times became vigilante groups. They also were called into military service. Most militias today are a far cry from that of the 18th century. Many militias see themselves as the ultimate defense of liberty. However, there is serious doubt that the Founders ever contemplated the use of the militia against the government they had established.
American Resistance to a Standing Army | Teachinghistory.org

 

[Cellblock2429]

/----/ Ahhhh, the first straw man argument of the day.
View attachment 180027

The founders state in the amendment their reason for the right. Supporters of the amendment prefer to ignore their reason. If you actually take the time to read the amendment, instead of just focusing on the last phrase you will see that the founder's reason is no longer valid today. It would take a real nut case to believe the security of this nation doesn't rest with military but rather regulated militias that hardly even exist. At the time the 2nd amendment was written, the founders believed that regulated part time citizen militias composed of all citizens with firearms was necessary for the security of the state and thus the people must have the right to bear arms otherwise there could be no militias.

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

/----/ Nice try Gun Grabber. But I take the words of our Founding Fathers over yours any day of the week:

James Madison, author of the 2nd Amendment, Federalist Papers, #46, 1788

Madison clearly states what a militia is and what its purpose is; to counter the federal government. The anti-gun folks pretend this and other documents don’t exist. They wish.

No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms.

Thomas Jefferson, proposal to the Virginia Constitution.

Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom 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 bands of troops, that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States”

Noah Webster, 1787

Like most gun nuts, you just can't stand to quote the whole 2nd amendment, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." You would have to be a little nuts to believe militias are necessary to the security of the nation today and it the militias aren't needed then there is no constitutional bases for the right to bear arms.

Well.... that's stretching things a little far.

The whole point of militias is that they're needed when things have really hit the fan. If things haven't hit the fan, and you say they're not necessary because things haven't hit the fan, then you've got a real problem.

That may well be the view of those today that believe that militias are needed so gun toking patriots can overthrow the government when things don't go their way. However, the founders view was quite different. It was the fear of standing armies that led the founders to prefer the citizen-soldier to the professional. A near-universal assumption of the founding generation was the danger posed by a standing military force. Far from being composed of honorable citizens dutifully serving the interests of the nation, armies were held to be “nurseries of vice,” “dangerous,” and “the grand engine of despotism.” Fear of a standing army and the cost of maintaining it made the militia the overwhelming choice for the defense of the country.

The founders unfortunately were proved wrong in their faith in militia for defense of the nation. In the War of 1812, the United States militia, because of a lack of discipline and poor training, were often routed in battle on open ground by British regulars. The need for a standing army in lieu of relying on militias became evident to all in the 19th century. As standing armies became the bulwark of the nation's defense, after the civil war militias provided law enforcement at local and state level and at times became vigilante groups. They also were called into military service. Most militias today are a far cry from that of the 18th century. Many militias see themselves as the ultimate defense of liberty. However, there is serious doubt that the Founders ever contemplated the use of the militia against the government they had established.
American Resistance to a Standing Army | Teachinghistory.org

/——/ Nice cut & paste gun grabbers. BTW who won the War of 1812?

 

[9thIDdoc]

/----/ Ahhhh, the first straw man argument of the day.
View attachment 180027

The founders state in the amendment their reason for the right. Supporters of the amendment prefer to ignore their reason. If you actually take the time to read the amendment, instead of just focusing on the last phrase you will see that the founder's reason is no longer valid today. It would take a real nut case to believe the security of this nation doesn't rest with military but rather regulated militias that hardly even exist. At the time the 2nd amendment was written, the founders believed that regulated part time citizen militias composed of all citizens with firearms was necessary for the security of the state and thus the people must have the right to bear arms otherwise there could be no militias.

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

/----/ Nice try Gun Grabber. But I take the words of our Founding Fathers over yours any day of the week:

James Madison, author of the 2nd Amendment, Federalist Papers, #46, 1788

Madison clearly states what a militia is and what its purpose is; to counter the federal government. The anti-gun folks pretend this and other documents don’t exist. They wish.

No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms.

Thomas Jefferson, proposal to the Virginia Constitution.

Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom 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 bands of troops, that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States”

Noah Webster, 1787

Like most gun nuts, you just can't stand to quote the whole 2nd amendment, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." You would have to be a little nuts to believe militias are necessary to the security of the nation today and it the militias aren't needed then there is no constitutional bases for the right to bear arms.

Well.... that's stretching things a little far.

The whole point of militias is that they're needed when things have really hit the fan. If things haven't hit the fan, and you say they're not necessary because things haven't hit the fan, then you've got a real problem.

That may well be the view of those today that believe that militias are needed so gun toking patriots can overthrow the government when things don't go their way. However, the founders view was quite different. It was the fear of standing armies that led the founders to prefer the citizen-soldier to the professional. A near-universal assumption of the founding generation was the danger posed by a standing military force. Far from being composed of honorable citizens dutifully serving the interests of the nation, armies were held to be “nurseries of vice,” “dangerous,” and “the grand engine of despotism.” Fear of a standing army and the cost of maintaining it made the militia the overwhelming choice for the defense of the country.

The founders unfortunately were proved wrong in their faith in militia for defense of the nation. In the War of 1812, the United States militia, because of a lack of discipline and poor training, were often routed in battle on open ground by British regulars. The need for a standing army in lieu of relying on militias became evident to all in the 19th century. As standing armies became the bulwark of the nation's defense, after the civil war militias provided law enforcement at local and state level and at times became vigilante groups. They also were called into military service. Most militias today are a far cry from that of the 18th century. Many militias see themselves as the ultimate defense of liberty. However, there is serious doubt that the Founders ever contemplated the use of the militia against the government they had established.
American Resistance to a Standing Army | Teachinghistory.org

The founders unfortunately were proved wrong in their faith in militia for defense of the nation.

Strange comment. Militias formed this nation from a British colony.

In the War of 1812, the United States militia, because of a lack of discipline and poor training, were often routed in battle on open ground by British regulars.

Really? An outnumbered force composed mostly of militias scored a lopsided victory over the best the British had (considered by the best in the world) at New Orleans after winning fights with American Indians and Spanish.

 

[Cellblock2429]

The founders state in the amendment their reason for the right. Supporters of the amendment prefer to ignore their reason. If you actually take the time to read the amendment, instead of just focusing on the last phrase you will see that the founder's reason is no longer valid today. It would take a real nut case to believe the security of this nation doesn't rest with military but rather regulated militias that hardly even exist. At the time the 2nd amendment was written, the founders believed that regulated part time citizen militias composed of all citizens with firearms was necessary for the security of the state and thus the people must have the right to bear arms otherwise there could be no militias.

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

/----/ Nice try Gun Grabber. But I take the words of our Founding Fathers over yours any day of the week:

James Madison, author of the 2nd Amendment, Federalist Papers, #46, 1788

Madison clearly states what a militia is and what its purpose is; to counter the federal government. The anti-gun folks pretend this and other documents don’t exist. They wish.

No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms.

Thomas Jefferson, proposal to the Virginia Constitution.

Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom 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 bands of troops, that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States”

Noah Webster, 1787

Like most gun nuts, you just can't stand to quote the whole 2nd amendment, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." You would have to be a little nuts to believe militias are necessary to the security of the nation today and it the militias aren't needed then there is no constitutional bases for the right to bear arms.

Well.... that's stretching things a little far.

The whole point of militias is that they're needed when things have really hit the fan. If things haven't hit the fan, and you say they're not necessary because things haven't hit the fan, then you've got a real problem.

That may well be the view of those today that believe that militias are needed so gun toking patriots can overthrow the government when things don't go their way. However, the founders view was quite different. It was the fear of standing armies that led the founders to prefer the citizen-soldier to the professional. A near-universal assumption of the founding generation was the danger posed by a standing military force. Far from being composed of honorable citizens dutifully serving the interests of the nation, armies were held to be “nurseries of vice,” “dangerous,” and “the grand engine of despotism.” Fear of a standing army and the cost of maintaining it made the militia the overwhelming choice for the defense of the country.

The founders unfortunately were proved wrong in their faith in militia for defense of the nation. In the War of 1812, the United States militia, because of a lack of discipline and poor training, were often routed in battle on open ground by British regulars. The need for a standing army in lieu of relying on militias became evident to all in the 19th century. As standing armies became the bulwark of the nation's defense, after the civil war militias provided law enforcement at local and state level and at times became vigilante groups. They also were called into military service. Most militias today are a far cry from that of the 18th century. Many militias see themselves as the ultimate defense of liberty. However, there is serious doubt that the Founders ever contemplated the use of the militia against the government they had established.
American Resistance to a Standing Army | Teachinghistory.org

The founders unfortunately were proved wrong in their faith in militia for defense of the nation.

Strange comment. Militias formed this nation from a British colony.

In the War of 1812, the United States militia, because of a lack of discipline and poor training, were often routed in battle on open ground by British regulars.

Really? An outnumbered force composed mostly of militias scored a lopsided victory over the best the British had (considered by the best in the world) at New Orleans after winning fights with American Indians and Spanish.

/——/ Gun grabbers understand American history the way a pig understands the designated hitter rule.

 

[Cellblock2429]

/----/ Ahhhh, the first straw man argument of the day.
View attachment 180027

The founders state in the amendment their reason for the right. Supporters of the amendment prefer to ignore their reason. If you actually take the time to read the amendment, instead of just focusing on the last phrase you will see that the founder's reason is no longer valid today. It would take a real nut case to believe the security of this nation doesn't rest with military but rather regulated militias that hardly even exist. At the time the 2nd amendment was written, the founders believed that regulated part time citizen militias composed of all citizens with firearms was necessary for the security of the state and thus the people must have the right to bear arms otherwise there could be no militias.

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

/----/ Nice try Gun Grabber. But I take the words of our Founding Fathers over yours any day of the week:

James Madison, author of the 2nd Amendment, Federalist Papers, #46, 1788

Madison clearly states what a militia is and what its purpose is; to counter the federal government. The anti-gun folks pretend this and other documents don’t exist. They wish.

No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms.

Thomas Jefferson, proposal to the Virginia Constitution.

Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom 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 bands of troops, that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States”

Noah Webster, 1787

Like most gun nuts, you just can't stand to quote the whole 2nd amendment, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." You would have to be a little nuts to believe militias are necessary to the security of the nation today and it the militias aren't needed then there is no constitutional bases for the right to bear arms.

Well.... that's stretching things a little far.

The whole point of militias is that they're needed when things have really hit the fan. If things haven't hit the fan, and you say they're not necessary because things haven't hit the fan, then you've got a real problem.

That may well be the view of those today that believe that militias are needed so gun toking patriots can overthrow the government when things don't go their way. However, the founders view was quite different. It was the fear of standing armies that led the founders to prefer the citizen-soldier to the professional. A near-universal assumption of the founding generation was the danger posed by a standing military force. Far from being composed of honorable citizens dutifully serving the interests of the nation, armies were held to be “nurseries of vice,” “dangerous,” and “the grand engine of despotism.” Fear of a standing army and the cost of maintaining it made the militia the overwhelming choice for the defense of the country.

The founders unfortunately were proved wrong in their faith in militia for defense of the nation. In the War of 1812, the United States militia, because of a lack of discipline and poor training, were often routed in battle on open ground by British regulars. The need for a standing army in lieu of relying on militias became evident to all in the 19th century. As standing armies became the bulwark of the nation's defense, after the civil war militias provided law enforcement at local and state level and at times became vigilante groups. They also were called into military service. Most militias today are a far cry from that of the 18th century. Many militias see themselves as the ultimate defense of liberty. However, there is serious doubt that the Founders ever contemplated the use of the militia against the government they had established.
American Resistance to a Standing Army | Teachinghistory.org

/——/ Johnny Horton wrote pop songs to teach kids history. So learn something about the War of 1812. A better link with the lyrics:

 

[Flopper]

The founders state in the amendment their reason for the right. Supporters of the amendment prefer to ignore their reason. If you actually take the time to read the amendment, instead of just focusing on the last phrase you will see that the founder's reason is no longer valid today. It would take a real nut case to believe the security of this nation doesn't rest with military but rather regulated militias that hardly even exist. At the time the 2nd amendment was written, the founders believed that regulated part time citizen militias composed of all citizens with firearms was necessary for the security of the state and thus the people must have the right to bear arms otherwise there could be no militias.

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

/----/ Nice try Gun Grabber. But I take the words of our Founding Fathers over yours any day of the week:

James Madison, author of the 2nd Amendment, Federalist Papers, #46, 1788

Madison clearly states what a militia is and what its purpose is; to counter the federal government. The anti-gun folks pretend this and other documents don’t exist. They wish.

No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms.

Thomas Jefferson, proposal to the Virginia Constitution.

Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom 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 bands of troops, that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States”

Noah Webster, 1787

Like most gun nuts, you just can't stand to quote the whole 2nd amendment, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." You would have to be a little nuts to believe militias are necessary to the security of the nation today and it the militias aren't needed then there is no constitutional bases for the right to bear arms.

Well.... that's stretching things a little far.

The whole point of militias is that they're needed when things have really hit the fan. If things haven't hit the fan, and you say they're not necessary because things haven't hit the fan, then you've got a real problem.

That may well be the view of those today that believe that militias are needed so gun toking patriots can overthrow the government when things don't go their way. However, the founders view was quite different. It was the fear of standing armies that led the founders to prefer the citizen-soldier to the professional. A near-universal assumption of the founding generation was the danger posed by a standing military force. Far from being composed of honorable citizens dutifully serving the interests of the nation, armies were held to be “nurseries of vice,” “dangerous,” and “the grand engine of despotism.” Fear of a standing army and the cost of maintaining it made the militia the overwhelming choice for the defense of the country.

The founders unfortunately were proved wrong in their faith in militia for defense of the nation. In the War of 1812, the United States militia, because of a lack of discipline and poor training, were often routed in battle on open ground by British regulars. The need for a standing army in lieu of relying on militias became evident to all in the 19th century. As standing armies became the bulwark of the nation's defense, after the civil war militias provided law enforcement at local and state level and at times became vigilante groups. They also were called into military service. Most militias today are a far cry from that of the 18th century. Many militias see themselves as the ultimate defense of liberty. However, there is serious doubt that the Founders ever contemplated the use of the militia against the government they had established.
American Resistance to a Standing Army | Teachinghistory.org

The founders unfortunately were proved wrong in their faith in militia for defense of the nation.

Strange comment. Militias formed this nation from a British colony.

In the War of 1812, the United States militia, because of a lack of discipline and poor training, were often routed in battle on open ground by British regulars.

Really? An outnumbered force composed mostly of militias scored a lopsided victory over the best the British had (considered by the best in the world) at New Orleans after winning fights with American Indians and Spanish.

In the War of 1812, the militia was a disaster on the battle field. However, they fared better and proved more reliable when protected behind defensive entrenchments and fixed fortifications, as was effectively shown at New Orleans. Because of their overall ineffectiveness and failure during the war, militias were not adequate for the national defense. Military budgets were greatly increased at this time and a smaller, standing federal army, rather than States' militias, was deemed better for the national defense.

After the War of 1812 the state militias would still be called into service to augment the Army but they would never again serve as a primary defense of the nation. They would still be used at the state level to assist in various revolts, uprisings, riots, natural disasters, and to assist law enforcement.
Militia (United States) - Wikipedia

 

[P@triot]

Unfortunately for the U.S. - this is how the left always comes to the table. Unprepared. Uninformed. Uneducated. And extremely emotional.

Failing to understand the distinction between a semi-automatic and automatic weapon tells us you’re dishonest, unserious, or unprepared for the debate.

It’s a prime illustration of why left-wing policy is so detrimental to society.

In a debate imbued with emotion, gun control advocates rely on ignorance

We wouldn’t allow a 1st grader to walk into a test ignorant and emotional. And yet we tolerate progressives creating policy this way and attempting to strip constitutional rights that way.

If You're Trying to Ban Guns, the Least You Could Do Is Learn the Basics

 

[hunarcy]

/----/ Ahhhh, the first straw man argument of the day.
View attachment 180027

The founders state in the amendment their reason for the right. Supporters of the amendment prefer to ignore their reason. If you actually take the time to read the amendment, instead of just focusing on the last phrase you will see that the founder's reason is no longer valid today. It would take a real nut case to believe the security of this nation doesn't rest with military but rather regulated militias that hardly even exist. At the time the 2nd amendment was written, the founders believed that regulated part time citizen militias composed of all citizens with firearms was necessary for the security of the state and thus the people must have the right to bear arms otherwise there could be no militias.

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

/----/ Nice try Gun Grabber. But I take the words of our Founding Fathers over yours any day of the week:

James Madison, author of the 2nd Amendment, Federalist Papers, #46, 1788

Madison clearly states what a militia is and what its purpose is; to counter the federal government. The anti-gun folks pretend this and other documents don’t exist. They wish.

No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms.

Thomas Jefferson, proposal to the Virginia Constitution.

Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom 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 bands of troops, that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States”

Noah Webster, 1787

Like most gun nuts, you just can't stand to quote the whole 2nd amendment, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." You would have to be a little nuts to believe militias are necessary to the security of the nation today and it the militias aren't needed then there is no constitutional bases for the right to bear arms.

Well.... that's stretching things a little far.

The whole point of militias is that they're needed when things have really hit the fan. If things haven't hit the fan, and you say they're not necessary because things haven't hit the fan, then you've got a real problem.

That may well be the view of those today that believe that militias are needed so gun toking patriots can overthrow the government when things don't go their way. However, the founders view was quite different. It was the fear of standing armies that led the founders to prefer the citizen-soldier to the professional. A near-universal assumption of the founding generation was the danger posed by a standing military force. Far from being composed of honorable citizens dutifully serving the interests of the nation, armies were held to be “nurseries of vice,” “dangerous,” and “the grand engine of despotism.” Fear of a standing army and the cost of maintaining it made the militia the overwhelming choice for the defense of the country.

The founders unfortunately were proved wrong in their faith in militia for defense of the nation. In the War of 1812, the United States militia, because of a lack of discipline and poor training, were often routed in battle on open ground by British regulars. The need for a standing army in lieu of relying on militias became evident to all in the 19th century. As standing armies became the bulwark of the nation's defense, after the civil war militias provided law enforcement at local and state level and at times became vigilante groups. They also were called into military service. Most militias today are a far cry from that of the 18th century. Many militias see themselves as the ultimate defense of liberty. However, there is serious doubt that the Founders ever contemplated the use of the militia against the government they had established.
American Resistance to a Standing Army | Teachinghistory.org

The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.-- Thomas Jefferson

Seems he may have considered it more than you thought.

 

[Flopper]

The founders state in the amendment their reason for the right. Supporters of the amendment prefer to ignore their reason. If you actually take the time to read the amendment, instead of just focusing on the last phrase you will see that the founder's reason is no longer valid today. It would take a real nut case to believe the security of this nation doesn't rest with military but rather regulated militias that hardly even exist. At the time the 2nd amendment was written, the founders believed that regulated part time citizen militias composed of all citizens with firearms was necessary for the security of the state and thus the people must have the right to bear arms otherwise there could be no militias.

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

/----/ Nice try Gun Grabber. But I take the words of our Founding Fathers over yours any day of the week:

James Madison, author of the 2nd Amendment, Federalist Papers, #46, 1788

Madison clearly states what a militia is and what its purpose is; to counter the federal government. The anti-gun folks pretend this and other documents don’t exist. They wish.

No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms.

Thomas Jefferson, proposal to the Virginia Constitution.

Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom 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 bands of troops, that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States”

Noah Webster, 1787

Like most gun nuts, you just can't stand to quote the whole 2nd amendment, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." You would have to be a little nuts to believe militias are necessary to the security of the nation today and it the militias aren't needed then there is no constitutional bases for the right to bear arms.

Well.... that's stretching things a little far.

The whole point of militias is that they're needed when things have really hit the fan. If things haven't hit the fan, and you say they're not necessary because things haven't hit the fan, then you've got a real problem.

That may well be the view of those today that believe that militias are needed so gun toking patriots can overthrow the government when things don't go their way. However, the founders view was quite different. It was the fear of standing armies that led the founders to prefer the citizen-soldier to the professional. A near-universal assumption of the founding generation was the danger posed by a standing military force. Far from being composed of honorable citizens dutifully serving the interests of the nation, armies were held to be “nurseries of vice,” “dangerous,” and “the grand engine of despotism.” Fear of a standing army and the cost of maintaining it made the militia the overwhelming choice for the defense of the country.

The founders unfortunately were proved wrong in their faith in militia for defense of the nation. In the War of 1812, the United States militia, because of a lack of discipline and poor training, were often routed in battle on open ground by British regulars. The need for a standing army in lieu of relying on militias became evident to all in the 19th century. As standing armies became the bulwark of the nation's defense, after the civil war militias provided law enforcement at local and state level and at times became vigilante groups. They also were called into military service. Most militias today are a far cry from that of the 18th century. Many militias see themselves as the ultimate defense of liberty. However, there is serious doubt that the Founders ever contemplated the use of the militia against the government they had established.
American Resistance to a Standing Army | Teachinghistory.org

/——/ Johnny Horton wrote pop songs to teach kids history. So learn something about the War of 1812. A better link with the lyrics:

The first thing you need to know about the War of 1812 is the Battle of New Orleans occurred two weeks after the end of the war and had no effect on the outcome. Had communications been better, there would have been no battle and Johnny Horton's greatest hit would have been, "North to Alaska"

 

[Cellblock2429]

/----/ Nice try Gun Grabber. But I take the words of our Founding Fathers over yours any day of the week:

James Madison, author of the 2nd Amendment, Federalist Papers, #46, 1788

Madison clearly states what a militia is and what its purpose is; to counter the federal government. The anti-gun folks pretend this and other documents don’t exist. They wish.

No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms.

Thomas Jefferson, proposal to the Virginia Constitution.

Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom 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 bands of troops, that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States”

Noah Webster, 1787

Like most gun nuts, you just can't stand to quote the whole 2nd amendment, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." You would have to be a little nuts to believe militias are necessary to the security of the nation today and it the militias aren't needed then there is no constitutional bases for the right to bear arms.

Well.... that's stretching things a little far.

The whole point of militias is that they're needed when things have really hit the fan. If things haven't hit the fan, and you say they're not necessary because things haven't hit the fan, then you've got a real problem.

That may well be the view of those today that believe that militias are needed so gun toking patriots can overthrow the government when things don't go their way. However, the founders view was quite different. It was the
fear of standing armies that led the founders to prefer the citizen-soldier to the professional. A near-universal assumption of the founding generation was the danger posed by a standing military force. Far from being composed of honorable citizens dutifully serving the interests of the nation, armies were held to be “nurseries of vice,” “dangerous,” and “the grand engine of despotism.” Fear of a standing army and the cost of maintaining it made the militia the overwhelming choice for the defense of the country.

The founders unfortunately were proved wrong in their faith in militia for defense of the nation. In the War of 1812, the United States militia, because of a lack of discipline and poor training, were often routed in battle on open ground by British regulars. The need for a standing army in lieu of relying on militias became evident to all in the 19th century. As standing armies became the bulwark of the nation's defense, after the civil war militias provided law enforcement at local and state level and at times became vigilante groups. They also were called into military service. Most militias today are a far cry from that of the 18th century. Many militias see themselves as the ultimate defense of liberty. However, there is serious doubt that the Founders ever contemplated the use of the militia against the government they had established.
American Resistance to a Standing Army | Teachinghistory.org

/——/ Johnny Horton wrote pop songs to teach kids history. So learn something about the War of 1812. A better link with the lyrics:

The first thing you need to know about the War of 1812 is the Battle of New Orleans occurred two weeks after the end of the war and had no effect on the outcome. Had communications been better, there would have been no battle and Johnny Horton's greatest hit would have been, "North to Alaska"

/——/ Even left wing Wikipedia says you're wrong. The Battle of New Orleans was a series of engagements fought between December 14, 1814 and January 18, 1815, constituting the last major battle of the War of 1812.[7][8] American combatants,[9] commanded by Major General Andrew Jackson, prevented a much larger British force, commanded by Admiral Alexander Cochrane and General Edward Pakenham, from seizing New Orleans and the vast territory the United States had acquired with the Louisiana Purchase.

 

[Cecilie1200]

The founders state in the amendment their reason for the right. Supporters of the amendment prefer to ignore their reason. If you actually take the time to read the amendment, instead of just focusing on the last phrase you will see that the founder's reason is no longer valid today. It would take a real nut case to believe the security of this nation doesn't rest with military but rather regulated militias that hardly even exist. At the time the 2nd amendment was written, the founders believed that regulated part time citizen militias composed of all citizens with firearms was necessary for the security of the state and thus the people must have the right to bear arms otherwise there could be no militias.

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

/----/ Nice try Gun Grabber. But I take the words of our Founding Fathers over yours any day of the week:

James Madison, author of the 2nd Amendment, Federalist Papers, #46, 1788

Madison clearly states what a militia is and what its purpose is; to counter the federal government. The anti-gun folks pretend this and other documents don’t exist. They wish.

No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms.

Thomas Jefferson, proposal to the Virginia Constitution.

Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom 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 bands of troops, that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States”

Noah Webster, 1787

Like most gun nuts, you just can't stand to quote the whole 2nd amendment, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." You would have to be a little nuts to believe militias are necessary to the security of the nation today and it the militias aren't needed then there is no constitutional bases for the right to bear arms.

Well.... that's stretching things a little far.

The whole point of militias is that they're needed when things have really hit the fan. If things haven't hit the fan, and you say they're not necessary because things haven't hit the fan, then you've got a real problem.

That may well be the view of those today that believe that militias are needed so gun toking patriots can overthrow the government when things don't go their way. However, the founders view was quite different. It was the fear of standing armies that led the founders to prefer the citizen-soldier to the professional. A near-universal assumption of the founding generation was the danger posed by a standing military force. Far from being composed of honorable citizens dutifully serving the interests of the nation, armies were held to be “nurseries of vice,” “dangerous,” and “the grand engine of despotism.” Fear of a standing army and the cost of maintaining it made the militia the overwhelming choice for the defense of the country.

The founders unfortunately were proved wrong in their faith in militia for defense of the nation. In the War of 1812, the United States militia, because of a lack of discipline and poor training, were often routed in battle on open ground by British regulars. The need for a standing army in lieu of relying on militias became evident to all in the 19th century. As standing armies became the bulwark of the nation's defense, after the civil war militias provided law enforcement at local and state level and at times became vigilante groups. They also were called into military service. Most militias today are a far cry from that of the 18th century. Many militias see themselves as the ultimate defense of liberty. However, there is serious doubt that the Founders ever contemplated the use of the militia against the government they had established.
American Resistance to a Standing Army | Teachinghistory.org

The founders unfortunately were proved wrong in their faith in militia for defense of the nation.

Strange comment. Militias formed this nation from a British colony.

In the War of 1812, the United States militia, because of a lack of discipline and poor training, were often routed in battle on open ground by British regulars.

Really? An outnumbered force composed mostly of militias scored a lopsided victory over the best the British had (considered by the best in the world) at New Orleans after winning fights with American Indians and Spanish.

Of course they "got routed on open ground". Fighting a battle on your enemy's terms, using tactics that are badly unsuited to your troops and your equipment, is ALWAYS a bad idea. The militias won because they stuck to tactics that actually suited what they were working with.

 

[Cellblock2429]

/----/ Nice try Gun Grabber. But I take the words of our Founding Fathers over yours any day of the week:

James Madison, author of the 2nd Amendment, Federalist Papers, #46, 1788

Madison clearly states what a militia is and what its purpose is; to counter the federal government. The anti-gun folks pretend this and other documents don’t exist. They wish.

No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms.

Thomas Jefferson, proposal to the Virginia Constitution.

Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom 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 bands of troops, that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States”

Noah Webster, 1787

Like most gun nuts, you just can't stand to quote the whole 2nd amendment, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." You would have to be a little nuts to believe militias are necessary to the security of the nation today and it the militias aren't needed then there is no constitutional bases for the right to bear arms.

Well.... that's stretching things a little far.

The whole point of militias is that they're needed when things have really hit the fan. If things haven't hit the fan, and you say they're not necessary because things haven't hit the fan, then you've got a real problem.

That may well be the view of those today that believe that militias are needed so gun toking patriots can overthrow the government when things don't go their way. However, the founders view was quite different. It was the fear of standing armies that led the founders to prefer the citizen-soldier to the professional. A near-universal assumption of the founding generation was the danger posed by a standing military force. Far from being composed of honorable citizens dutifully serving the interests of the nation, armies were held to be “nurseries of vice,” “dangerous,” and “the grand engine of despotism.” Fear of a standing army and the cost of maintaining it made the militia the overwhelming choice for the defense of the country.

The founders unfortunately were proved wrong in their faith in militia for defense of the nation. In the War of 1812, the United States militia, because of a lack of discipline and poor training, were often routed in battle on open ground by British regulars. The need for a standing army in lieu of relying on militias became evident to all in the 19th century. As standing armies became the bulwark of the nation's defense, after the civil war militias provided law enforcement at local and state level and at times became vigilante groups. They also were called into military service. Most militias today are a far cry from that of the 18th century. Many militias see themselves as the ultimate defense of liberty. However, there is serious doubt that the Founders ever contemplated the use of the militia against the government they had established.
American Resistance to a Standing Army | Teachinghistory.org

The founders unfortunately were proved wrong in their faith in militia for defense of the nation.

Strange comment. Militias formed this nation from a British colony.

In the War of 1812, the United States militia, because of a lack of discipline and poor training, were often routed in battle on open ground by British regulars.

Really? An outnumbered force composed mostly of militias scored a lopsided victory over the best the British had (considered by the best in the world) at New Orleans after winning fights with American Indians and Spanish.

Of course they "got routed on open ground". Fighting a battle on your enemy's terms, using tactics that are badly unsuited to your troops and your equipment, is ALWAYS a bad idea. The militias won because they stuck to tactics that actually suited what they were working with.

/----/ And the British learned nothing from fighting the Revolutionary War against the American militia....

 

[Cecilie1200]

Like most gun nuts, you just can't stand to quote the whole 2nd amendment, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." You would have to be a little nuts to believe militias are necessary to the security of the nation today and it the militias aren't needed then there is no constitutional bases for the right to bear arms.

Well.... that's stretching things a little far.

The whole point of militias is that they're needed when things have really hit the fan. If things haven't hit the fan, and you say they're not necessary because things haven't hit the fan, then you've got a real problem.

That may well be the view of those today that believe that militias are needed so gun toking patriots can overthrow the government when things don't go their way. However, the founders view was quite different. It was the fear of standing armies that led the founders to prefer the citizen-soldier to the professional. A near-universal assumption of the founding generation was the danger posed by a standing military force. Far from being composed of honorable citizens dutifully serving the interests of the nation, armies were held to be “nurseries of vice,” “dangerous,” and “the grand engine of despotism.” Fear of a standing army and the cost of maintaining it made the militia the overwhelming choice for the defense of the country.

The founders unfortunately were proved wrong in their faith in militia for defense of the nation. In the War of 1812, the United States militia, because of a lack of discipline and poor training, were often routed in battle on open ground by British regulars. The need for a standing army in lieu of relying on militias became evident to all in the 19th century. As standing armies became the bulwark of the nation's defense, after the civil war militias provided law enforcement at local and state level and at times became vigilante groups. They also were called into military service. Most militias today are a far cry from that of the 18th century. Many militias see themselves as the ultimate defense of liberty. However, there is serious doubt that the Founders ever contemplated the use of the militia against the government they had established.
American Resistance to a Standing Army | Teachinghistory.org

The founders unfortunately were proved wrong in their faith in militia for defense of the nation.

Strange comment. Militias formed this nation from a British colony.

In the War of 1812, the United States militia, because of a lack of discipline and poor training, were often routed in battle on open ground by British regulars.

Really? An outnumbered force composed mostly of militias scored a lopsided victory over the best the British had (considered by the best in the world) at New Orleans after winning fights with American Indians and Spanish.

Of course they "got routed on open ground". Fighting a battle on your enemy's terms, using tactics that are badly unsuited to your troops and your equipment, is ALWAYS a bad idea. The militias won because they stuck to tactics that actually suited what they were working with.

/----/ And the British learned nothing from fighting the Revolutionary War against the American militia....

Sometimes, your greatest weapon is the ignorance of your enemy.

I mean, look at pretty much any debate against leftists.

 

[2aguy]

Like most gun nuts, you just can't stand to quote the whole 2nd amendment, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." You would have to be a little nuts to believe militias are necessary to the security of the nation today and it the militias aren't needed then there is no constitutional bases for the right to bear arms.

Well.... that's stretching things a little far.

The whole point of militias is that they're needed when things have really hit the fan. If things haven't hit the fan, and you say they're not necessary because things haven't hit the fan, then you've got a real problem.

That may well be the view of those today that believe that militias are needed so gun toking patriots can overthrow the government when things don't go their way. However, the founders view was quite different. It was the fear of standing armies that led the founders to prefer the citizen-soldier to the professional. A near-universal assumption of the founding generation was the danger posed by a standing military force. Far from being composed of honorable citizens dutifully serving the interests of the nation, armies were held to be “nurseries of vice,” “dangerous,” and “the grand engine of despotism.” Fear of a standing army and the cost of maintaining it made the militia the overwhelming choice for the defense of the country.

The founders unfortunately were proved wrong in their faith in militia for defense of the nation. In the War of 1812, the United States militia, because of a lack of discipline and poor training, were often routed in battle on open ground by British regulars. The need for a standing army in lieu of relying on militias became evident to all in the 19th century. As standing armies became the bulwark of the nation's defense, after the civil war militias provided law enforcement at local and state level and at times became vigilante groups. They also were called into military service. Most militias today are a far cry from that of the 18th century. Many militias see themselves as the ultimate defense of liberty. However, there is serious doubt that the Founders ever contemplated the use of the militia against the government they had established.
American Resistance to a Standing Army | Teachinghistory.org

The founders unfortunately were proved wrong in their faith in militia for defense of the nation.

Strange comment. Militias formed this nation from a British colony.

In the War of 1812, the United States militia, because of a lack of discipline and poor training, were often routed in battle on open ground by British regulars.

Really? An outnumbered force composed mostly of militias scored a lopsided victory over the best the British had (considered by the best in the world) at New Orleans after winning fights with American Indians and Spanish.

Of course they "got routed on open ground". Fighting a battle on your enemy's terms, using tactics that are badly unsuited to your troops and your equipment, is ALWAYS a bad idea. The militias won because they stuck to tactics that actually suited what they were working with.

/----/ And the British learned nothing from fighting the Revolutionary War against the American militia....

But they did use assault rifles back then.....muzzle loaders....so once we get AR-15s we will have to ban those military weapons too....

 

[Flopper]

Like most gun nuts, you just can't stand to quote the whole 2nd amendment, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." You would have to be a little nuts to believe militias are necessary to the security of the nation today and it the militias aren't needed then there is no constitutional bases for the right to bear arms.

Well.... that's stretching things a little far.

The whole point of militias is that they're needed when things have really hit the fan. If things haven't hit the fan, and you say they're not necessary because things haven't hit the fan, then you've got a real problem.

That may well be the view of those today that believe that militias are needed so gun toking patriots can overthrow the government when things don't go their way. However, the founders view was quite different. It was the
fear of standing armies that led the founders to prefer the citizen-soldier to the professional. A near-universal assumption of the founding generation was the danger posed by a standing military force. Far from being composed of honorable citizens dutifully serving the interests of the nation, armies were held to be “nurseries of vice,” “dangerous,” and “the grand engine of despotism.” Fear of a standing army and the cost of maintaining it made the militia the overwhelming choice for the defense of the country.

The founders unfortunately were proved wrong in their faith in militia for defense of the nation. In the War of 1812, the United States militia, because of a lack of discipline and poor training, were often routed in battle on open ground by British regulars. The need for a standing army in lieu of relying on militias became evident to all in the 19th century. As standing armies became the bulwark of the nation's defense, after the civil war militias provided law enforcement at local and state level and at times became vigilante groups. They also were called into military service. Most militias today are a far cry from that of the 18th century. Many militias see themselves as the ultimate defense of liberty. However, there is serious doubt that the Founders ever contemplated the use of the militia against the government they had established.
American Resistance to a Standing Army | Teachinghistory.org

/——/ Johnny Horton wrote pop songs to teach kids history. So learn something about the War of 1812. A better link with the lyrics:

The first thing you need to know about the War of 1812 is the Battle of New Orleans occurred two weeks after the end of the war and had no effect on the outcome. Had communications been better, there would have been no battle and Johnny Horton's greatest hit would have been, "North to Alaska"

/——/ Even left wing Wikipedia says you're wrong. The Battle of New Orleans was a series of engagements fought between December 14, 1814 and January 18, 1815, constituting the last major battle of the War of 1812.[7][8] American combatants,[9] commanded by Major General Andrew Jackson, prevented a much larger British force, commanded by Admiral Alexander Cochrane and General Edward Pakenham, from seizing New Orleans and the vast territory the United States had acquired with the Louisiana Purchase.

The major engagements occurred after the British signed the treaty and certainly had no effect on the outcome of the war. In fact treaty negotiations were completed and the final draft had been delivered to London before anyone in Europe knew there was any battle in New Orleans. The King signed the treaty on Dec 30, 1814.

The War of 1812 was seen by the British as a sideshow to the main event which was taking place in Europe. This is why they sent only 7 frigates out of 180 ships of the line to America and 6,000 troops out of 260,000. The remainder were untested troops from the West Indies and Canada. The British certainly could have soundly defeated the Americans and taken back the colonies but that would have cost them the war in Europe.

The war ended in a stalemate. Neither side was victorious. The British burned Washington, repelled a US invasion of lower Canada, and blocked 95% of US shipping bringing the US government to near bankruptcy. The US won major battles in New Orleans, Baltimore, and Pittsburgh.

The war ended because because both sides were tired of the war and neither side had any reason to continue it. With the defeat of Napoleon in 1814, there was no reason for the trade restrictions that started the war. The treaty simply ended the war with without advancing any causes of either side. One thing it did do is establish the United States as an independent nation, capable of defending itself.

 

[P@triot]

This is absolutely priceless. I literally cannot stop laughing. This ignorant Democrat candidate violated federal law trying to score political points.

A Virginia woman running for Congress as a Democrat is now being investigated by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives after she sawed off the barrel of an AR-15 rifle in a political stunt.

These are the people that the left wants in charge of running our nation.

Dem candidate who sawed AR-15 in political stunt gone viral gets hit with major reality check

 

[Cellblock2429]

This is absolutely priceless. I literally cannot stop laughing. This ignorant Democrat candidate violated federal law trying to score political points.

A Virginia woman running for Congress as a Democrat is now being investigated by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives after she sawed off the barrel of an AR-15 rifle in a political stunt.

These are the people that the left wants in charge of running our nation.

Dem candidate who sawed AR-15 in political stunt gone viral gets hit with major reality check

/----/ Further proof gun grabbers are a menace to society.

 

[P@triot]

The indisputable reality that the left cannot bring themselves to admit: the 2nd Amendment is the only amendment without an exception.

The 13th Amendment

Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

So slavery is outlawed - except when a person breaks the law and loses their right to freedom.

The 3rd Amendment

No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

Here again we see an exception. In time of war, the federal government can “quarter” soldiers in your home without your consent.

The 4th Amendment

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Yet again we see an exception. You lose your right to “unreasonable search and seizures” when there is a probable cause.

But the 2nd Amendment not only failed to include an exception, the founders actually went out of their way to adamantly declare it a right than cannot be infringed under any circumstance.

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

Absolutely no exceptions or exemptions on the 2nd Amendment. The left has tried so hard to twist and rewrite the 2nd Amendedment. Unfortunately, they never studied the U.S. Constitution so they aren’t adept at trying to twist it.

Here’s Why the Second Amendment Is the ‘Strongest Right’