Where is it written that 2nd Amend is to keep Govt. in Check?

[bigrebnc1775]

The traditional state militias were redefined and recreated as the "organized militia" – the National Guard, via the Militia Act of 1903. They were now subject to an increasing amount of federal control, including having arms and accouterments supplied by the central government, federal funding, and numerous closer ties to the Regular Army.

The National Guard may receive state funding however in most states it primarily funded through the federal government. The Army Reserve is solely funded by the federal government. It is also, however, restricted by posse comitatus.

National Guard of the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

And what about the unorganized militia?

Something no gun grabber wants to address.

 

[asterism]

National Guard of the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

And what about the unorganized militia?

Something no gun grabber wants to address.

Oh but they do.

That's what this attempted marginalization of gun owners and dancing on the graves of children is all about.

The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Reasonable people can and have disagreed about the exact meaning of that part of our freedom. Most people and SCOTUS have agreed to general terms with regards to practical limits and liberties. Future reasonable debates will happen, but those choosing to demonize (as opposed to those just poking fun or being hyperbolic) gun owners have an agenda that is clear - total disarmament in favor of a government that can and will dictate the terms of liberty.

It has failed each and every time it's been tried.

 

[Inthemiddle]

Then show me a state National Guard unit that is not subject to mandatory Federal training, Federal arms, and Federal control. No state has a militarized force that is not conscripted into and trained by the Federal forces.

I'm not really sure what you're trying to get at here. The states alone have the constitutional authority to to train the militia. Congress' constitutional part is to set forth standards for such training. The fact that the modern National Guard trains with the federal components is by state consent.

The National Guard of the various states remain in the control of the state, except for when called upon for federal service, as the constitution explicitly grants the federal government power to do. When called upon for federal service, the respective guard units are controlled by the federal government. When that service is completed, they revert back to state control. That is why National Guard take a different oath of enlistment than Regular and Reserve components. Guardsmen are obligated to the state.

 

[Inthemiddle]

The traditional state militias were redefined and recreated as the "organized militia" – the National Guard, via the Militia Act of 1903. They were now subject to an increasing amount of federal control, including having arms and accouterments supplied by the central government, federal funding, and numerous closer ties to the Regular Army.

The National Guard may receive state funding however in most states it primarily funded through the federal government. The Army Reserve is solely funded by the federal government. It is also, however, restricted by posse comitatus.

National Guard of the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You omitted the part that talks about the "unorganized militia" which is pretty much every other person in the country.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

The traditional state militias were redefined and recreated as the "organized militia" – the National Guard, via the Militia Act of 1903. They were now subject to an increasing amount of federal control, including having arms and accouterments supplied by the central government, federal funding, and numerous closer ties to the Regular Army.

The National Guard may receive state funding however in most states it primarily funded through the federal government. The Army Reserve is solely funded by the federal government. It is also, however, restricted by posse comitatus.

National Guard of the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You omitted the part that talks about the "unorganized militia" which is pretty much every other person in the country.

You didn't know that she dishonest that way and doesn't give a damn?

 

[Lakhota]

 

[Synthaholic]

Wingnuts keep saying the Second Amendment is to keep the government in check.

Where is this written in the Constitution?

So, what you're saying is that you don't understand what the founders meant by the second amendment?

No.

 

[Inthemiddle]

Wingnuts keep saying the Second Amendment is to keep the government in check.

Where is this written in the Constitution?

So, what you're saying is that you don't understand what the founders meant by the second amendment?

No.

Apparently it is. The ability of the people to undo a tyrannical government was unquestionably a driving force behind the second amendment.

 

[zonly1]

Wingnuts keep saying the Second Amendment is to keep the government in check.

Where is this written in the Constitution?

The last statement clyde. The people have a right to bear arms and for the purpose to protect those rights against a growing tyrannical gov't; therefore the prevention of TYRANNY.

NOT ABOUT HUNTING AS MANY OF YOU HAVE CLAIM.

 

[Lakhota]

So, what you're saying is that you don't understand what the founders meant by the second amendment?

No.

Apparently it is. The ability of the people to undo a tyrannical government was unquestionably a driving force behind the second amendment.

Like in Syria?

 

[Meathead]

The Second Amendment was clearly written to empower the people to protect their freedom from domestic or foreign threat. It was written by those who had a well-founded distrust of government and foresaw the day when oppressive government would seek to limit their freedoms. They were indeed prophetic.

 

[Wicked Jester]

To keep government in check:

Declaration of Independence:

That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

Noah Webster:



James Madison's original wording of the Second Amendment:

The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country; but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person.

There are several Supreme Court decisions which explain that the amendment is not saying you must belong to a standing or existing militia to own a gun, but that every able bodied man must be able to possess a gun in the event they are needed to be called upon to defend their country.

So the founders were well aware of this idea that guns should be allowed in order to secure people's right to wage war on the United States and THEY LEFT IT OUT.

So it appears that it was a deliberate decision NOT to include this rationale in the Constitution.

You've always seemed to be a pretty level header poster to me (up to now). I can't believe you are supporting this absurd idea that the 2nd secures your "right" to wage war on the U.S.

It's about our citizens "right" to be able to defend themselves should the government choose to "wage war" on it's citizens, not the other way around, dog.....And that is exactly what the framers meant when crafting the 2nd.

How anybody cannot understand that, is beyond me.

 

[bayoubill]

To keep government in check:

Declaration of Independence:

That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

Noah Webster:

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 band of regular troops that can be, on any pretence, raised in the United States.

James Madison's original wording of the Second Amendment:

The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country; but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person.

There are several Supreme Court decisions which explain that the amendment is not saying you must belong to a standing or existing militia to own a gun, but that every able bodied man must be able to possess a gun in the event they are needed to be called upon to defend their country.

So the founders were well aware of this idea that guns should be allowed in order to secure people's right to wage war on the United States and THEY LEFT IT OUT.

So it appears that it was a deliberate decision NOT to include this rationale in the Constitution.

You've always seemed to be a pretty level header poster to me (up to now). I can't believe you are supporting this absurd idea that the 2nd secures your "right" to wage war on the U.S.

Actually, the phrase "a well armed and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country" does indeed, in a brevity of words, directly reflect the intent of the Declaration of Independence, "That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."...

i.e., the best means of keeping the government hereby formed from ever threatening the freedom and security of its own citizens is for the citizens to be armed...

 

[Wicked Jester]

The scotus ALREADY said gun laws are perfectly constitutional.

why do you people act like complete idiots in the face of facts?

The SCOTUS also said that seperate but equal when it came to government actions and public areas was just fine... 100 years ago. They ruled against the civil war amendments due to thier political beliefs.

Whats to stop the judges from doing the same now?

Supreme Court Shoots Down D.C. Gun Ban - ABC News



Writing for the 5-4 majority, Justice Antonin Scalia said that the Constitution protects an individual's right to keep and carry a gun. The decision will affect gun control laws across the country.

"We hold that the District's ban on handgun possession in the home violated the Second Amendment, as does its prohibition against rendering any lawful firearm in the home operable for the purpose of immediate self-defense."

He addressed the "problem of handgun violence" by saying there are a "variety of tools" such as "measures regulating handguns" available

That's about the fifth time you've posted that, TM.....Seriously, do you ever get to the point where you realize that nobody is paying any attention to you, including those who are on the same side of the issue as you?

 

[Synthaholic]

And what about the unorganized militia?

Something no gun grabber wants to address.

Oh but they do.

That's what this attempted marginalization of gun owners and dancing on the graves of children is all about.

The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Reasonable people can and have disagreed about the exact meaning of that part of our freedom. Most people and SCOTUS have agreed to general terms with regards to practical limits and liberties. Future reasonable debates will happen, but those choosing to demonize (as opposed to those just poking fun or being hyperbolic) gun owners have an agenda that is clear - total disarmament in favor of a government that can and will dictate the terms of liberty.

It has failed each and every time it's been tried.

That directly conflicts with "well regulated".

 

[Synthaholic]

So, what you're saying is that you don't understand what the founders meant by the second amendment?

No.

Apparently it is. The ability of the people to undo a tyrannical government was unquestionably a driving force behind the second amendment.

I've still not seen that evidence. I've seen writings by Jefferson, Mason, et al, that shows them to be in favor of this idea. Yet, when it came tiome to write the Constitution and then the Amendments, they apparently thought better, since they did not include this language.

 

[martybegan]

Something no gun grabber wants to address.

Oh but they do.

That's what this attempted marginalization of gun owners and dancing on the graves of children is all about.

The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Reasonable people can and have disagreed about the exact meaning of that part of our freedom. Most people and SCOTUS have agreed to general terms with regards to practical limits and liberties. Future reasonable debates will happen, but those choosing to demonize (as opposed to those just poking fun or being hyperbolic) gun owners have an agenda that is clear - total disarmament in favor of a government that can and will dictate the terms of liberty.

It has failed each and every time it's been tried.

That directly conflicts with "well regulated".

Again, its the milita that has to be well regulated. They did not want a mob of people with no organization. The fact that the states have decided not to even muster the unorganized milita in the recent past does not eliminate the second part of the amendment, which give the right to be armed directly to the people.

 

[Sallow]

It's not a long amendment so lets break it down in the language of the day. "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."

The militia are not regular military but instead are citizens free to pursue their usual occupations yet when called upon for defense they gather their arms and answer the call. Pay attention to the fact the founders were referring to the militia of a country. Those who insisted this be an amendment to the Constitution understood a state to be, as the 1828 dictionary and other historical documents of the day support, an independent nation. The 2nd Amendment was in place to remind the newly formed federal or general government each state's citizenry would be armed and ready to defend themselves should the need arise.

Now you got it!

The US was never meant to have a professional army under federal control.

It was meant to have a part time citizen army that was spread across the states.

Sorta like Switzerland or Sweden.

And I have YET to see one CONSERVATIVE advocate for that original intent.

 

[Sallow]

To keep government in check:

Declaration of Independence:


Noah Webster:



James Madison's original wording of the Second Amendment:


There are several Supreme Court decisions which explain that the amendment is not saying you must belong to a standing or existing militia to own a gun, but that every able bodied man must be able to possess a gun in the event they are needed to be called upon to defend their country.

So the founders were well aware of this idea that guns should be allowed in order to secure people's right to wage war on the United States and THEY LEFT IT OUT.

So it appears that it was a deliberate decision NOT to include this rationale in the Constitution.

You've always seemed to be a pretty level header poster to me (up to now). I can't believe you are supporting this absurd idea that the 2nd secures your "right" to wage war on the U.S.

Actually, the phrase "a well armed and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country" does indeed, in a brevity of words, directly reflect the intent of the Declaration of Independence, "That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."...

i.e., the best means of keeping the government hereby formed from ever threatening the freedom and security of its own citizens is for the citizens to be armed...

Hmm..lots of logical leaps here.

The Declaration is a one shot deal. Never meant to be used for legislative challenges.

The Constitution, however, frowns down upon insurrection and rebellion.

And says so in multiple clauses.

It also grants the federal government a plethora of powers to deal with that.

 

[Sallow]

Oh but they do.

That's what this attempted marginalization of gun owners and dancing on the graves of children is all about.

The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Reasonable people can and have disagreed about the exact meaning of that part of our freedom. Most people and SCOTUS have agreed to general terms with regards to practical limits and liberties. Future reasonable debates will happen, but those choosing to demonize (as opposed to those just poking fun or being hyperbolic) gun owners have an agenda that is clear - total disarmament in favor of a government that can and will dictate the terms of liberty.

It has failed each and every time it's been tried.

That directly conflicts with "well regulated".

Again, its the milita that has to be well regulated. They did not want a mob of people with no organization. The fact that the states have decided not to even muster the unorganized milita in the recent past does not eliminate the second part of the amendment, which give the right to be armed directly to the people.

It's one amendment..not two.

You can't split it up.