Why does the 2nd amendment exist?

[Rustic]

Why does the 2nd amendment exist?

It should be obvious, primarily to protect (NOT grant) the inherent right of the individual to self defense which is meaningless without the ability to acquire the means to exercise it.

Of course the gub'mint worshipers don't care about individual rights and never have, they're just interested in using gun control as a means to further empower the state using ludicrous arguments. Blaming gun ownership for the acts of mass murders is like blaming forks and spoons for the obesity epidemic and suggesting that we further empower the central government to trample all over the rights of individuals while operating under a presumption of guilty until proven innocent is even more ridiculous.

"This may be considered as the true palladium of liberty, The right of self-defense is the first law of nature; in most governments it has been the study of rulers to confine this right within the narrowest limits possible. Whenever standing armies are kept up, and the right of the people to keep and bear arms is, under any color or pretext whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink of destruction. In England, the people have been disarmed, generally, under the specious pretext of preserving the game: a never failing lure to bring over the landed aristocracy to support any measure, under that mask, though calculated for very different purposes. True it is, their bill of rights seems at first view to counteract this policy: but the right of bearing arms is confined to protestants, and the words suitable to their condition and degree, have been interpreted to authorise the prohibition of keeping a gun or other engine for the destruction of game, to any farmer, or inferior tradesman, or other person not qualified to kill game. So that not one man in five hundred can keep a gun in his house without being subject to a penalty." -- Tucker Blackstone

It should be obvious, primarily to protect (NOT grant) the inherent right of the individual to self defense which is meaningless without the ability to acquire the means to exercise it.
Help me out here. Every time I get into a gun argument, folks on your side are pointing out that knives, fists and feet kill more people than guns. Then there are vehicles, shovels, baseball bats.

"Folks on your side" which "side" would that be? Do you perchance mean the side of the individual and his/her inherent rights? 'cause that's the "side" I'm on, which "side" are you on?

How about using them to defend yourself instead, if they're so damned efficient?

"knives, fists and feet" aren't very efficient at defending oneself from aggressors that have guns and the fact that SOME people utilize guns to commit aggression against others makes it more than reasonable to argue that gun ownership is a necessity to fully exercise ones right to self defense.

Personally I wish firearms didn't exist at all but they do, so in order to defend oneself, gun ownership becomes both a reasonable and justifiable means, because they're are irrational and aggressive individuals (not to mention governments) that will happily use them against you.

The less guns that are in legal circulation, the less will be in circulation illegally as well. Nothing is 100%, but I believe the only solution that will have any teeth whatsoever is to severely restrict gun ownership. I have never owned a gun and have never, even at my most vulnerable and about to get gang raped moment, did it ever occur to me to want one. I have certainly never defended myself with one or had one pointed at me. The vast majority of the time that "good guys" are confronted with irrational and aggressive individuals, having a gun does not help or it happens too fast to use it, or something.
No, I don't go along with the stance that the only answer to gun violence is more guns.

Your speaking for yourself... thankfully for nobody else

 

[Rustic]

Help me out here. Every time I get into a gun argument, folks on your side are pointing out that knives, fists and feet kill more people than guns. Then there are vehicles, shovels, baseball bats.
How about using them to defend yourself instead, if they're so damned efficient?

Have you ever tried carrying a concealed shovel into a restaurant?

LOL
Definitely time for the knife.

Point is that guns are designed for convenience, concealment and to poke holes through targets with minimum effort by a person wielding it.

That kind of makes the other tools of dealing death less preferable.

I own a longsword and it can literally take your head off, or rip open your chest cavity. No one would survive a hit from that blade in their head or torso.

But I am not walking around with a longsword hanging from my belt.

As to knives, well there are plenty of criminals who prefer to use them instead of guns and sometimes get nicknames to that effect.

Point is that guns are designed for convenience, concealment and to poke holes through targets with minimum effort by a person wielding it.
That kind of makes the other tools of dealing death less preferable.

Exactly. Which is why I so hate ******* guns.

Keep it to yourself then… No one cares what you think of firearms

 

[Valerie]

The Democrats know that gun control is a losing strategy for them to win elections but they use it to trigger the dumbass Libtards to give them money.

The filthy Democrats have lost 1,000 national seats and Congress and the Presidency with stupid ideas like taking away our Constitutional rights. A great example of the insanity of the Democrat Party. They keep doing the same stupid things over and over again and expecting to get different results.

Question for you stupid Moon Bats. How did it work out for Crooked Hillary to run on a platform to demonize the NRA and advocate taking away the right to keep and bear arms in 2016?

it's called having principles and conviction... your entire premise is FAKE NEWS.

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

The Second Amendment (1791) protects the right of individuals to keep and bear arms. Although the Supreme Court has ruled that this right applies to individuals, not merely to collective militias, it has also held that the government may regulate or place some limits on the manufacture, ownership and sale of firearms or other weapons. Requested by several states during the Constitutional ratification debates, the amendment reflected the lingering resentment over the widespread efforts of the British to confiscate the colonists' firearms at the outbreak of the Revolutionary War. Patrick Henry had rhetorically asked, shall we be stronger, "when we are totally disarmed, and when a British Guard shall be stationed in every house?"
.
.
.
.
it's so liberal to not see the big picture.

They are emotional and hand wringers....**** facts.

Liberals don't hate guns. They only hate it when those against socialist/communist/Marxist government have guns. Our forefathers intended for the people to always hold the power, something that is not possible with the left's vision.

It's an odd thing. The Obama administration ran guns across the border into Mexico, gave them to rebel groups in Syria, and God only knows who else, but does not want American citizens to have access to them.

Very odd. It's almost as if Obama and company distrust the American people above all others.

Of course, they distrust us. They know that the majority of people won't go for their fundamental transformation of America and they would rather we are unarmed and helpless. So much easier to control us that way. Every dictator in history disarmed the people before introducing their radical new government.

That is why libs never complain about the more common ways that people kill, like knives. Only guns are a threat to a corrupt government.

The second amendment ensures our freedom and liberty, two things that cannot exist in the liberal utopia. It's amazing how many believe we live in a democracy. Of course, Hillary and her cronies are demanding as much since she lost the election. Our forefathers chose to be a republic and we have the electoral system for a reason, mainly to prevent the country from imploding. Yet, the left, who never learn from history, support the bull that Hillary and the left puts out there.

The ability to arm ourselves against all dangers, whether it's a home invasion or a corrupt government attempting to shred the constitution, is something we need if we are to sustain this nation and keep our freedom and liberty.



"Firstly, if I may shock you; we are not a democracy. The founding fathers studied all forms of government through history (until 1787) and decided to make us a Constitutional Republic. Why? They realized that most democracies eventually descend into mob rule and the majority is easily manipulated by those giving them the most gifts. As Benjamin Franklin said; “Democracy is like two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch.”

John Adams said this, “Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There was never a democracy yet that did not commit suicide.” While we have some democratic elements in our governmental processes, we were founded as a Republic with elected representation, the strongest of which was supposed to be the one closest to the people."




Democracy: Two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch

The Liberals' Goal Is to Make the Right Wing They Were Born in Look Good by Comparison

If you say so. Since you think the majority of Americans are feral predators, your kind never belonged here and must be deported. Any majoritarian populist with any pride will rise up against elitists with your conceited attitude towards the rest of us.

 

[Rustic]

It should be obvious, primarily to protect (NOT grant) the inherent right of the individual to self defense which is meaningless without the ability to acquire the means to exercise it.

Of course the gub'mint worshipers don't care about individual rights and never have, they're just interested in using gun control as a means to further empower the state using ludicrous arguments. Blaming gun ownership for the acts of mass murders is like blaming forks and spoons for the obesity epidemic and suggesting that we further empower the central government to trample all over the rights of individuals while operating under a presumption of guilty until proven innocent is even more ridiculous.

"This may be considered as the true palladium of liberty, The right of self-defense is the first law of nature; in most governments it has been the study of rulers to confine this right within the narrowest limits possible. Whenever standing armies are kept up, and the right of the people to keep and bear arms is, under any color or pretext whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink of destruction. In England, the people have been disarmed, generally, under the specious pretext of preserving the game: a never failing lure to bring over the landed aristocracy to support any measure, under that mask, though calculated for very different purposes. True it is, their bill of rights seems at first view to counteract this policy: but the right of bearing arms is confined to protestants, and the words suitable to their condition and degree, have been interpreted to authorise the prohibition of keeping a gun or other engine for the destruction of game, to any farmer, or inferior tradesman, or other person not qualified to kill game. So that not one man in five hundred can keep a gun in his house without being subject to a penalty." -- Tucker Blackstone

It should be obvious, primarily to protect (NOT grant) the inherent right of the individual to self defense which is meaningless without the ability to acquire the means to exercise it.
Help me out here. Every time I get into a gun argument, folks on your side are pointing out that knives, fists and feet kill more people than guns. Then there are vehicles, shovels, baseball bats.

"Folks on your side" which "side" would that be? Do you perchance mean the side of the individual and his/her inherent rights? 'cause that's the "side" I'm on, which "side" are you on?

How about using them to defend yourself instead, if they're so damned efficient?

"knives, fists and feet" aren't very efficient at defending oneself from aggressors that have guns and the fact that SOME people utilize guns to commit aggression against others makes it more than reasonable to argue that gun ownership is a necessity to fully exercise ones right to self defense.

Personally I wish firearms didn't exist at all but they do, so in order to defend oneself, gun ownership becomes both a reasonable and justifiable means, because they're are irrational and aggressive individuals (not to mention governments) that will happily use them against you.

The less guns that are in legal circulation, the less will be in circulation illegally as well.

LOL, where the hell did you come up with that hair brained logic? You want to disarm the law abiding citizens with the hope & a prayer that the non law abiding citizens won't be able to arm themselves through the black market? when did anything like that ever happen in the history of mankind? and while you're at it are you going to disarm the greatest purveyor of violence in the history of mankind (aka government) too?

How many times do you have to see government prohibitions in action before you realize they don't automagically change criminals into law abiding, peaceful people, they only make being a criminal more lucrative.

Nothing is 100%, but I believe the only solution that will have any teeth whatsoever is to severely restrict gun ownership.

Well that answers the question as to which "side" you're on, did you receive your "Screw the individual, I'm a statist!" coffee mug, tote bag and badge in the mail yet?

No, I don't go along with the stance that the only answer to gun violence is more guns.

The only answer to violence is to deal with the root cause, violent individuals and the best place to start reducing that count is with the locale were most of the violent individuals reside, in government, NOT by trampling all over the individual liberty of law abiding, peaceful citizens that are only seeking to protect themselves.

LOL, where the hell did you come up with that hair brained logic?
I'd love to take credit for creative thinking here, but I don't believe I'm the sole holder of that belief. It isn't a belief, actually; it is a FACT that the majority of guns confiscated in crimes were illegally held and they had ONCE UPON A TIME been legally owned, eventually falling into the wrong hands. Guns float. Less guns floating, less criminally held. It's a fact.
And it works in Europe and every place else where guns are not a God Given Right. Nothing's perfect but we in this country have an obscene amount of gun murder and at least a huge reason for that is how many guns are lying around.
BTW it's hare brained.

People kill people not firearms

 

[NYcarbineer]

The Second Amendment (1791) protects the right of individuals to keep and bear arms. Although the Supreme Court has ruled that this right applies to individuals, not merely to collective militias, it has also held that the government may regulate or place some limits on the manufacture, ownership and sale of firearms or other weapons. Requested by several states during the Constitutional ratification debates, the amendment reflected the lingering resentment over the widespread efforts of the British to confiscate the colonists' firearms at the outbreak of the Revolutionary War. Patrick Henry had rhetorically asked, shall we be stronger, "when we are totally disarmed, and when a British Guard shall be stationed in every house?"
.
.
.
.
it's so liberal to not see the big picture.

They are emotional and hand wringers....**** facts.

But the Founding Fathers never intended the second amendment to mean we could bear arms, just militias.

They just forgot to enforce this for about 200 years or so.

Honestly, I believe they made the wording of the 2nd Amendment fuzzy on purpose because when the issue came up, there was as much heated, stiff necked argument about it then as we have today.

Most likely Trump will be able to nominate a couple three more supreme court justices... that will secure the second amendment for a generation or more…

When has the Supreme Court not secured the 2nd amendment?

The constant drumming of challenges to the 2nd will be ignored with constitutional justices

lol, that is a logical fallacy known as Begging the Question. Look it up. Learn something.

 

[federalist50]

The Second Amendment (1791) protects the right of individuals to keep and bear arms. Although the Supreme Court has ruled that this right applies to individuals, not merely to collective militias, it has also held that the government may regulate or place some limits on the manufacture, ownership and sale of firearms or other weapons. Requested by several states during the Constitutional ratification debates, the amendment reflected the lingering resentment over the widespread efforts of the British to confiscate the colonists' firearms at the outbreak of the Revolutionary War. Patrick Henry had rhetorically asked, shall we be stronger, "when we are totally disarmed, and when a British Guard shall be stationed in every house?"
.
.
.
.
it's so liberal to not see the big picture.

They are emotional and hand wringers....**** facts.

The primary purpose of the 2nd amendment is so simple, but hard for the left to comprehend. The British tried to disarm the colonist's, in order to force them to tow the line. The Founding Father's gave us the right to bear arms so we could protect ourselves from a tyrannical government. The left wants to take away guns citizens for the same reason the communist's in Russia & Cuba and Adolph Hitler in Germany disarmed their people after coming into power. It's much easier to control people if they are unable to resist and make no mistake, the left wants to control every aspect of our lives! the left doesn't realize that the 2nd amendment protects the 1st amendment!

 

[Rustic]

"Folks on your side" which "side" would that be? Do you perchance mean the side of the individual and his/her inherent rights? 'cause that's the "side" I'm on, which "side" are you on?

"knives, fists and feet" aren't very efficient at defending oneself from aggressors that have guns and the fact that SOME people utilize guns to commit aggression against others makes it more than reasonable to argue that gun ownership is a necessity to fully exercise ones right to self defense.

Personally I wish firearms didn't exist at all but they do, so in order to defend oneself, gun ownership becomes both a reasonable and justifiable means, because they're are irrational and aggressive individuals (not to mention governments) that will happily use them against you.

The less guns that are in legal circulation, the less will be in circulation illegally as well. Nothing is 100%, but I believe the only solution that will have any teeth whatsoever is to severely restrict gun ownership. I have never owned a gun and have never, even at my most vulnerable and about to get gang raped moment, did it ever occur to me to want one. I have certainly never defended myself with one or had one pointed at me. The vast majority of the time that "good guys" are confronted with irrational and aggressive individuals, having a gun does not help or it happens too fast to use it, or something.
No, I don't go along with the stance that the only answer to gun violence is more guns.

And that is your right. But, you don't have the right to restrict anyone else's legal exercise of their rights because you are "uncomfortable".

Well, unless you're a totalitarian thinker.

Unless you are an anarchist opposed to all laws, you have no right to call me totalitarian for calling for restriction on gun ownership.

Why not? Guns are PROTECTED by our Constitution. The 2nd is there to HALT totalitarian federal govt. What else should people call you?

It is my belief that the Founding Fathers kicked the can down the road not only on the issue of slavery, but also on the issue of who should own guns. That's why the 2nd is open to interpretation. It was interpretation by the Supreme Court that gave us the insane "right" you believe was bestowed upon you by God at your birth.
The Constitution also allows alteration. Like we did with slavery. I have hope that someday our insane gun rights will also be changed. I am not a totalitarian.

You're sick in the head

 

[Rustic]

Trying to rationalize our freedoms away. Awesome.

Oh shut up, you brat.
Being free to own and operate a tool designed solely to kill is beyond the pale, imo.

But you have no problems with abortion clinics and some 60 million murdered babies though, right?

Depends on the individual state; some states considered everybody to be in the 'militia', particularly low population states.

The People are the Militia in the US.

Who were considered 'people' was determined by the respective state governments, not the Federal govt.

Go buddy up with Chuz and start that thread somewhere else.

No need to; we know you don't give a crap about human life at all, and your don't like guns because it's a fashionable meme for your peer group, is all.

LOL. If that misconception floats your boat, fine.
I believe in quality of life, and that includes many, many, many less guns about.

Without firearms there would be no sort of Quality of life in this country… Fact

 

[ColonelAngus]

The left will not stop until the USA is socialist.

More government, more taxes, more power!

Less freedom!!

 

[airplanemechanic]

******* washington post, I replied to a liberal rant comment on an article about this shooting and my reply was about guns making a pro-gun rant and within 3 minutes my reply was removed. But all the liberal anti-gun rants are allowed to stay. **** the WAPO.

 

[ColonelAngus]

Progs should address mental health, not sweeping gun control. They just want to expand government.

 

[Spare_change]

And because nowhere in the constitution does it say that conviction of a felony means you lose you right to bear arms, the day you are released from prison you are given your guns back, preferably cleaned and well oiled and ready for use.

Nowhere in the Constitution does it say that child pornography is NOT protected by the 1st Amendment either.

Perhaps you fail to understand the purpose of the Constitution. It isn't a laundry list of do's and don'ts for the people. It is an enumeration of permissions for the government, a definition of the government, if you will. Further, "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people" Thus, banning child pornography is, and should be, controlled by the States. This means, simply, that the federal government cannot expand its control without permission of the states, or the people. Of course, we have violated this hundreds of time, all in the name of "the general welfare".

We have committed numerous sins in the name of "the general welfare" clause. James Madison, one of the collaborators who developed the Constitution would tell you that if it ain't in the Constitution, you can do whatever you wish. Alexander Hamilton, on the other hand, believes that the "general welfare" clause allows the government to do whatever they wish - as long as they cloak it in promoting the general welfare.

Such is the Constitutional argument that continues until today.

You missed the point. Carry on.

And because nowhere in the constitution does it say that conviction of a felony means you lose you right to bear arms, the day you are released from prison you are given your guns back, preferably cleaned and well oiled and ready for use.

Nowhere in the Constitution does it say that child pornography is NOT protected by the 1st Amendment either.

Perhaps you fail to understand the purpose of the Constitution. It isn't a laundry list of do's and don'ts for the people. It is an enumeration of permissions for the government, a definition of the government, if you will. Further, "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people" Thus, banning child pornography is, and should be, controlled by the States. This means, simply, that the federal government cannot expand its control without permission of the states, or the people. Of course, we have violated this hundreds of time, all in the name of "the general welfare".

We have committed numerous sins in the name of "the general welfare" clause. James Madison, one of the collaborators who developed the Constitution would tell you that if it ain't in the Constitution, you can do whatever you wish. Alexander Hamilton, on the other hand, believes that the "general welfare" clause allows the government to do whatever they wish - as long as they cloak it in promoting the general welfare.

Such is the Constitutional argument that continues until today.

You missed the point. Carry on.

if so, it is because you failed to make your point.

 

[ColonelAngus]

******* washington post, I replied to a liberal rant comment on an article about this shooting and my reply was about guns making a pro-gun rant and within 3 minutes my reply was removed. But all the liberal anti-gun rants are allowed to stay. **** the WAPO.

That shit goes on EVERYWHERE...

Progs DO NOT SUPPORT FREE SPEECH.

Fall in line or be marginalized and attacked personally.

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

Point is that guns are designed for convenience, concealment and to poke holes through targets with minimum effort by a person wielding it.
That kind of makes the other tools of dealing death less preferable.

Exactly. Which is why I so hate ******* guns.

I have served five years in the infantry and lived in the barracks the entire time.

We had a certain amount of order instilled by the USMJ, but the biggest baddest guys still had a lot of 'weight' to throw around. I think you would have hated that environment even more than guns.

IF we did magically get rid of all guns, then we would have a society where those trained to use swords all their lives would have the inherent advantage over everyone else when it came to the use of force. This was the foundational advantage that the nobility of Europe had for centuries and used to keep peasants in their place along with everyone else as well (but 98% of us would have been peasants).

So I love me my guns. They literally give us the ability to secure our freedoms.

If the LIB were able to take away everyone's guns and the only other alternative was for people to carry around swords the ******* LIBs would be trying to take away everyone's swords!

Bait and Switch

"LIBs"? When gunowners become union men, the Connies will demand gun control. They support gun rights now only because they'll use that to get gunowners to vote for them and submit to economic elitism, which is all the Scrooges and Robber Barons care about.

 

[Spare_change]

Help me out here. Every time I get into a gun argument, folks on your side are pointing out that knives, fists and feet kill more people than guns. Then there are vehicles, shovels, baseball bats.
How about using them to defend yourself instead, if they're so damned efficient?

Have you ever tried carrying a concealed shovel into a restaurant?

Once .... I was asked to leave (after I shoveled the sidewalk)

 

[Taz]

The 2nd Amendment exists to give everyone a sense of freedom, when actually, there are all kinds of weapons the government won't allow you to own, like bazookas, grenades, rocket launchers, F-16s... so if anyone is attempting to argue that their guns are to protect them against tyranny, well, here's a news flash: IT DIDN'T WORK!

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

the second amendment speaks to what is "NECESSARY TO THE SECURITY OF A FREE STATE" namely a "WELL REGULATED MILITIA".

SO "the right of the people to keep and bear arms" is limited to those parameters ^


SCOTUS has ruled that "the people" applies to individuals bearing arms for all LAWFUL PURPOSES.

COTUS Is Anal Coitus

Gun rights are natural rights and have nothing to do with the Constitution, which is an anti-democratic manifesto that establishes elitist rule.

 

[Taz]

the second amendment speaks to what is "NECESSARY TO THE SECURITY OF A FREE STATE" namely a "WELL REGULATED MILITIA".

SO "the right of the people to keep and bear arms" is limited to those parameters ^


SCOTUS has ruled that "the people" applies to individuals bearing arms for all LAWFUL PURPOSES.

COTUS Is Anal Coitus

Gun rights are natural rights and have nothing to do with the Constitution, which is an anti-democratic manifesto that establishes elitist rule.

What is a "natural right"? And from whose authority does that come from?

 

[NightFox]

It should be obvious, primarily to protect (NOT grant) the inherent right of the individual to self defense which is meaningless without the ability to acquire the means to exercise it.
Help me out here. Every time I get into a gun argument, folks on your side are pointing out that knives, fists and feet kill more people than guns. Then there are vehicles, shovels, baseball bats.

"Folks on your side" which "side" would that be? Do you perchance mean the side of the individual and his/her inherent rights? 'cause that's the "side" I'm on, which "side" are you on?

How about using them to defend yourself instead, if they're so damned efficient?

"knives, fists and feet" aren't very efficient at defending oneself from aggressors that have guns and the fact that SOME people utilize guns to commit aggression against others makes it more than reasonable to argue that gun ownership is a necessity to fully exercise ones right to self defense.

Personally I wish firearms didn't exist at all but they do, so in order to defend oneself, gun ownership becomes both a reasonable and justifiable means, because they're are irrational and aggressive individuals (not to mention governments) that will happily use them against you.

The less guns that are in legal circulation, the less will be in circulation illegally as well. Nothing is 100%, but I believe the only solution that will have any teeth whatsoever is to severely restrict gun ownership. I have never owned a gun and have never, even at my most vulnerable and about to get gang raped moment, did it ever occur to me to want one. I have certainly never defended myself with one or had one pointed at me. The vast majority of the time that "good guys" are confronted with irrational and aggressive individuals, having a gun does not help or it happens too fast to use it, or something.
No, I don't go along with the stance that the only answer to gun violence is more guns.

Trying to rationalize our freedoms away. Awesome.

Oh shut up, you brat.
Being free to own and operate a tool designed solely to kill is beyond the pale, imo.

yes, i love freedom so i am a brat.

No, you're a brat because you're bratty however, one chooses to refrain from focusing on said brattiness because you happen to be a freedom loving brat.

"Tell me something I don't know." -- Foxy Cleopatra, Austin Powers In Goldmember