Why was the second amendment written?

[Bo Didleysquat]

I doubt many will agree on the purpose of the second amendment, but I'd love to hear why everybody thinks the second amendment was written. Personally, I understand that it was put there so that we could take back our government if they get out of control.

Libs believe the 2nd Amendment was necessary to protect the Army's (the "militia"'s) ability to be armed. Without the 2nd Amendment, our men would have been landing on shore on D-Day with just their dicks in their hands.

The 2nd Amendment guaranteed them the right to be armed and defend them selves.

OTOH, conservatives see the 2nd Amendment as protecting the rights of the people to self defense.

The Constitution established a Navy. It did not establish a standing Army
They relied on well regulated (trained and organized) militias to provide security while we organized an Army
That is what happened in the Revolutionary War

Cute how you selectively use "well regulated" in its correct period context. You still phrased it in a way that supports the current lefty notion that our 2nd amendment right is limited to being in some formally trained government approved militia, but at least you addressebd "some" of the original and correct context. Commies are like weeds. Spray them here, and they just sprout up over there. You got called on your context lie, but here you are organising a new way to exploit the original context.

It is nice how we now have all of the branches of military AND the right to keep and bear arms.

Funny how you present some obscure explanation of “well regulated” while you ignore how well regulated militias of the 18th century were organized and controlled

It's not obscure. It is the meaning of the term at the time. Funnily enough you find well regulated on clocks of the era.

I think you will have a hard time convincing people that government needed to control who could own clocks.

They control the people themselves, that's why they don't mind the people having guns to use on each other because they've seen the public will swallow shit forever and never do anything but turn upon each other.

 

[westwall]

Libs believe the 2nd Amendment was necessary to protect the Army's (the "militia"'s) ability to be armed. Without the 2nd Amendment, our men would have been landing on shore on D-Day with just their dicks in their hands.

The 2nd Amendment guaranteed them the right to be armed and defend them selves.

OTOH, conservatives see the 2nd Amendment as protecting the rights of the people to self defense.

The Constitution established a Navy. It did not establish a standing Army
They relied on well regulated (trained and organized) militias to provide security while we organized an Army
That is what happened in the Revolutionary War

Cute how you selectively use "well regulated" in its correct period context. You still phrased it in a way that supports the current lefty notion that our 2nd amendment right is limited to being in some formally trained government approved militia, but at least you addressebd "some" of the original and correct context. Commies are like weeds. Spray them here, and they just sprout up over there. You got called on your context lie, but here you are organising a new way to exploit the original context.

It is nice how we now have all of the branches of military AND the right to keep and bear arms.

Funny how you present some obscure explanation of “well regulated” while you ignore how well regulated militias of the 18th century were organized and controlled

It's not obscure. It is the meaning of the term at the time. Funnily enough you find well regulated on clocks of the era.

I think you will have a hard time convincing people that government needed to control who could own clocks.

They control the people themselves, that's why they don't mind the people having guns to use on each other because they've seen the public will swallow shit forever and never do anything but turn upon each other.

Yes, government officials, the schools, politicians, and of course, the billionaires who buy those politicians have been hard at work dumbing down the population.

They screwed the pooch with the impeachment though. That woke a lot of people up.

 

[rightwinger]

I doubt many will agree on the purpose of the second amendment, but I'd love to hear why everybody thinks the second amendment was written. Personally, I understand that it was put there so that we could take back our government if they get out of control.

Libs believe the 2nd Amendment was necessary to protect the Army's (the "militia"'s) ability to be armed. Without the 2nd Amendment, our men would have been landing on shore on D-Day with just their dicks in their hands.

The 2nd Amendment guaranteed them the right to be armed and defend them selves.

OTOH, conservatives see the 2nd Amendment as protecting the rights of the people to self defense.

The Constitution established a Navy. It did not establish a standing Army
They relied on well regulated (trained and organized) militias to provide security while we organized an Army
That is what happened in the Revolutionary War

Cute how you selectively use "well regulated" in its correct period context. You still phrased it in a way that supports the current lefty notion that our 2nd amendment right is limited to being in some formally trained government approved militia, but at least you addressebd "some" of the original and correct context. Commies are like weeds. Spray them here, and they just sprout up over there. You got called on your context lie, but here you are organising a new way to exploit the original context.

It is nice how we now have all of the branches of military AND the right to keep and bear arms.

Funny how you present some obscure explanation of “well regulated” while you ignore how well regulated militias of the 18th century were organized and controlled

compared to what you ignore hes spot on,,,and youre a liar and an idiot,,

He is ignorant of the structure of our Colonial Militias.....so are you

 

[rightwinger]

Exactly

That is why we need them well regulated

Careful there, the commies like to conflate a well regulated militia with a militia that is burdened with regulations.

So wrong ^^^. The Framers did by defining a well regulated militia. Read Article I, sec. 8, clause 15 & 16. No where in COTUS is the establishment of a Militia legally established by a bunch of disaffected citizens.

Unless you support and defend the Mafia and Neighborhood Gang members you must agree, that a Well Regulated Militia is what the Framers approved, and not some rubes in camouflage carrying guns and pretending they want to take their country back.

Are you saying that you are one of those commies who wants to conflate "well regulated" with "encumbered with regulations" , as if the original context that lefties try to hide never existed?

Any way you slice it, well regulated means a militia you can depend on. In the 18th century that meant militias that were trained, had an organized structure, were registered as members of the militia and had a record of the arms they possessed

This is great! They had food stamps and section 8 housing back in those days (general welfare) AND gun control laws! They must have been trying to create a commie country, right? How many people registered their guns to be eligible for an inevitable gun confiscation? I bet that notion really went over well back in those days...

General Welfare means do what is in the best interests of We the People

Today that includes welfare, Medicaid and Section 8

 

[rightwinger]

There really are people who think "we'll regulated" meant "encumbered by regulations." I'm not kidding, I have actually seen commies post such ignorance.

regulated means regulations
Learn English

Not only are there idiots who think "we'll regulated" meant "encumbered with regulations", there are also people who think "general welfare" meant free shit for commies. Food stamps, section 8 housing, etc.

Regulated is synonymous with regulation

General Welfare means doing what is best for the country, that can include food stamps and section 8 housing

Not when you know the context of the times. That's why you ignore that. So you can lie.

Rightwinger certainly does know the period correct meaning of "well regulated", he isn't ignorant there, but he is pretty ignorant to think nobody sees how he avoids discussion of it.

You don’t understand the English Language

 

[Porter Rockwell]

Because militias are necessary to the security of a free state

And the PEOPLE, ARE the militia.

Thanks for making that clear.

Exactly

That is why we need them well regulated

Well regulated means the PEOPLE have the guns, and they are in good working order with plenty of ammunition.

Thanks for making that clear.

That’s a start....it also means we know who we can count on if invaded, who to call, the people we call are trained, we have a command structure in place

We don’t want a bunch of untrained gun nuts running around shooting at shadows

The security of a free state depends on it

Most gun nuts are better trained than law enforcement, and by a country mile. The Founders understood that. The Founders also understood that people like you are corrupt. Regulations like you want are easily controlled by the corrupt.

That's why the Founders specified SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.

Well, I guess you're right about one thing. Gun nuts are better trained insofar as the Second Amendment goes. Now, I'd like to say something relative to this "regulation" issue:

Back in post # 94 EvMetro pointed out some uses of the phrase. One of those struck a chord with me:

"It referred to the property of something being in proper working order."

When the debates were taking place, local governments set up civilian militias. Then, just as today, it was like herding cats. In theory, the founders / framers wanted the militia to muster on a regular schedule in order to be prepared. But, it wasn't happening. The framers had actual militia experience and got a lot of practice trying to get farmers, merchants, etc. to set business aside in order to spend some time training.

I was elected to five consecutive 2 year terms as the Commanding Officer in state civilian militia. IMO, that makes me qualified to say I might understand the tone of the framers, especially when Hamilton wrote about the militia in Federalist # 29. Hamilton stated:

"If a well-regulated militia be the most natural defense of a free country, it ought certainly to be under the regulation and at the disposal of that body which is constituted the guardian of the national security..."

Look at the wording carefully. WHAT is being regulated? It is the militia, NOT the weaponry being regulated. The initial objective is to have the militia (i.e. the people) trained and ready. Experience shows (and I have a little of that to draw on) is that the framers idea of a militia was nearly impossible to sustain. Hamilton went on:

"By a curious refinement upon the spirit of republican jealousy, we are even taught to apprehend danger from the militia itself, in the hands of the federal government."

So much for standing armies, but we still need to have a way to insure the security of a free state. Continuing on, Hamilton says:

"The project of disciplining all the militia of the United States is as futile as it would be injurious, if it were capable of being carried into execution. A tolerable expertness in military movements is a business that requires time and practice. It is not a day, or even a week, that will suffice for the attainment of it.

To oblige the great body of the yeomanry, and of the other classes of the citizens, to be under arms for the purpose of going through military exercises and evolutions, as often as might be necessary to acquire the degree of perfection which would entitle them to the character of a well-regulated militia, would be a real grievance to the people, and a serious public inconvenience and loss. It would form an annual deduction from the productive labor of the country, to an amount which, calculating upon the present numbers of the people, would not fall far short of the whole expense of the civil establishments of all the States. To attempt a thing which would abridge the mass of labor and industry to so considerable an extent, would be unwise: and the experiment, if made, could not succeed, because it would not long be endure.

Little more can reasonably be aimed at, with respect to the people at large, than to have them properly armed and equipped..."

 

[westwall]

regulated means regulations
Learn English

Not only are there idiots who think "we'll regulated" meant "encumbered with regulations", there are also people who think "general welfare" meant free shit for commies. Food stamps, section 8 housing, etc.

Regulated is synonymous with regulation

General Welfare means doing what is best for the country, that can include food stamps and section 8 housing

Not when you know the context of the times. That's why you ignore that. So you can lie.

Rightwinger certainly does know the period correct meaning of "well regulated", he isn't ignorant there, but he is pretty ignorant to think nobody sees how he avoids discussion of it.

You don’t understand the English Language

Actually , we do. You on the other hand try and twist and pervert to suit your desire for power.

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

Because militias are necessary to the security of a free state

And the PEOPLE, ARE the militia.

Thanks for making that clear.

Exactly

That is why we need them well regulated

Careful there, the commies like to conflate a well regulated militia with a militia that is burdened with regulations.

LOL.......regulated means regulations

Your fav CNN disagrees....
https://constitutioncenter.org/images/uploads/news/CNN_Aug_11.pdf

 

[Porter Rockwell]

Because militias are necessary to the security of a free state

And the PEOPLE, ARE the militia.

Thanks for making that clear.

Exactly

That is why we need them well regulated

Careful there, the commies like to conflate a well regulated militia with a militia that is burdened with regulations.

LOL.......regulated means regulations

Your fav CNN disagrees....
https://constitutioncenter.org/images/uploads/news/CNN_Aug_11.pdf

Add this for fun:

 

[ABikerSailor]

It talks about a "well regulated militia", and that was because the US didn't have a standing military yet, so it depended on the people for defense.

Personally? I think that after we stood up our military, and made it one of the most formidable on the planet, that is when the 2nd became obsolete. And, while I'm from Montana and didn't know what store bought meat was most of my childhood, I'm also a hunter. And, if a person wants a 6 shooter, or any other kind of handgun, I would like the ammo to only be around 9 rounds before you have to reload. If you want to own a rifle, bolt action or lever action rifles are perfectly fine, and again, I'd like to see an ammo limit of about 10 rounds or less before reloading.

Semi automatic weapons that fire a round with each trigger squeeze that holds 30 plus rounds? Don't see the use of them. Handguns are better for home defense, and the AR-15 is designed to throw lots of ammo downrange quickly, which the only use I could see is in a war zone. And yeah, I served 20 years in the Navy.

The United States is a Republic, so it is a damn good thing that lefties don't get to decide the value of my life and / or come up with an arbitrary number of bullets that I might have in order to properly defend myself with.

Have you ever gotten out of bed in the middle of the night, confronted by multiple intruders and forced to spring into action? My neighbor did:

Video shows woman shoot at burglars in home invasion - CNN Video

So, you would try and insure the security of a free state with ten rounds when it's clear you might not be able to defend your own home with that few rounds? My personal safety, according to the courts, is my responsibility. If you feel safe with nine rounds, go with God. As for me, I might carry more like 109 bullets at a time.

Yes, I would fee safe having a handgun with only 10 rounds in it. Why? Because while I have heard of multiple burglars (2-4), I have never heard of a house being robbed by more people than that. And, even if it were 4 people invading my house, I have several advantages in already knowing the choke points and where the best cover is in my house, but I also qualified as a Sharpshooter while serving on the Security Force in Newport RI.

 

[Rye Catcher]

And the PEOPLE, ARE the militia.

Thanks for making that clear.

Exactly

That is why we need them well regulated

Well regulated means the PEOPLE have the guns, and they are in good working order with plenty of ammunition.

Thanks for making that clear.

That’s a start....it also means we know who we can count on if invaded, who to call, the people we call are trained, we have a command structure in place

We don’t want a bunch of untrained gun nuts running around shooting at shadows

The security of a free state depends on it

Most gun nuts are better trained than law enforcement, and by a country mile. The Founders understood that. The Founders also understood that people like you are corrupt. Regulations like you want are easily controlled by the corrupt.

That's why the Founders specified SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.

Well, I guess you're right about one thing. Gun nuts are better trained insofar as the Second Amendment goes. Now, I'd like to say something relative to this "regulation" issue:

Back in post # 94 EvMetro pointed out some uses of the phrase. One of those struck a chord with me:

"It referred to the property of something being in proper working order."

When the debates were taking place, local governments set up civilian militias. Then, just as today, it was like herding cats. In theory, the founders / framers wanted the militia to muster on a regular schedule in order to be prepared. But, it wasn't happening. The framers had actual militia experience and got a lot of practice trying to get farmers, merchants, etc. to set business aside in order to spend some time training.

I was elected to five consecutive 2 year terms as the Commanding Officer in state civilian militia. IMO, that makes me qualified to say I might understand the tone of the framers, especially when Hamilton wrote about the militia in Federalist # 29. Hamilton stated:

"If a well-regulated militia be the most natural defense of a free country, it ought certainly to be under the regulation and at the disposal of that body which is constituted the guardian of the national security..."

Look at the wording carefully. WHAT is being regulated? It is the militia, NOT the weaponry being regulated. The initial objective is to have the militia (i.e. the people) trained and ready. Experience shows (and I have a little of that to draw on) is that the framers idea of a militia was nearly impossible to sustain. Hamilton went on:

"By a curious refinement upon the spirit of republican jealousy, we are even taught to apprehend danger from the militia itself, in the hands of the federal government."

So much for standing armies, but we still need to have a way to insure the security of a free state. Continuing on, Hamilton says:

"The project of disciplining all the militia of the United States is as futile as it would be injurious, if it were capable of being carried into execution. A tolerable expertness in military movements is a business that requires time and practice. It is not a day, or even a week, that will suffice for the attainment of it.

To oblige the great body of the yeomanry, and of the other classes of the citizens, to be under arms for the purpose of going through military exercises and evolutions, as often as might be necessary to acquire the degree of perfection which would entitle them to the character of a well-regulated militia, would be a real grievance to the people, and a serious public inconvenience and loss. It would form an annual deduction from the productive labor of the country, to an amount which, calculating upon the present numbers of the people, would not fall far short of the whole expense of the civil establishments of all the States. To attempt a thing which would abridge the mass of labor and industry to so considerable an extent, would be unwise: and the experiment, if made, could not succeed, because it would not long be endure.

Little more can reasonably be aimed at, with respect to the people at large, than to have them properly armed and equipped..."

Your little discussion on the Militia as related by Hamilton was before the Constitution was written and two years before the 2nd A. became part of COTUS within the first 10 Amendments. The fact is Art I. sec. 8 and Clause 15 & 16 use the phrase "well regulated"; making Hamilton's opinion only an opinion.

 

[Gdjjr]

opinion only an opinion.

shall not be infringed is not an opinion.

 

[Blues Man]

It talks about a "well regulated militia", and that was because the US didn't have a standing military yet, so it depended on the people for defense.

Personally? I think that after we stood up our military, and made it one of the most formidable on the planet, that is when the 2nd became obsolete. And, while I'm from Montana and didn't know what store bought meat was most of my childhood, I'm also a hunter. And, if a person wants a 6 shooter, or any other kind of handgun, I would like the ammo to only be around 9 rounds before you have to reload. If you want to own a rifle, bolt action or lever action rifles are perfectly fine, and again, I'd like to see an ammo limit of about 10 rounds or less before reloading.

Semi automatic weapons that fire a round with each trigger squeeze that holds 30 plus rounds? Don't see the use of them. Handguns are better for home defense, and the AR-15 is designed to throw lots of ammo downrange quickly, which the only use I could see is in a war zone. And yeah, I served 20 years in the Navy.

You have a 99.997 chance of not getting murdered by a person with a gun

So guns aren't the problem

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

 

[Blues Man]

And the PEOPLE, ARE the militia.

Thanks for making that clear.

Exactly

That is why we need them well regulated

Careful there, the commies like to conflate a well regulated militia with a militia that is burdened with regulations.

LOL.......regulated means regulations

There really are people who think "we'll regulated" meant "encumbered by regulations." I'm not kidding, I have actually seen commies post such ignorance.

regulated means regulations
Learn English




regulation
[ reg-yuh-ley-shuhn ]
SEE SYNONYMS FOR regulation ON THESAURUS.COM
noun
a law, rule, or other order prescribed by authority, especially to regulate conduct.
the act of regulating or the state of being regulated.

The term well regulated in the vernacular of the time did not mean controlled by the government

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

 

[Blues Man]

There really are people who think "we'll regulated" meant "encumbered by regulations." I'm not kidding, I have actually seen commies post such ignorance.

regulated means regulations
Learn English

Not only are there idiots who think "we'll regulated" meant "encumbered with regulations", there are also people who think "general welfare" meant free shit for commies. Food stamps, section 8 housing, etc.

Regulated is synonymous with regulation

General Welfare means doing what is best for the country, that can include food stamps and section 8 housing

Fortunately, there are people who are familiar with the language of the period:

The following are taken from the Oxford English Dictionary, and bracket in time the writing of the 2nd amendment:

1709: "If a liberal Education has formed in us well-regulated Appetites and worthy Inclinations."


1812: "The equation of time ... is the adjustment of the difference of time as shown by a well-regulated clock and a true sun dial."

1848: "A remissness for which I am sure every well-regulated person will blame the Mayor."

1862: "It appeared to her well-regulated mind, like a clandestine proceeding."

1894: "The newspaper, a never wanting adjunct to every well-regulated American embryo city."

The phrase "well-regulated" was in common use long before 1789, and remained so for a century thereafter. It referred to the property of something being in proper working order. Something that was well-regulated was calibrated correctly, functioning as expected. Establishing government oversight of the people's arms was not only not the intent in using the phrase in the 2nd amendment, it was precisely to render the government powerless to do so that the founders wrote it.

https://www.constitution.org/cons/wellregu.htm

Sure, there are ignorant folks who think the founders would create a ignorant oxymoron by trying to mix "well regulated" with "shall not be infringed", but there aren't enough of them to erase the truth.

Exactly....Well regulated, in this usage means precision

A bunch of random gun owners running around shooting at shadows is not precision
Precision would mean trained, well equipped, following orders

Not necessarily the orders of the government

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

 

[Blues Man]

Libs believe the 2nd Amendment was necessary to protect the Army's (the "militia"'s) ability to be armed. Without the 2nd Amendment, our men would have been landing on shore on D-Day with just their dicks in their hands.

The 2nd Amendment guaranteed them the right to be armed and defend them selves.

OTOH, conservatives see the 2nd Amendment as protecting the rights of the people to self defense.

The Constitution established a Navy. It did not establish a standing Army
They relied on well regulated (trained and organized) militias to provide security while we organized an Army
That is what happened in the Revolutionary War

Cute how you selectively use "well regulated" in its correct period context. You still phrased it in a way that supports the current lefty notion that our 2nd amendment right is limited to being in some formally trained government approved militia, but at least you addressebd "some" of the original and correct context. Commies are like weeds. Spray them here, and they just sprout up over there. You got called on your context lie, but here you are organising a new way to exploit the original context.

It is nice how we now have all of the branches of military AND the right to keep and bear arms.

Funny how you present some obscure explanation of “well regulated” while you ignore how well regulated militias of the 18th century were organized and controlled

compared to what you ignore hes spot on,,,and youre a liar and an idiot,,

He is ignorant of the structure of our Colonial Militias.....so are you

And yet you won't link to a source that backs up your claim

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

 

[Blues Man]

It talks about a "well regulated militia", and that was because the US didn't have a standing military yet, so it depended on the people for defense.

Personally? I think that after we stood up our military, and made it one of the most formidable on the planet, that is when the 2nd became obsolete. And, while I'm from Montana and didn't know what store bought meat was most of my childhood, I'm also a hunter. And, if a person wants a 6 shooter, or any other kind of handgun, I would like the ammo to only be around 9 rounds before you have to reload. If you want to own a rifle, bolt action or lever action rifles are perfectly fine, and again, I'd like to see an ammo limit of about 10 rounds or less before reloading.

Semi automatic weapons that fire a round with each trigger squeeze that holds 30 plus rounds? Don't see the use of them. Handguns are better for home defense, and the AR-15 is designed to throw lots of ammo downrange quickly, which the only use I could see is in a war zone. And yeah, I served 20 years in the Navy.

The United States is a Republic, so it is a damn good thing that lefties don't get to decide the value of my life and / or come up with an arbitrary number of bullets that I might have in order to properly defend myself with.

Have you ever gotten out of bed in the middle of the night, confronted by multiple intruders and forced to spring into action? My neighbor did:

Video shows woman shoot at burglars in home invasion - CNN Video

So, you would try and insure the security of a free state with ten rounds when it's clear you might not be able to defend your own home with that few rounds? My personal safety, according to the courts, is my responsibility. If you feel safe with nine rounds, go with God. As for me, I might carry more like 109 bullets at a time.

Yes, I would fee safe having a handgun with only 10 rounds in it. Why? Because while I have heard of multiple burglars (2-4), I have never heard of a house being robbed by more people than that. And, even if it were 4 people invading my house, I have several advantages in already knowing the choke points and where the best cover is in my house, but I also qualified as a Sharpshooter while serving on the Security Force in Newport RI.

Good for you but it's not your place to tell others what gun or how much ammo they should use

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

 

[Gdjjr]

General Welfare means do what is in the best interests of We the People

Actually, it's general Welfare- capitalized makes it a noun- general isn't capitalized- a noun is a person, place or thing.

 

[Gdjjr]

Yes, I would fee safe having a handgun with only 10 rounds in it. Why? Because while I have heard of multiple burglars (2-4), I have never heard of a house being robbed by more people than that. And, even if it were 4 people invading my house, I have several advantages in already knowing the choke points and where the best cover is in my house, but I also qualified as a Sharpshooter while serving on the Security Force in Newport RI.

You have the right to choose for yourself and yourself only- others you don't have the right, nor was the gov't granted that power-

 

[fncceo]

General Welfare means do what is in the best interests of We the People

Today that includes welfare, Medicaid and Section 8

Nothing at all, with the possible exception of Salted Caramel ice cream, is in everyone's best interest.