PDA

View Full Version : Warning: The Second Amendment is meant for what?



iustitia
10-07-2015, 10:31 PM
I mean I'm pretty sure I know what its purpose is, but maybe I'm wrong.

birddog
10-07-2015, 11:31 PM
"All of the above" would have been more correct, with the first choice being primary.

Subdermal
10-07-2015, 11:43 PM
Why wouldn't the OP provide an 'all of the above' option?

iustitia
10-07-2015, 11:51 PM
Because I doubt all three were brought up when debating the Bill of Rights.

Subdermal
10-08-2015, 12:06 AM
Because I doubt all three were brought up when debating the Bill of Rights.

Unless you have some support for your whim, I consider it meaningless.

iustitia
10-08-2015, 12:41 AM
Unless you have some support for your whim, I consider it meaningless.

http://i3.kym-cdn.com/entries/icons/facebook/000/003/839/1280963866577.jpg

zelmo1234
10-08-2015, 12:51 AM
"All of the above" would have been more correct, with the first choice being primary.

Actually, none of the above would have been the correct answer,

The Second amendment was not designed to overthrow a tyrannical government. We set Elections up to change our Government.

It was set up for the purpose of protecting ones self and community from a tyrannical government.

None of the founding fathers would have ever thought of removing the tools of hunting and trapping. And for most of our history there was very little security surrounding politicians.

because the correct answer is not in the poll I am unable to vote

zelmo1234
10-08-2015, 12:53 AM
Unless you have some support for your whim, I consider it meaningless.

Actually the record of all of the meeting is there for all of us to see.

The 2 reasons that were brought up was quite clear #1 To protect the nations from foreign invaders, and to protect the people from a tyrannical government

Doublejack
10-08-2015, 01:13 AM
Eh.. why isn't the reason for the 2nd amendment listed as a choice?

Mac-7
10-08-2015, 07:21 AM
Actually, none of the above would have been the correct answer,

The Second amendment was not designed to overthrow a tyrannical government. We set Elections up to change our Government.

Iat was set up for the purpose of protecting ones self and community from a tyrannical government.



That is the best answer.

But of the three choices offered by the lib #1 is the closest.

zelmo1234
10-08-2015, 07:53 AM
That is the best answer.

But of the three choices offered by the lib #1 is the closest.

Correct but don't fall into the trap.

by answering it, you are giving them ammunition on why there has to be more gun control.

Nobody wants people running around trying to overthrow the government,

It was not worded that way by accident.

Mac-7
10-08-2015, 08:28 AM
Correct but don't fall into the trap.

by answering it, you are giving them ammunition on why there has to be more gun control.

Nobody wants people running around trying to overthrow the government,

It was not worded that way by accident.

You are correct.

The next honest liberal i meet will be the first.

and they certainly could abuse the poll results to promote more gun control.

domer76
10-08-2015, 10:52 AM
None of the above. The second amendment arose because of the knowledge of what a permanent, standing army could do to a nation. The founders wanted an armed citizen militia standing ready, in case of invasion, to maintain until a standing army could be mustered. That's about it.

But now, 250 years later, we have the biggest, baddest fucking standing military in the world, and still cling to this 18th century concept. It is as applicable today as the 3rd and 7th Amendments.

Chris
10-08-2015, 10:57 AM
None of the above. The second amendment arose because of the knowledge of what a permanent, standing army could do to a nation. The founders wanted an armed citizen militia standing ready, in case of invasion, to maintain until a standing army could be mustered. That's about it.

But now, 250 years later, we have the biggest, baddest fucking standing military in the world, and still cling to this 18th century concept. It is as applicable today as the 3rd and 7th Amendments.

Like many, you stop reading at militia and free state, and leave out "the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

Mac-7
10-08-2015, 11:01 AM
None of the above. The second amendment arose because of the knowledge of what a permanent, standing army could do to a nation. The founders wanted an armed citizen militia standing ready, in case of invasion, to maintain until a standing army could be mustered. That's about it.

.

Another good reason for the 2nd Amendment and the right to bear arms.

That brings up to five doesnt it?

The Xl
10-08-2015, 11:01 AM
Like many, you stop reading at militia and free state, and leave out "the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

Pretty direct and easy to interpret. Clearly states that gun control and gun bans are unconstitutional.

domer76
10-08-2015, 12:54 PM
Like many, you stop reading at militia and free state, and leave out "the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

Until the ultra RW guns and ammo feeding frenzy of the last dozen or so years, the people was understood to be a collective right, rather than an individual one. Until Heller. But it is what it is.

The topic was the ourpose of the second amendment. I gave it to you. Argue with someone else. The purpose is fact.

domer76
10-08-2015, 12:56 PM
Another good reason for the 2nd Amendment and the right to bear arms.

That brings up to five doesnt it?

You are, no doubt, the densest person on this forum. That we now have a standing military, and the baddest one in the world, makes the Second irrelevant. Too bad I can't write in crayons. Maybe that would help.

domer76
10-08-2015, 12:57 PM
Pretty direct and easy to interpret. Clearly states that gun control and gun bans are unconstitutional.

Even Heller disagrees.

Chris
10-08-2015, 12:58 PM
Until the ultra RW guns and ammo feeding frenzy of the last dozen or so years, the people was understood to be a collective right, rather than an individual one. Until Heller. But it is what it is.

The topic was the ourpose of the second amendment. I gave it to you. Argue with someone else. The purpose is fact.

I would agree, after all, it says "the right of the people" and not the individual. Individual human rights are a very modern, progressive conception of natural rights.

You gave only a partial, subordinate reason, you left off "the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

Chris
10-08-2015, 01:00 PM
Even Heller disagrees.

And McDonald v. City of Chicago incorporated the 2nd via the 14th's due process.

Subdermal
10-08-2015, 01:16 PM
http://i3.kym-cdn.com/entries/icons/facebook/000/003/839/1280963866577.jpg

Cutesy poster aside, I'll reiterate. You claim that you 'doubt that all three were discussed' while the Bill of Rights was being considered.

I say you should support your claim. Instead, you offer a cutesy poster, which is a deflection from the truth: your whims about what was - and was not - discussed when the BoR was being crafted is absolutely meaningless. It is obvious that the purpose covers all three of your poll options - and not well, nor in the correct spirit - and you gave no 'all of the above' option.

I'll wade through the two pages posted since to see if a purpose for this thread exists.

*EDIT* It appears that several posters have exposed this thread for its real purpose, which is to incite a division of "pro-Government overthrowers" vs "those reasonable and patriotic libbies who simply want to protect themselves from domestic terrorists, while simultaneously providing an argument to rescind the 2nd Amendment".

Give us your take, iustitia. We're all ears. You have (intentionally) left yourself off the comments since.

I'm sure you'll explain why shortly.

Subdermal
10-08-2015, 01:18 PM
That is the best answer.

But of the three choices offered by the lib #1 is the closest.

^^^this^^^

Cletus
10-08-2015, 01:21 PM
You are, no doubt, the densest person on this forum. That we now have a standing military, and the baddest one in the world, makes the Second irrelevant. Too bad I can't write in crayons. Maybe that would help.

We actually do NOT have a standing Army. It must be reauthorized every two years.

donttread
10-08-2015, 01:33 PM
Because I doubt all three were brought up when debating the Bill of Rights.


Number two would have been seen as every day life and number three was likely necessary only in limited situations. The difference is important so that they cannot limit our right to bear arms to hunting weapons

domer76
10-08-2015, 02:39 PM
We actually do NOT have a standing Army. It must be reauthorized every two years.

Oh fuck. Now you're just being a dickhead for the sake of being an asshole. Go argue with the wall

Chris
10-08-2015, 02:47 PM
Oh fuck. Now you're just being a dickhead for the sake of being an asshole. Go argue with the wall

General warning not to post vulgar insults. Get back to topic.

Lineman
10-08-2015, 02:49 PM
I mean I'm pretty sure I know what its purpose is, but maybe I'm wrong.

The militias, of course. Cliven Bundy is hiring.

Private Pickle
10-08-2015, 02:57 PM
The militias, of course. Cliven Bundy is hiring.

Bundy doesn't have a militia.

Chris
10-08-2015, 03:12 PM
The militias, of course. Cliven Bundy is hiring.

Defend security of a free state.

Lineman
10-08-2015, 03:33 PM
Theres no need for that amendment. There wont ever be a time that some band of pretend soldiers are going to be needed.

Chris
10-08-2015, 03:35 PM
Theres no need for that amendment. There wont ever be a time that some band of pretend soldiers are going to be needed.

The need is stated in the Declaration: "That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it...."

The Xl
10-08-2015, 03:37 PM
The need is stated in the Declaration: "That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it...."

I love how liberals will either ignore the shit out of that or call you an extremist or some shit.

Chris
10-08-2015, 03:38 PM
I love how liberals will either ignore the shit out of that or call you an extremist or some shit.

I see many words ignored, or moved about.

donttread
10-08-2015, 04:08 PM
The need is stated in the Declaration: "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 our government is LONG PAST "destructive of these ends"

Chris
10-08-2015, 04:17 PM
And our government is LONG PAST "destructive of these ends"

Only the people can decide that, choose between security or liberty.

donttread
10-08-2015, 04:28 PM
Only the people can decide that, choose between security or liberty.

False choice Chris. They offer a security they cannot ultimetly provide in exchange for your freedoms.
And BTW, I'm a people.

domer76
10-08-2015, 04:28 PM
The need is stated in the Declaration: "That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it...."

We've been here before, Chris. The DofI is not law and has no effect of law and no SCOTUS decision has ever been based upon it. Get off the natural law and onto the REAL law

donttread
10-08-2015, 04:34 PM
We've been here before, Chris. The DofI is not law and has no effect of law and no SCOTUS decision has ever been based upon it. Get off the natural law and onto the REAL law

The "real law " set by the Donkephant owned SC?

domer76
10-08-2015, 04:36 PM
The "real law " set by the Donkephant owned SC?

That's the one, fool. Always has been.


TBed for ignoring earlier infraction.

Chris
10-08-2015, 04:40 PM
False choice Chris. They offer a security they cannot ultimetly provide in exchange for your freedoms.
And BTW, I'm a people.

Who is "they"?

BTW, we are the people, not just you.



We've been here before, Chris. The DofI is not law and has no effect of law and no SCOTUS decision has ever been based upon it. Get off the natural law and onto the REAL law

REAL law? what you say it is? LOL

Yes, we've been here before and you continue to ignore the fact "A quick search at Findlaw indicates that there are at least 100 United States Supreme Court cases that mention the words "Declaration of Independence" somewhere in the dicta of that opinion." @ http://candst.tripod.com/doisussc.htm

Peter1469
10-08-2015, 04:50 PM
We actually do NOT have a standing Army. It must be reauthorized every two years.

We do not reauthorize the military every two years. We fund it on various types of appropriations, most of which are annual.

Don
10-08-2015, 04:53 PM
I mean I'm pretty sure I know what its purpose is, but maybe I'm wrong.

Over throwing a tyrannical government is really the only purpose of the 2nd amendment. Of course it helps keep a government from becoming tyrannical if they fear the populace.

Self protection is a natural right that doesn't need to be defined by any constitution or law and guns are a damned good way to defend yourself. It might have been swords or rocks at one time and in the future it might be some other way.

On Edit: I had to add that defending against invaders (war against us on U.S. soil) was also a reason for the 2nd amendment.

Bob
10-08-2015, 05:07 PM
http://thepoliticalforums.com/images/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by Chris http://thepoliticalforums.com/images/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://thepoliticalforums.com/showthread.php?p=1285264#post1285264)
Like many, you stop reading at militia and free state, and leave out "the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."


Pretty direct and easy to interpret. Clearly states that gun control and gun bans are unconstitutional.

And the rights are infringed the moment you want to buy a firearm.

It reminds me of searching your home with no warrant. The background check infringes on your right.

Don
10-08-2015, 06:10 PM
I wouldn't have a problem with a background check if it could somehow be a blind check. A dealer would be required to run a background check on all gun sales. No record would be kept of the person attempting to purchase the weapon. If the person cleared the check the gun would be sold to them. If they didn't clear they would be informed they didn't and information could be provided to them on what their options are, if any, and they would not get the gun. They could make a system that only checks a dealers guns sold against how many background checks were conducted by that business. If he sold 25 guns there had better be 25 background checks that passed. If that business is caught selling guns to people who don't pass criminal charges could be brought against them.

If the police have a legal right to detain you and run a check on any guns you have the check should only be to see if the gun is stolen. Nothing more. If it is then the person with the gun probably couldn't or didn't pass a background check. Now that the crime of possessing a stolen gun has been established then they could run a background check and if the person wasn't qualified to possess a weapon the charges could be compounded. This way only criminals or law breakers would be checked and the rest of us would be left alone.

Dr. Who
10-08-2015, 07:50 PM
Over throwing a tyrannical government is really the only purpose of the 2nd amendment. Of course it helps keep a government from becoming tyrannical if they fear the populace.

Self protection is a natural right that doesn't need to be defined by any constitution or law and guns are a damned good way to defend yourself. It might have been swords or rocks at one time and in the future it might be some other way.

On Edit: I had to add that defending against invaders (war against us on U.S. soil) was also a reason for the 2nd amendment.
Are you sure that's what the second means? The Framers chose a republican government because it is the diametric opposite of a despotic government. A republican government that stops being essentially republican, would likely throw out the Constitution. I believe that the "free state" as mentioned in the second refers to a free country - Madison even used the words free country in his proposition. Given the post revolutionary sentiment, the framers were far more likely to be concerned with external tyrants than internal tyranny, which they believed that they solved with choosing a Republican style of government.

donttread
10-08-2015, 08:09 PM
Who is "they"?

BTW, we are the people, not just you.




REAL law? what you say it is? LOL

Yes, we've been here before and you continue to ignore the fact "A quick search at Findlaw indicates that there are at least 100 United States Supreme Court cases that mention the words "Declaration of Independence" somewhere in the dicta of that opinion." @ http://candst.tripod.com/doisussc.htm

They obviously are the federal government and " WE the People has to start with a lot of "I the persons"

donttread
10-08-2015, 08:12 PM
Are you sure that's what the second means? The Framers chose a republican government because it is the diametric opposite of a despotic government. A republican government that stops being essentially republican, would likely throw out the Constitution. I believe that the "free state" as mentioned in the second refers to a free country - Madison even used the words free country in his proposition. Given the post revolutionary sentiment, the framers were far more likely to be concerned with external tyrants than internal tyranny, which they believed that they solved with choosing a Republican style of government.

"From within or without"

Chris
10-08-2015, 08:16 PM
They obviously the federal government and " WE the People has to start with a lot of "I the persons"

I was thinking that but then the sentence doesn't really make sense: "They offer a security they cannot ultimetly provide in exchange for your freedoms." I guess it says we give up liberty but don't even get security in exchange?

Dr. Who
10-08-2015, 08:22 PM
"From within or without"
However that was not expressed. Why would they have thought that a Republican form of government could become despotic? If they thought so, why would they have chosen it above all others? If a Republican form of government converted to despotism, wouldn't they discard the Constitution?

Chris
10-08-2015, 08:25 PM
However that was not expressed. Why would they have thought that a Republican form of government could become despotic? If they thought so, why would they have chosen it above all others? If a Republican form of government converted to despotism, wouldn't they discard the Constitution?

But they did think it and tried to prevent it:


If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself. A dependence on the people is, no doubt, the primary control on the government; but experience has taught mankind the necessity of auxiliary precautions.

~Madison, Federalist 51.

donttread
10-08-2015, 08:35 PM
I was thinking that but then the sentence doesn't really make sense: "They offer a security they cannot ultimetly provide in exchange for your freedoms." I guess it says we give up liberty but don't even get security in exchange?


Yes, at least not the amount or type of security implied.

Don
10-08-2015, 08:47 PM
Are you sure that's what the second means? The Framers chose a republican government because it is the diametric opposite of a despotic government. A republican government that stops being essentially republican, would likely throw out the Constitution. I believe that the "free state" as mentioned in the second refers to a free country - Madison even used the words free country in his proposition. Given the post revolutionary sentiment, the framers were far more likely to be concerned with external tyrants than internal tyranny, which they believed that they solved with choosing a Republican style of government.

Its like Ben Franklin reportedly said....


AUTHOR:
Benjamin Franklin (1706–90)


QUOTATION:
“Well, Doctor, what have we got—a Republic or a Monarchy?”

“A Republic, if you can keep it.”


ATTRIBUTION:
The response is attributed to BENJAMIN FRANKLIN—at the close of the Constitutional Convention of 1787, when queried as he left Independence Hall on the final day of deliberation—in the notes of Dr. James McHenry, one of Maryland’s delegates to the Convention.

McHenry’s notes were first published in The American Historical Review, vol. 11, 1906, and the anecdote on p. 618 reads: “A lady asked Dr. Franklin Well Doctor what have we got a republic or a monarchy. A republic replied the Doctor if you can keep it.” When McHenry’s notes were included in The Records of the Federal Convention of 1787, ed. Max Farrand, vol. 3, appendix A, p. 85 (1911, reprinted 1934), a footnote stated that the date this anecdote was written is uncertain.

Dr. Who
10-08-2015, 08:48 PM
But they did think it and tried to prevent it:



~Madison, Federalist 51.
However even if they did, how does the 2nd amendment, which requires a regulated militia, tie into the current reserve militia which is neither regulated nor organized or the standing armies of both the State and the Federal governments. Nothing about the mandate of 2nd Amendment upon which the "right to bear arms" is based, currently exists. There is a reserve militia, which comprises all males between the ages of 17 and 45 who can essentially be drafted and standing armies. Where are the well regulated militias who need to provide their own arms in order to provide the security of a free state? Is our new definition of well regulated militias just general rabble who own guns? I suspect that the framers would be aghast at the type of people who are now allowed to own weapons that would make the weapons of the 1700's look like toys on the level of an easy bake oven. Yes all people should have the right to own muskets. I don't imagine that one nut job could do too much damage with a musket.

TrueBlue
10-08-2015, 08:53 PM
The Second Amendment is meant to try to overrule God's Sixth Commandment.

Don
10-08-2015, 08:55 PM
However even if they did, how does the 2nd amendment, which requires a regulated militia, tie into the current reserve militia which is neither regulated nor organized or the standing armies of both the State and the Federal governments. Nothing about the mandate of 2nd Amendment upon which the "right to bear arms" is based, currently exists. There is a reserve militia, which comprises all males between the ages of 17 and 45 who can essentially be drafted and standing armies. Where are the well regulated militias who need to provide their own arms in order to provide the security of a free state? Is our new definition of well regulated militias just general rabble who own guns? I suspect that the framers would be aghast at the type of people who are now allowed to own weapons that would make the weapons of the 1700's look like toys on the level of an easy bake oven. Yes all people should have the right to own muskets. I don't imagine that one nut job could do too much damage with a musket.

If the forces of the 1700's had been using AK-47's it would have made sense for us to use M-16's. That still applies today. If all the worlds armies, including ours, used muskets today then I could see our civilians only having muskets.

Chris
10-08-2015, 08:55 PM
However even if they did, how does the 2nd amendment, which requires a regulated militia, tie into the current reserve militia which is neither regulated nor organized or the standing armies of both the State and the Federal governments. Nothing about the mandate of 2nd Amendment upon which the "right to bear arms" is based, currently exists. There is a reserve militia, which comprises all males between the ages of 17 and 45 who can essentially be drafted and standing armies. Where are the well regulated militias who need to provide their own arms in order to provide the security of a free state? Is our new definition of well regulated militias just general rabble who own guns? I suspect that the framers would be aghast at the type of people who are now allowed to own weapons that would make the weapons of the 1700's look like toys on the level of an easy bake oven. Yes all people should have the right to own muskets. I don't imagine that one nut job could do too much damage with a musket.

Back then regulated meant well-functioning and militia were the people, the men mostly. We shouldn't project modern meanings on those words, nor the desire to regulate. Well-functioning should include each person armed and trained including safety--sort of like the Swiss.

Mandate? The 2nd didn't creat a right, or even entitlement, it set forth a prohibition on the government not to infringe an existing right of the people. It not people should have, it's the government shouldn't infringe.

Chris
10-08-2015, 08:57 PM
If the forces of the 1700's had been using AK-47's it would have made sense for us to use M-16's. That still applies today. If all the worlds armies, including ours, used muskets today then I could see our civilians only having muskets.

Agree. It should be proportional to the need and ability to secure of a free state.

zelmo1234
10-08-2015, 08:58 PM
The Second Amendment is meant to try to overrule God's Sixth Commandment.

God recorded the Sixth Commandment in Exodus 20:13: “You shall not murder.” God values life highly and He wants us to as well

Here is one that some of the modern translations get wrong with thou shall not kill.

Remember God Commanded his kings to go to war and actually the problem we have with Islam today can be dated back to the Israelites not obeying God and leaving some in the land of Canin alive

So the Second amendment is no way is in conflict with the 6th commandment

Don
10-08-2015, 09:00 PM
Back then regulated meant well-functioning and militia were the people, the men mostly. We shouldn't project modern meanings on those words, nor the desire to regulate. Well-functioning should include each person armed and trained including safety--sort of like the Swiss.

Mandate? The 2nd didn't creat a right, or even entitlement, it set forth a prohibition on the government not to infringe an existing right of the people. It not people should have, it's the government shouldn't infringe.

Exactly, like the amendments were intended to do. Define what power the national government had and what rights remained with the states states and or the people.

TrueBlue
10-08-2015, 09:09 PM
God recorded the Sixth Commandment in Exodus 20:13: “You shall not murder.” God values life highly and He wants us to as well

Here is one that some of the modern translations get wrong with thou shall not kill.

Remember God Commanded his kings to go to war and actually the problem we have with Islam today can be dated back to the Israelites not obeying God and leaving some in the land of Canin alive

So the Second amendment is no way is in conflict with the 6th commandment

Nice spin, Zel, but let's face it, without guns, murdering people would be a whole lot more difficult.

Dr. Who
10-08-2015, 09:23 PM
Back then regulated meant well-functioning and militia were the people, the men mostly. We shouldn't project modern meanings on those words, nor the desire to regulate. Well-functioning should include each person armed and trained including safety--sort of like the Swiss.

Mandate? The 2nd didn't creat a right, or even entitlement, it set forth a prohibition on the government not to infringe an existing right of the people. It not people should have, it's the government shouldn't infringe.
A prohibition also needs limits and I am not convinced that the framers did not envision groups of citizens all over America, training to be ready for aggression. The fact that there were militia groups in every state and every town meeting and training at the time of the Constitution gives some credence to that opinion. Additionally the fact that those people who were part of those militias were landowners also protecting their property rights gives credence to the notion that what the framers put to paper in the Constitution was also based on their biased notion of who could vote and who could afford to own weapons at the time - essentially only the well off land owners. They never considered the democratic ownership of weapons that might include the great unwashed.

Bob
10-08-2015, 09:28 PM
A prohibition also needs limits and I am not convinced that the framers did not envision groups of citizens all over America, training to be ready for aggression. The fact that there were militia groups in every state and every town meeting and training at the time of the Constitution gives some credence to that opinion. Additionally the fact that those people who were part of those militias were landowners also protecting their property rights gives credence to the notion that what the framers put to paper in the Constitution was also based on their biased notion of who could vote and who could afford to own weapons at the time - essentially only the well off land owners. They never considered the democratic ownership of weapons that might include the great unwashed.

Note to Dr. Who

Back then, it was seriously easy to be a land owner. Just locate land not used and take it over.

donttread
10-08-2015, 10:01 PM
The Second Amendment is meant to try to overrule God's Sixth Commandment.

In a word , yes.

Peter1469
10-08-2015, 11:31 PM
The Second Amendment is meant to try to overrule God's Sixth Commandment.

The original text, and the correct translations don't say thou shall not kill. They say thou shall not murder.

The difference is the lack of justification: the 2nd Amendment has nothing whatsoever to do with the 6th commandment.

Peter1469
10-08-2015, 11:36 PM
Each colony and later state has Militia codes. In general they said all abled bodied males between 15 and 45 were to be in the militia. They trained regularly to understand their duties. The individuals by law had to maintain the light infantry kit of the day. Towns and cities owned and maintained the crew served weapons of the day.



A prohibition also needs limits and I am not convinced that the framers did not envision groups of citizens all over America, training to be ready for aggression. The fact that there were militia groups in every state and every town meeting and training at the time of the Constitution gives some credence to that opinion. Additionally the fact that those people who were part of those militias were landowners also protecting their property rights gives credence to the notion that what the framers put to paper in the Constitution was also based on their biased notion of who could vote and who could afford to own weapons at the time - essentially only the well off land owners. They never considered the democratic ownership of weapons that might include the great unwashed.

Hal Jordan
10-09-2015, 12:03 AM
Nice spin, Zel, but let's face it, without guns, murdering people would be a whole lot more difficult.

If you start there, where do you end? Without guns it would be a lot more difficult to murder, if you don't take into account other advancements in technology. Sure, if the world didn't have guns right now, what would humankind use to murder? In fact, can you be certain that more lethal methods wouldn't be used? Let's face it, guns are far from the most effective method for mass murder.

Peter1469
10-09-2015, 12:12 AM
You could poison a rival town's water supply and kill most of your enemies without firing a shot. (A plot in a survivalist novel in the 80s).
If you start there, where do you end? Without guns it would be a lot more difficult to murder, if you don't take into account other advancements in technology. Sure, if the world didn't have guns right now, what would humankind use to murder? In fact, can you be certain that more lethal methods wouldn't be used? Let's face it, guns are far from the most effective method for mass murder.

zelmo1234
10-09-2015, 12:56 AM
Nice spin, Zel, but let's face it, without guns, murdering people would be a whole lot more difficult.

Why, there are a lot better ways to kill someone than using a gun. In this country of 336 million people only about 11,000 people each year kill another person with a gun, and about 12% of those are justifiable.

Now an additional 20 thousand people choose to kill themselves. But then liberals are pro choice, so that should not matter.

If you were to enact universal background checks and even the assault weapons ban? how many of those lives to you think that you will save? The answer is likely NONE

zelmo1234
10-09-2015, 01:00 AM
A prohibition also needs limits and I am not convinced that the framers did not envision groups of citizens all over America, training to be ready for aggression. The fact that there were militia groups in every state and every town meeting and training at the time of the Constitution gives some credence to that opinion. Additionally the fact that those people who were part of those militias were landowners also protecting their property rights gives credence to the notion that what the framers put to paper in the Constitution was also based on their biased notion of who could vote and who could afford to own weapons at the time - essentially only the well off land owners. They never considered the democratic ownership of weapons that might include the great unwashed.

Well the very cool thing, is we don't have to guess what the framers of the constitution were thinking. It is all recorded for us to read in the federalist papers. and if someone takes the time to research the debate, you will find that they did not talk about hunting, shooting, even home protection.

What the second amendment was created for was to keep the federal government in check.

Nice try though.

zelmo1234
10-09-2015, 01:01 AM
In a word , yes.

In a more correct word NO

donttread
10-09-2015, 08:13 AM
In a more correct word NO

Please explain? I think the founders were pretty clear about this

Chris
10-09-2015, 08:58 AM
A prohibition also needs limits and I am not convinced that the framers did not envision groups of citizens all over America, training to be ready for aggression. The fact that there were militia groups in every state and every town meeting and training at the time of the Constitution gives some credence to that opinion. Additionally the fact that those people who were part of those militias were landowners also protecting their property rights gives credence to the notion that what the framers put to paper in the Constitution was also based on their biased notion of who could vote and who could afford to own weapons at the time - essentially only the well off land owners. They never considered the democratic ownership of weapons that might include the great unwashed.

The militia were for self-defense, especially along the frontier where it was the only defense, and that's all the 2nd is about, not aggression, but defense, defending the free state. Aggression they and we have laws against.

donttread
10-09-2015, 12:10 PM
The militia were for self-defense, especially along the frontier where it was the only defense, and that's all the 2nd is about, not aggression, but defense, defending the free state. Aggression they and we have laws against.


The right to keep and bear arms is essentially independent from the militia statement and stands on its own

donttread
10-09-2015, 12:11 PM
The right to keep and bear arms is essentially independent from the militia statement and stands on its own


In other words we are entitled to be armed against tyranny independent of any militia

Chris
10-09-2015, 12:16 PM
In other words we are entitled to be armed against tyranny independent of any militia

Yes, militia is just a nominative absolute:

http://i.snag.gy/ubeus.jpg

Peter1469
10-09-2015, 12:22 PM
The right to keep and bear arms is essentially independent from the militia statement and stands on its own

The colonists and new Americans didn't see them as separate. If you were living in a community you were part of the militia unless you were too young or too old. Or crippled / a mental case.

Common Sense
10-09-2015, 12:26 PM
The colonists and new Americans didn't see them as separate. If you were living in a community you were part of the militia unless you were too young or too old. Or crippled / a mental case.

Or a contentious objector or for religious reasons.

I still don't get how people have no issue with that standing army the US has.

Chris
10-09-2015, 12:40 PM
Or a contentious objector or for religious reasons.

I still don't get how people have no issue with that standing army the US has.

You mean "To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years"?

donttread
10-09-2015, 01:31 PM
The colonists and new Americans didn't see them as separate. If you were living in a community you were part of the militia unless you were too young or too old. Or crippled / a mental case.

I can finders founders quotes supporting the individual right to keep and bear arms. I have never been able to find a single founders quote , nor has anyone I've challenged to do so, supporting the "Militia only" interpretation

Lineman
10-09-2015, 03:10 PM
Where is it written that the government can be abolished with guns?

How would a consensus be reached that it was time to start an aaahmd waaa on the gommint?

Lol.

Peter1469
10-09-2015, 03:44 PM
Where is it written that the government can be abolished with guns?

How would a consensus be reached that it was time to start an aaahmd waaa on the gommint?

Lol.

Why not ask the British. :cool2:

Truth Detector
10-09-2015, 04:34 PM
I mean I'm pretty sure I know what its purpose is, but maybe I'm wrong.

It's really quite simple and should have been taught to you in grade school. An armed citizenry is harder to subject to Government tyranny than one that is unarmed.

donttread
10-09-2015, 05:40 PM
Where is it written that the government can be abolished with guns?

How would a consensus be reached that it was time to start an aaahmd waaa on the gommint?

Lol.

Grab a history book or look around the world , there are many answers to your questions. And BTW: How would you abolish a government without guns?