Exactly what and why was the 2nd amendment written like it is

[danielpalos]

your appeal to ignorance of the term, well regulated, in our federal Constitution. the right wing does it on purpose; we dare not call it spam, while in the minority.

You really think they spoke the same in 1776 as they do today?

Groovy dude, nice story bro

Nothing but appeals to ignorance of our supreme law of the land by the clueless and Causeless, right wing; coincidence or conspiracy?

the term, militia is also in the dictionary.

So what does your 1776 dictionary say?

militia: all able-bodied civilians eligible by law for military service.

"I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
— George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788

Yes, those are the people expected to keep and maintain arms so that they may be ready if called upon. Militia is not the same as a standing army. It was especially not so in the 1770s.

militia: all able-bodied civilians eligible by law for military service.

 

[Markle]

Punctuation means Nothing.

militia: all able-bodied civilians eligible by law for military service.

the People are the Militia; You are Either, well regulated or unorganized.

Our Second Amendment is very Specific.

 

[danielpalos]

Punctuation means Nothing.

militia: all able-bodied civilians eligible by law for military service.

the People are the Militia; You are Either, well regulated or unorganized.

Our Second Amendment is very Specific.

You need a valid argument, or you are simply, full of fallacy.

militia: all able-bodied civilians eligible by law for military service.

the People are the Militia; You are Either, well regulated or unorganized.

Our Second Amendment is very Specific.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

Actually, my side is supported by the Tax Payers of the United States of America. Neither the Soros nor the Kochs pay much in the form of Taxes in percentage of their income as the normal tax payer. Are you admitting that you are in the employ of the Koch Brothers? Not something I would admit to willingly.

Wrong. The current attempt to destroy the 2nd Amendment, and remove our borders is led by soros and Co. Trump was elected because the PEOPLE of this country don't want those policies. The MSM is in lock step with him and his cronies which is why you rarely hear about the beneficial uses of firearms, and why the open borders groups get their message out, but no one else does.

Three million more people voted for the other candidates than did for Trump, Trump won the electoral college by less than 1.5% in WI, MI & PA. He did not carry 50% of the votes and has never once had an approval ratting higher than 40%.

Hence, the argument posted by Westwall is once again an attempt to mislead the reader.

He won those tiny margins in historically Democrat strongholds. The so called "blue wall". So yes, the PEOPLE voted for trump.

BULLSHIT

Truly? That is the best response you can come up with? No wonder you're a government worker. The fact remains that trump broke the blue wall. And even though it was by a narrow margin he DID it. Face it, your hero, the shrialry was a crap candidate.

I have to disagree. The Blue Wall broke itself. They just as well as used a claymore on it. ISIS couldn't have blown it up any better. They search far and wide to find a candidate that was hated more than Trump. And that took some doing. They had some pretty good choices but the "Powers in Be" wouldn't consider them and I don't mean Bernie who also would have probably lost. I hope both parties get some serious phsyco help by 2020 and actually run decent candidates. Wow, what a refreshing thought. Actually having a choice between two qualified people. It's been a very, very long time on that one. Trump also broke the Red Wall while he was at it.

 

[westwall]

Wrong. The current attempt to destroy the 2nd Amendment, and remove our borders is led by soros and Co. Trump was elected because the PEOPLE of this country don't want those policies. The MSM is in lock step with him and his cronies which is why you rarely hear about the beneficial uses of firearms, and why the open borders groups get their message out, but no one else does.

Three million more people voted for the other candidates than did for Trump, Trump won the electoral college by less than 1.5% in WI, MI & PA. He did not carry 50% of the votes and has never once had an approval ratting higher than 40%.

Hence, the argument posted by Westwall is once again an attempt to mislead the reader.

He won those tiny margins in historically Democrat strongholds. The so called "blue wall". So yes, the PEOPLE voted for trump.

BULLSHIT

Truly? That is the best response you can come up with? No wonder you're a government worker. The fact remains that trump broke the blue wall. And even though it was by a narrow margin he DID it. Face it, your hero, the shrialry was a crap candidate.

I have to disagree. The Blue Wall broke itself. They just as well as used a claymore on it. ISIS couldn't have blown it up any better. They search far and wide to find a candidate that was hated more than Trump. And that took some doing. They had some pretty good choices but the "Powers in Be" wouldn't consider them and I don't mean Bernie who also would have probably lost. I hope both parties get some serious phsyco help by 2020 and actually run decent candidates. Wow, what a refreshing thought. Actually having a choice between two qualified people. It's been a very, very long time on that one. Trump also broke the Red Wall while he was at it.

I am in partial agreement with you. I differ on Bernie. Had he been the candidate i feel pretty certain he would have won. I do agree with you that hillary is the worst candidate ever run. That is clear. The one thing that this election proved beyond doubt is that the political process is corrupt. On the Dem side it is probably not salvageable without serious criminal charges being filed. Trump managed to break the stranglehold that the RNC had over the repubs, but only barely, and the repub establishment hates him, and will continue to try and get rid of him.

 

[Darkwind]

I won't look at today. I will look at the time around 1790.

Militia Act of 1792
Every citizen, so enrolled and notified, shall, within six months thereafter, provide himself with a good musket or firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints, and a knapsack, a pouch, with a box therein, to contain not less than twenty four cartridges, suited to the bore of his musket or firelock, each cartridge to contain a proper quantity of powder and ball; or with a good rifle, knapsack, shot-pouch, and powder-horn, twenty balls suited to the bore of his rifle, and a quarter of a pound of powder; and shall appear so armed, accoutred and provided, when called out to exercise or into service, except, that when called out on company days to exercise only, he may appear without a knapsack.

First we need to look at who was a Citizen in 1790s. In the 1790s, ALL Blacks even free Blacks were prohibited from owning and carrying firearms. All People even whites that would not swear allegiance to the newly formed United States were prohibited from owning or carrying fire arms. Women were prohibited from owning or carrying firearms. Bonded Slaves, even whites were prohibited from owning or carrying firearms of any kind. It all pretty much boiled down that a Citizen was a Free White Male Land Owner deemed to be in good standing with the Existing Government both Stated and Federal Governments. It's been estimated that only about 8% of the population from that time met the full requirement to own, possess and carry firearms legally. Remember, more than half of the population of that time either supported the Crown or leaned heavily in that direction. The Newly Formed Colonist Government did exactly what the British Government tried to do themselves.

There were two rebellions that made the Militia Act of 1792 to be written and adopted. The Shays Rebellion of 1786-1787 and the Whiskey Rebellion 1791-1794. While neither amounted to much, the founding fathers were scared to death that something else might come up that might endanger the newly formed Government so they adopted the 2nd Amendment as it was written since there was no Standing Army to prevent any decent resurrection from becoming successful. It was left up to each state individually to provide the militias to prevent it from happening. As long as the states agreed and didn't go to war with each other.

Using the original definition, if you don't own your House, Farm or Business and you don't completely and blindly support our current Government then are not a Citizen in Good Standings and will not be afforded the right to own, posses or carry any form of Firearms. Oh, and you must be a Free White Male as well.

Not that I expect you would read it.

The Second Amendment as an Expression of First Principles

 

[Muhammed]

I won't look at today. I will look at the time around 1790.

Militia Act of 1792
Every citizen, so enrolled and notified, shall, within six months thereafter, provide himself with a good musket or firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints, and a knapsack, a pouch, with a box therein, to contain not less than twenty four cartridges, suited to the bore of his musket or firelock, each cartridge to contain a proper quantity of powder and ball; or with a good rifle, knapsack, shot-pouch, and powder-horn, twenty balls suited to the bore of his rifle, and a quarter of a pound of powder; and shall appear so armed, accoutred and provided, when called out to exercise or into service, except, that when called out on company days to exercise only, he may appear without a knapsack.

First we need to look at who was a Citizen in 1790s. In the 1790s, ALL Blacks even free Blacks were prohibited from owning and carrying firearms. All People even whites that would not swear allegiance to the newly formed United States were prohibited from owning or carrying fire arms. Women were prohibited from owning or carrying firearms. Bonded Slaves, even whites were prohibited from owning or carrying firearms of any kind. It all pretty much boiled down that a Citizen was a Free White Male Land Owner deemed to be in good standing with the Existing Government both Stated and Federal Governments. It's been estimated that only about 8% of the population from that time met the full requirement to own, possess and carry firearms legally. Remember, more than half of the population of that time either supported the Crown or leaned heavily in that direction. The Newly Formed Colonist Government did exactly what the British Government tried to do themselves.

There were two rebellions that made the Militia Act of 1792 to be written and adopted. The Shays Rebellion of 1786-1787 and the Whiskey Rebellion 1791-1794. While neither amounted to much, the founding fathers were scared to death that something else might come up that might endanger the newly formed Government so they adopted the 2nd Amendment as it was written since there was no Standing Army to prevent any decent resurrection from becoming successful. It was left up to each state individually to provide the militias to prevent it from happening. As long as the states agreed and didn't go to war with each other.

Using the original definition, if you don't own your House, Farm or Business and you don't completely and blindly support our current Government then are not a Citizen in Good Standings and will not be afforded the right to own, posses or carry any form of Firearms. Oh, and you must be a Free White Male as well.

The 2nd amendment doesn't say any of that, jackass.

 

[WinterBorn]

Wrong. The current attempt to destroy the 2nd Amendment, and remove our borders is led by soros and Co. Trump was elected because the PEOPLE of this country don't want those policies. The MSM is in lock step with him and his cronies which is why you rarely hear about the beneficial uses of firearms, and why the open borders groups get their message out, but no one else does.

Three million more people voted for the other candidates than did for Trump, Trump won the electoral college by less than 1.5% in WI, MI & PA. He did not carry 50% of the votes and has never once had an approval ratting higher than 40%.

Hence, the argument posted by Westwall is once again an attempt to mislead the reader.

He won those tiny margins in historically Democrat strongholds. The so called "blue wall". So yes, the PEOPLE voted for trump.

BULLSHIT

Truly? That is the best response you can come up with? No wonder you're a government worker. The fact remains that trump broke the blue wall. And even though it was by a narrow margin he DID it. Face it, your hero, the shrialry was a crap candidate.

I have to disagree. The Blue Wall broke itself. They just as well as used a claymore on it. ISIS couldn't have blown it up any better. They search far and wide to find a candidate that was hated more than Trump. And that took some doing. They had some pretty good choices but the "Powers in Be" wouldn't consider them and I don't mean Bernie who also would have probably lost. I hope both parties get some serious phsyco help by 2020 and actually run decent candidates. Wow, what a refreshing thought. Actually having a choice between two qualified people. It's been a very, very long time on that one. Trump also broke the Red Wall while he was at it.

I have to disagree on whether Bernie would have lost. While many of the Trumpsters crow about him winning, I think many the votes he received were votes against Hillary more than they were votes for him.

 

[danielpalos]

I won't look at today. I will look at the time around 1790.

Militia Act of 1792
Every citizen, so enrolled and notified, shall, within six months thereafter, provide himself with a good musket or firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints, and a knapsack, a pouch, with a box therein, to contain not less than twenty four cartridges, suited to the bore of his musket or firelock, each cartridge to contain a proper quantity of powder and ball; or with a good rifle, knapsack, shot-pouch, and powder-horn, twenty balls suited to the bore of his rifle, and a quarter of a pound of powder; and shall appear so armed, accoutred and provided, when called out to exercise or into service, except, that when called out on company days to exercise only, he may appear without a knapsack.

First we need to look at who was a Citizen in 1790s. In the 1790s, ALL Blacks even free Blacks were prohibited from owning and carrying firearms. All People even whites that would not swear allegiance to the newly formed United States were prohibited from owning or carrying fire arms. Women were prohibited from owning or carrying firearms. Bonded Slaves, even whites were prohibited from owning or carrying firearms of any kind. It all pretty much boiled down that a Citizen was a Free White Male Land Owner deemed to be in good standing with the Existing Government both Stated and Federal Governments. It's been estimated that only about 8% of the population from that time met the full requirement to own, possess and carry firearms legally. Remember, more than half of the population of that time either supported the Crown or leaned heavily in that direction. The Newly Formed Colonist Government did exactly what the British Government tried to do themselves.

There were two rebellions that made the Militia Act of 1792 to be written and adopted. The Shays Rebellion of 1786-1787 and the Whiskey Rebellion 1791-1794. While neither amounted to much, the founding fathers were scared to death that something else might come up that might endanger the newly formed Government so they adopted the 2nd Amendment as it was written since there was no Standing Army to prevent any decent resurrection from becoming successful. It was left up to each state individually to provide the militias to prevent it from happening. As long as the states agreed and didn't go to war with each other.

Using the original definition, if you don't own your House, Farm or Business and you don't completely and blindly support our current Government then are not a Citizen in Good Standings and will not be afforded the right to own, posses or carry any form of Firearms. Oh, and you must be a Free White Male as well.

Not that I expect you would read it.

The Second Amendment as an Expression of First Principles

The Second Amendment is unique among the amendments in the Bill of Rights, in that it contains a preface explaining the reason for the right protected: Militias are necessary for the security of a free state. We cannot read the words “free State” here as a reference to the several states that make up the Union. The frequent use of the phrase “free State” in the founding era makes it abundantly clear that it means a non-tyrannical or non-despotic state. Justice Antonin Scalia, writing for the majority in the case of District of Columbia v. Heller (2008), rightly remarked that the term and its “close variations” were “terms of art in 18th-century political discourse, meaning a free country or free polity.”

I agree to disagree, if we have to quibble. A free State of our Union, is one free from federal interference in its internal affairs.

 

[Skull Pilot]

One citizen no

How abut a few million citizens?

How about that ^^^:

Ever wonder how a few million would be fed, provided shelter, training, arms and enforced discipline? How would command and control work, are a million men under arms work well together without trained non commissioned officers for ever dozen or so?

Spread them out over the entire country and compartmentalize

Idiot

Finally you sign a post with your nickname. But I digress.

Who is the supreme commander, does he or she have the moral authority to be followed by millions?

Without the Command and Control structure how would food and arms be distributed to each compartment? Armies require more than fighting men, the fighting men require food clothing and shelter. Arms of course and at least first aid for the wounded need to be in effect before the first round is fired.

Of course a guerrilla war would pester a well-regulated military force; yet if Marshall Law was ordered, and Habeas Corpus were suspended, and each spy or vandal hung and left to be seen by his comrades your fictional force will run home waving the white flag of surrender.

Doesn't matter.

If the people felt the need to take up arms they would work it out

It ain't gonna happen but if it did the people would figure it out.

and we didn't surrender to the British did we?
The Afghans didn't surrender to the USSR or to us did they?

Belief goes a long way towards adaptation

David Koresh and the Branch Davidians are an example of when people take up arms, as well as Donald DeFreeze and the Symbionese Liberation Army. Way before these events the Whisky Rebellion and,Shay's Rebellion, were also small matters, mostly footnotes to our history.

FYI it was the government that attacked Koresh not the converse

 

[danielpalos]

I won't look at today. I will look at the time around 1790.

Militia Act of 1792
Every citizen, so enrolled and notified, shall, within six months thereafter, provide himself with a good musket or firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints, and a knapsack, a pouch, with a box therein, to contain not less than twenty four cartridges, suited to the bore of his musket or firelock, each cartridge to contain a proper quantity of powder and ball; or with a good rifle, knapsack, shot-pouch, and powder-horn, twenty balls suited to the bore of his rifle, and a quarter of a pound of powder; and shall appear so armed, accoutred and provided, when called out to exercise or into service, except, that when called out on company days to exercise only, he may appear without a knapsack.

First we need to look at who was a Citizen in 1790s. In the 1790s, ALL Blacks even free Blacks were prohibited from owning and carrying firearms. All People even whites that would not swear allegiance to the newly formed United States were prohibited from owning or carrying fire arms. Women were prohibited from owning or carrying firearms. Bonded Slaves, even whites were prohibited from owning or carrying firearms of any kind. It all pretty much boiled down that a Citizen was a Free White Male Land Owner deemed to be in good standing with the Existing Government both Stated and Federal Governments. It's been estimated that only about 8% of the population from that time met the full requirement to own, possess and carry firearms legally. Remember, more than half of the population of that time either supported the Crown or leaned heavily in that direction. The Newly Formed Colonist Government did exactly what the British Government tried to do themselves.

There were two rebellions that made the Militia Act of 1792 to be written and adopted. The Shays Rebellion of 1786-1787 and the Whiskey Rebellion 1791-1794. While neither amounted to much, the founding fathers were scared to death that something else might come up that might endanger the newly formed Government so they adopted the 2nd Amendment as it was written since there was no Standing Army to prevent any decent resurrection from becoming successful. It was left up to each state individually to provide the militias to prevent it from happening. As long as the states agreed and didn't go to war with each other.

Using the original definition, if you don't own your House, Farm or Business and you don't completely and blindly support our current Government then are not a Citizen in Good Standings and will not be afforded the right to own, posses or carry any form of Firearms. Oh, and you must be a Free White Male as well.

Not that I expect you would read it.

The Second Amendment as an Expression of First Principles

The notion of collective rights is wholly the invention of the Progressive founders of the administrative state, who were engaged in a self-conscious effort to supplant the principles of limited government embodied in the Constitution.

I agree to disagree with, that as well.

Words have meaning and are terms in our Constitution which is the equivalent to a social Contract.

The People and the Militia are both collective and plural. The context, the security needs of a free State, is also collective and plural.

 

[danielpalos]

I won't look at today. I will look at the time around 1790.

Militia Act of 1792
Every citizen, so enrolled and notified, shall, within six months thereafter, provide himself with a good musket or firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints, and a knapsack, a pouch, with a box therein, to contain not less than twenty four cartridges, suited to the bore of his musket or firelock, each cartridge to contain a proper quantity of powder and ball; or with a good rifle, knapsack, shot-pouch, and powder-horn, twenty balls suited to the bore of his rifle, and a quarter of a pound of powder; and shall appear so armed, accoutred and provided, when called out to exercise or into service, except, that when called out on company days to exercise only, he may appear without a knapsack.

First we need to look at who was a Citizen in 1790s. In the 1790s, ALL Blacks even free Blacks were prohibited from owning and carrying firearms. All People even whites that would not swear allegiance to the newly formed United States were prohibited from owning or carrying fire arms. Women were prohibited from owning or carrying firearms. Bonded Slaves, even whites were prohibited from owning or carrying firearms of any kind. It all pretty much boiled down that a Citizen was a Free White Male Land Owner deemed to be in good standing with the Existing Government both Stated and Federal Governments. It's been estimated that only about 8% of the population from that time met the full requirement to own, possess and carry firearms legally. Remember, more than half of the population of that time either supported the Crown or leaned heavily in that direction. The Newly Formed Colonist Government did exactly what the British Government tried to do themselves.

There were two rebellions that made the Militia Act of 1792 to be written and adopted. The Shays Rebellion of 1786-1787 and the Whiskey Rebellion 1791-1794. While neither amounted to much, the founding fathers were scared to death that something else might come up that might endanger the newly formed Government so they adopted the 2nd Amendment as it was written since there was no Standing Army to prevent any decent resurrection from becoming successful. It was left up to each state individually to provide the militias to prevent it from happening. As long as the states agreed and didn't go to war with each other.

Using the original definition, if you don't own your House, Farm or Business and you don't completely and blindly support our current Government then are not a Citizen in Good Standings and will not be afforded the right to own, posses or carry any form of Firearms. Oh, and you must be a Free White Male as well.

Not that I expect you would read it.

The Second Amendment as an Expression of First Principles

As a result, they regarded what the Founders called the “rights of human nature” as an enemy of collective welfare, which should always take precedence over the rights of individuals. For Progressives then and now, the welfare of the people—not liberty—is the primary object of government, and government should always be in the hands of experts.

I object to this right wing propaganda, as well. Providing for the general welfare is a general power not a common power. Individual Liberty really is, an individual problem not an institutional problem. We have a Ninth Amendment.

What excuse for the denial and disparagement to our natural and individual rights, due to our alleged wars on crime, drugs, and terror; that, the right wing, refuses to pay for with necessary and proper tax rates?

 

[danielpalos]

I won't look at today. I will look at the time around 1790.

Militia Act of 1792
Every citizen, so enrolled and notified, shall, within six months thereafter, provide himself with a good musket or firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints, and a knapsack, a pouch, with a box therein, to contain not less than twenty four cartridges, suited to the bore of his musket or firelock, each cartridge to contain a proper quantity of powder and ball; or with a good rifle, knapsack, shot-pouch, and powder-horn, twenty balls suited to the bore of his rifle, and a quarter of a pound of powder; and shall appear so armed, accoutred and provided, when called out to exercise or into service, except, that when called out on company days to exercise only, he may appear without a knapsack.

First we need to look at who was a Citizen in 1790s. In the 1790s, ALL Blacks even free Blacks were prohibited from owning and carrying firearms. All People even whites that would not swear allegiance to the newly formed United States were prohibited from owning or carrying fire arms. Women were prohibited from owning or carrying firearms. Bonded Slaves, even whites were prohibited from owning or carrying firearms of any kind. It all pretty much boiled down that a Citizen was a Free White Male Land Owner deemed to be in good standing with the Existing Government both Stated and Federal Governments. It's been estimated that only about 8% of the population from that time met the full requirement to own, possess and carry firearms legally. Remember, more than half of the population of that time either supported the Crown or leaned heavily in that direction. The Newly Formed Colonist Government did exactly what the British Government tried to do themselves.

There were two rebellions that made the Militia Act of 1792 to be written and adopted. The Shays Rebellion of 1786-1787 and the Whiskey Rebellion 1791-1794. While neither amounted to much, the founding fathers were scared to death that something else might come up that might endanger the newly formed Government so they adopted the 2nd Amendment as it was written since there was no Standing Army to prevent any decent resurrection from becoming successful. It was left up to each state individually to provide the militias to prevent it from happening. As long as the states agreed and didn't go to war with each other.

Using the original definition, if you don't own your House, Farm or Business and you don't completely and blindly support our current Government then are not a Citizen in Good Standings and will not be afforded the right to own, posses or carry any form of Firearms. Oh, and you must be a Free White Male as well.

Not that I expect you would read it.

The Second Amendment as an Expression of First Principles

nothing but a fallacy of false Cause.

 

[Wry Catcher]

How about that ^^^:

Ever wonder how a few million would be fed, provided shelter, training, arms and enforced discipline? How would command and control work, are a million men under arms work well together without trained non commissioned officers for ever dozen or so?

Spread them out over the entire country and compartmentalize

Idiot

Finally you sign a post with your nickname. But I digress.

Who is the supreme commander, does he or she have the moral authority to be followed by millions?

Without the Command and Control structure how would food and arms be distributed to each compartment? Armies require more than fighting men, the fighting men require food clothing and shelter. Arms of course and at least first aid for the wounded need to be in effect before the first round is fired.

Of course a guerrilla war would pester a well-regulated military force; yet if Marshall Law was ordered, and Habeas Corpus were suspended, and each spy or vandal hung and left to be seen by his comrades your fictional force will run home waving the white flag of surrender.

Doesn't matter.

If the people felt the need to take up arms they would work it out

It ain't gonna happen but if it did the people would figure it out.

and we didn't surrender to the British did we?
The Afghans didn't surrender to the USSR or to us did they?

Belief goes a long way towards adaptation

David Koresh and the Branch Davidians are an example of when people take up arms, as well as Donald DeFreeze and the Symbionese Liberation Army. Way before these events the Whisky Rebellion and,Shay's Rebellion, were also small matters, mostly footnotes to our history.

FYI it was the government that attacked Koresh not the converse

A difference without a distinction in terms of the issue. Koresh was loaded for bear, and the bear won.

 

[WinterBorn]

I won't look at today. I will look at the time around 1790.

Militia Act of 1792
Every citizen, so enrolled and notified, shall, within six months thereafter, provide himself with a good musket or firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints, and a knapsack, a pouch, with a box therein, to contain not less than twenty four cartridges, suited to the bore of his musket or firelock, each cartridge to contain a proper quantity of powder and ball; or with a good rifle, knapsack, shot-pouch, and powder-horn, twenty balls suited to the bore of his rifle, and a quarter of a pound of powder; and shall appear so armed, accoutred and provided, when called out to exercise or into service, except, that when called out on company days to exercise only, he may appear without a knapsack.

First we need to look at who was a Citizen in 1790s. In the 1790s, ALL Blacks even free Blacks were prohibited from owning and carrying firearms. All People even whites that would not swear allegiance to the newly formed United States were prohibited from owning or carrying fire arms. Women were prohibited from owning or carrying firearms. Bonded Slaves, even whites were prohibited from owning or carrying firearms of any kind. It all pretty much boiled down that a Citizen was a Free White Male Land Owner deemed to be in good standing with the Existing Government both Stated and Federal Governments. It's been estimated that only about 8% of the population from that time met the full requirement to own, possess and carry firearms legally. Remember, more than half of the population of that time either supported the Crown or leaned heavily in that direction. The Newly Formed Colonist Government did exactly what the British Government tried to do themselves.

There were two rebellions that made the Militia Act of 1792 to be written and adopted. The Shays Rebellion of 1786-1787 and the Whiskey Rebellion 1791-1794. While neither amounted to much, the founding fathers were scared to death that something else might come up that might endanger the newly formed Government so they adopted the 2nd Amendment as it was written since there was no Standing Army to prevent any decent resurrection from becoming successful. It was left up to each state individually to provide the militias to prevent it from happening. As long as the states agreed and didn't go to war with each other.

Using the original definition, if you don't own your House, Farm or Business and you don't completely and blindly support our current Government then are not a Citizen in Good Standings and will not be afforded the right to own, posses or carry any form of Firearms. Oh, and you must be a Free White Male as well.

Not that I expect you would read it.

The Second Amendment as an Expression of First Principles

The Second Amendment is unique among the amendments in the Bill of Rights, in that it contains a preface explaining the reason for the right protected: Militias are necessary for the security of a free state. We cannot read the words “free State” here as a reference to the several states that make up the Union. The frequent use of the phrase “free State” in the founding era makes it abundantly clear that it means a non-tyrannical or non-despotic state. Justice Antonin Scalia, writing for the majority in the case of District of Columbia v. Heller (2008), rightly remarked that the term and its “close variations” were “terms of art in 18th-century political discourse, meaning a free country or free polity.”

I agree to disagree, if we have to quibble. A free State of our Union, is one free from federal interference in its internal affairs.

There is no quibbling. YOu are being corrected for your inaccurate claims. You keep talking about others being clueless, and yet you claim the states are the source of our guaranteed rights.

 

[WinterBorn]

I won't look at today. I will look at the time around 1790.

Militia Act of 1792
Every citizen, so enrolled and notified, shall, within six months thereafter, provide himself with a good musket or firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints, and a knapsack, a pouch, with a box therein, to contain not less than twenty four cartridges, suited to the bore of his musket or firelock, each cartridge to contain a proper quantity of powder and ball; or with a good rifle, knapsack, shot-pouch, and powder-horn, twenty balls suited to the bore of his rifle, and a quarter of a pound of powder; and shall appear so armed, accoutred and provided, when called out to exercise or into service, except, that when called out on company days to exercise only, he may appear without a knapsack.

First we need to look at who was a Citizen in 1790s. In the 1790s, ALL Blacks even free Blacks were prohibited from owning and carrying firearms. All People even whites that would not swear allegiance to the newly formed United States were prohibited from owning or carrying fire arms. Women were prohibited from owning or carrying firearms. Bonded Slaves, even whites were prohibited from owning or carrying firearms of any kind. It all pretty much boiled down that a Citizen was a Free White Male Land Owner deemed to be in good standing with the Existing Government both Stated and Federal Governments. It's been estimated that only about 8% of the population from that time met the full requirement to own, possess and carry firearms legally. Remember, more than half of the population of that time either supported the Crown or leaned heavily in that direction. The Newly Formed Colonist Government did exactly what the British Government tried to do themselves.

There were two rebellions that made the Militia Act of 1792 to be written and adopted. The Shays Rebellion of 1786-1787 and the Whiskey Rebellion 1791-1794. While neither amounted to much, the founding fathers were scared to death that something else might come up that might endanger the newly formed Government so they adopted the 2nd Amendment as it was written since there was no Standing Army to prevent any decent resurrection from becoming successful. It was left up to each state individually to provide the militias to prevent it from happening. As long as the states agreed and didn't go to war with each other.

Using the original definition, if you don't own your House, Farm or Business and you don't completely and blindly support our current Government then are not a Citizen in Good Standings and will not be afforded the right to own, posses or carry any form of Firearms. Oh, and you must be a Free White Male as well.

Not that I expect you would read it.

The Second Amendment as an Expression of First Principles

The notion of collective rights is wholly the invention of the Progressive founders of the administrative state, who were engaged in a self-conscious effort to supplant the principles of limited government embodied in the Constitution.

I agree to disagree with, that as well.

Words have meaning and are terms in our Constitution which is the equivalent to a social Contract.

The People and the Militia are both collective and plural. The context, the security needs of a free State, is also collective and plural.

Plural because it is guaranteeing a right to the population, not just one person. And the "collective" claim is still just your imagination. You have no evidence or backup for that claim.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Spread them out over the entire country and compartmentalize

Idiot

Finally you sign a post with your nickname. But I digress.

Who is the supreme commander, does he or she have the moral authority to be followed by millions?

Without the Command and Control structure how would food and arms be distributed to each compartment? Armies require more than fighting men, the fighting men require food clothing and shelter. Arms of course and at least first aid for the wounded need to be in effect before the first round is fired.

Of course a guerrilla war would pester a well-regulated military force; yet if Marshall Law was ordered, and Habeas Corpus were suspended, and each spy or vandal hung and left to be seen by his comrades your fictional force will run home waving the white flag of surrender.

Doesn't matter.

If the people felt the need to take up arms they would work it out

It ain't gonna happen but if it did the people would figure it out.

and we didn't surrender to the British did we?
The Afghans didn't surrender to the USSR or to us did they?

Belief goes a long way towards adaptation

David Koresh and the Branch Davidians are an example of when people take up arms, as well as Donald DeFreeze and the Symbionese Liberation Army. Way before these events the Whisky Rebellion and,Shay's Rebellion, were also small matters, mostly footnotes to our history.

FYI it was the government that attacked Koresh not the converse

A difference without a distinction in terms of the issue. Koresh was loaded for bear, and the bear won.

It makes a very big difference.

There was no evidence Koresh was going to attack anyone never mind the government.

There was no reason for the government to attack since they had a myriad of opportunities to pick up Koresh but they wanted to play with their toys so people died

 

[Pop23]

How about that ^^^:

Ever wonder how a few million would be fed, provided shelter, training, arms and enforced discipline? How would command and control work, are a million men under arms work well together without trained non commissioned officers for ever dozen or so?

Spread them out over the entire country and compartmentalize

Idiot

Finally you sign a post with your nickname. But I digress.

Who is the supreme commander, does he or she have the moral authority to be followed by millions?

Without the Command and Control structure how would food and arms be distributed to each compartment? Armies require more than fighting men, the fighting men require food clothing and shelter. Arms of course and at least first aid for the wounded need to be in effect before the first round is fired.

Of course a guerrilla war would pester a well-regulated military force; yet if Marshall Law was ordered, and Habeas Corpus were suspended, and each spy or vandal hung and left to be seen by his comrades your fictional force will run home waving the white flag of surrender.

Doesn't matter.

If the people felt the need to take up arms they would work it out

It ain't gonna happen but if it did the people would figure it out.

and we didn't surrender to the British did we?
The Afghans didn't surrender to the USSR or to us did they?

Belief goes a long way towards adaptation

David Koresh and the Branch Davidians are an example of when people take up arms, as well as Donald DeFreeze and the Symbionese Liberation Army. Way before these events the Whisky Rebellion and,Shay's Rebellion, were also small matters, mostly footnotes to our history.

FYI it was the government that attacked Koresh not the converse

Yeah, I find it incredible the lengths that the left will take in this type of argument. Even the agents that were on site saw this as an incredible over reach. It actually serves as a reason that the people need to retain the rights to self defense from a rogue government.

 

[Pop23]

Spread them out over the entire country and compartmentalize

Idiot

Finally you sign a post with your nickname. But I digress.

Who is the supreme commander, does he or she have the moral authority to be followed by millions?

Without the Command and Control structure how would food and arms be distributed to each compartment? Armies require more than fighting men, the fighting men require food clothing and shelter. Arms of course and at least first aid for the wounded need to be in effect before the first round is fired.

Of course a guerrilla war would pester a well-regulated military force; yet if Marshall Law was ordered, and Habeas Corpus were suspended, and each spy or vandal hung and left to be seen by his comrades your fictional force will run home waving the white flag of surrender.

Doesn't matter.

If the people felt the need to take up arms they would work it out

It ain't gonna happen but if it did the people would figure it out.

and we didn't surrender to the British did we?
The Afghans didn't surrender to the USSR or to us did they?

Belief goes a long way towards adaptation

David Koresh and the Branch Davidians are an example of when people take up arms, as well as Donald DeFreeze and the Symbionese Liberation Army. Way before these events the Whisky Rebellion and,Shay's Rebellion, were also small matters, mostly footnotes to our history.

FYI it was the government that attacked Koresh not the converse

A difference without a distinction in terms of the issue. Koresh was loaded for bear, and the bear won.

So, fear the bear?

If a bear attacks, lie there and die? That is what murderers and rapists want.

 

[danielpalos]

I won't look at today. I will look at the time around 1790.

Militia Act of 1792
Every citizen, so enrolled and notified, shall, within six months thereafter, provide himself with a good musket or firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints, and a knapsack, a pouch, with a box therein, to contain not less than twenty four cartridges, suited to the bore of his musket or firelock, each cartridge to contain a proper quantity of powder and ball; or with a good rifle, knapsack, shot-pouch, and powder-horn, twenty balls suited to the bore of his rifle, and a quarter of a pound of powder; and shall appear so armed, accoutred and provided, when called out to exercise or into service, except, that when called out on company days to exercise only, he may appear without a knapsack.

First we need to look at who was a Citizen in 1790s. In the 1790s, ALL Blacks even free Blacks were prohibited from owning and carrying firearms. All People even whites that would not swear allegiance to the newly formed United States were prohibited from owning or carrying fire arms. Women were prohibited from owning or carrying firearms. Bonded Slaves, even whites were prohibited from owning or carrying firearms of any kind. It all pretty much boiled down that a Citizen was a Free White Male Land Owner deemed to be in good standing with the Existing Government both Stated and Federal Governments. It's been estimated that only about 8% of the population from that time met the full requirement to own, possess and carry firearms legally. Remember, more than half of the population of that time either supported the Crown or leaned heavily in that direction. The Newly Formed Colonist Government did exactly what the British Government tried to do themselves.

There were two rebellions that made the Militia Act of 1792 to be written and adopted. The Shays Rebellion of 1786-1787 and the Whiskey Rebellion 1791-1794. While neither amounted to much, the founding fathers were scared to death that something else might come up that might endanger the newly formed Government so they adopted the 2nd Amendment as it was written since there was no Standing Army to prevent any decent resurrection from becoming successful. It was left up to each state individually to provide the militias to prevent it from happening. As long as the states agreed and didn't go to war with each other.

Using the original definition, if you don't own your House, Farm or Business and you don't completely and blindly support our current Government then are not a Citizen in Good Standings and will not be afforded the right to own, posses or carry any form of Firearms. Oh, and you must be a Free White Male as well.

Not that I expect you would read it.

The Second Amendment as an Expression of First Principles

The Second Amendment is unique among the amendments in the Bill of Rights, in that it contains a preface explaining the reason for the right protected: Militias are necessary for the security of a free state. We cannot read the words “free State” here as a reference to the several states that make up the Union. The frequent use of the phrase “free State” in the founding era makes it abundantly clear that it means a non-tyrannical or non-despotic state. Justice Antonin Scalia, writing for the majority in the case of District of Columbia v. Heller (2008), rightly remarked that the term and its “close variations” were “terms of art in 18th-century political discourse, meaning a free country or free polity.”

I agree to disagree, if we have to quibble. A free State of our Union, is one free from federal interference in its internal affairs.

There is no quibbling. YOu are being corrected for your inaccurate claims. You keep talking about others being clueless, and yet you claim the states are the source of our guaranteed rights.

lol. Yes, they are. That is why, States are important. They recognize and secure natural and individal rights.