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

[danielpalos]

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.

Yes, muster the militia; only privateers, potentially up to no good, will "fear the bear", then.

 

[Wry Catcher]

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.

It seems a possum has more brains than do you. Of course the phrase loaded for bear was metaphorically used, for the issue was much greater than the weapons cache he had:

fyi:

FAQs | Waco - The Inside Story | FRONTLINE | PBS

 

[Pop23]

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.

It seems a possum has more brains than do you. Of course the phrase loaded for bear was metaphorically used, for the issue was much greater than he weapons cache he had:

fyi:

FAQs | Waco - The Inside Story | FRONTLINE | PBS

I actually watched it. I especially liked the part where the agents initially assigned to it warned the government to back off because the cover was blown, and any attempt would meet up with enormous loss of life. Wise men indeed, but a Rogue United States official wouldn't listen and innocent men women and children went to their graves.

And we don't need armed citizens? Why?

 

[Pop23]

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.

Yes, muster the militia; only privateers, potentially up to no good, will "fear the bear", then.

Rapists appreciate your support.

 

[danielpalos]

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.

Yes, muster the militia; only privateers, potentially up to no good, will "fear the bear", then.

Rapists appreciate your support.

are they going to muster to get well regulated or not?

 

[Pop23]

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.

Yes, muster the militia; only privateers, potentially up to no good, will "fear the bear", then.

Rapists appreciate your support.

are they going to muster to get well regulated or not?

Why would I, there is no need, and the Second makes no such requirement.

 

[Pop23]

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.

Yes, muster the militia; only privateers, potentially up to no good, will "fear the bear", then.

Rapists appreciate your support.

are they going to muster to get well regulated or not?

Are you going to muster up well regulated rapists?

 

[danielpalos]

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.

Yes, muster the militia; only privateers, potentially up to no good, will "fear the bear", then.

Rapists appreciate your support.

are they going to muster to get well regulated or not?

Why would I, there is no need, and the Second makes no such requirement.

lol. Our Second Amendment, makes this a States' sovereign right:

The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia.

We have a Second Amendment, and should have no security problems in our free States.

 

[danielpalos]

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.

Yes, muster the militia; only privateers, potentially up to no good, will "fear the bear", then.

Rapists appreciate your support.

are they going to muster to get well regulated or not?

Are you going to muster up well regulated rapists?

if they have to muster to get, "well regulated".

 

[Pop23]

So, fear the bear?

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

Yes, muster the militia; only privateers, potentially up to no good, will "fear the bear", then.

Rapists appreciate your support.

are they going to muster to get well regulated or not?

Why would I, there is no need, and the Second makes no such requirement.

lol. Our Second Amendment, makes this a States' sovereign right:

The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia.

We have a Second Amendment, and should have no security problems in our free States.

Since you like to go around and around in circles:

Why would I, there is no need, and the Second makes no such requirement

 

[danielpalos]

Yes, muster the militia; only privateers, potentially up to no good, will "fear the bear", then.

Rapists appreciate your support.

are they going to muster to get well regulated or not?

Why would I, there is no need, and the Second makes no such requirement.

lol. Our Second Amendment, makes this a States' sovereign right:

The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia.

We have a Second Amendment, and should have no security problems in our free States.

Since you like to go around and around in circles:

Why would I, there is no need, and the Second makes no such requirement

lol. States can and should. Or, they should stop asking for federal war on crime, drugs, and terror dollars.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Rapists appreciate your support.

are they going to muster to get well regulated or not?

Why would I, there is no need, and the Second makes no such requirement.

lol. Our Second Amendment, makes this a States' sovereign right:

The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia.

We have a Second Amendment, and should have no security problems in our free States.

Since you like to go around and around in circles:

Why would I, there is no need, and the Second makes no such requirement

lol. States can and should. Or, they should stop asking for federal war on crime, drugs, and terror dollars.

Do you know they ask for Federal Dollars? Or do they apply for grants to reduce crime. As for drugs, states ought to be able to decriminalize drugs of abuse, and regulate their use - which in my informed opinion will reduce crime.

Terrorism*** is the responsibility and constitutional duty of the Federal Government, and In fact the Congress and the President who have politicized the issue and thus failed in their duty.

***in terms of domestic and foreign terror imposed on innocent citizens.

 

[Flopper]

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.

Good Post.
I think the key point is there was no real standing army capable of protecting the nation at end of the war, only the remnants of the continental army. Most of the regiments disbanded after the war. Congress was bankrupt and had no money to support an army and most colonists opposed having a standing army. Feelings were so strong that two colonies passed laws forbidding any standing army within the boarders of their state without the approval of the legislature. Thus, it's easy to see why the founders believed the only viable option were the militias. It was within this environment that the 2nd amendment was born.

The first two phrases of the amendment gives the reason for the right to bear arms, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State..." Today we have a standing army, a military force that's capable of defending the nation which congress has funds to support. Further the American people no longer fear a standing army. Most American are very supportive our armed forces.

The fact is the reason as stated in constitution for the right to bear arms no longer exist.

 

[danielpalos]

are they going to muster to get well regulated or not?

Why would I, there is no need, and the Second makes no such requirement.

lol. Our Second Amendment, makes this a States' sovereign right:

The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia.

We have a Second Amendment, and should have no security problems in our free States.

Since you like to go around and around in circles:

Why would I, there is no need, and the Second makes no such requirement

lol. States can and should. Or, they should stop asking for federal war on crime, drugs, and terror dollars.

Do you know they ask for Federal Dollars? Or do they apply for grants to reduce crime. As for drugs, states ought to be able to decriminalize drugs of abuse, and regulate their use - which in my informed opinion will reduce crime.

Terrorism*** is the responsibility and constitutional duty of the Federal Government, and In fact the Congress and the President who have politicized the issue and thus failed in their duty.

***in terms of domestic and foreign terror imposed on innocent citizens.

The whole and entire point is, our Second Amendment is part of our supreme law of the land.

We should have no security problems in our free States within our federal Republic and Union.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

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.

Good Post.
I think the key point is there was no real standing army capable of protecting the nation at end of the war, only the remnants of the continental army. Most of the regiments disbanded after the war. Congress was bankrupt and had no money to support an army and most colonists opposed having a standing army. Feeling was strong that two colonies passed laws forbidding any standing army within the boarders of their state without the approval of the legislature. Thus, it's easy to see why the founders believed the only viable option were the militias. It was within this environment that the 2nd amendment was born.

The first two phrases of the amendment gives the reason for the right to bear arms, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State..." Today we have a standing army, a military force that's capable of defending the nation which congress has funds to support. Further the American people no longer fear a standing army. Most American are very supportive our armed forces.

The fact is the reason as stated in constitution for the amendment no longer exist.

Regardless of one's opinion as to current relevancy, the original individual right was re-asserted in Heller, and it remains the law until amended.

I see no mob rushing to amend it.

 

[Flopper]

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.

Good Post.
I think the key point is there was no real standing army capable of protecting the nation at end of the war, only the remnants of the continental army. Most of the regiments disbanded after the war. Congress was bankrupt and had no money to support an army and most colonists opposed having a standing army. Feeling was strong that two colonies passed laws forbidding any standing army within the boarders of their state without the approval of the legislature. Thus, it's easy to see why the founders believed the only viable option were the militias. It was within this environment that the 2nd amendment was born.

The first two phrases of the amendment gives the reason for the right to bear arms, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State..." Today we have a standing army, a military force that's capable of defending the nation which congress has funds to support. Further the American people no longer fear a standing army. Most American are very supportive our armed forces.

The fact is the reason as stated in constitution for the amendment no longer exist.

Regardless of one's opinion as to current relevancy, the original individual right was re-asserted in Heller, and it remains the law until amended.

I see no mob rushing to amend it.

I doubt it will ever be amended because the increase in the number and power of firearms in the nation will convince event the strongest advocates of gun control that easy access to firearms is a necessity. When most Americans carry guns and use them as they see fit, the time for outlawing guns or even controlling them will be long past. There will be no need for the NRA or for most law enforcement because each person will become cop, judge, jury, and executioner.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

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.

Good Post.
I think the key point is there was no real standing army capable of protecting the nation at end of the war, only the remnants of the continental army. Most of the regiments disbanded after the war. Congress was bankrupt and had no money to support an army and most colonists opposed having a standing army. Feeling was strong that two colonies passed laws forbidding any standing army within the boarders of their state without the approval of the legislature. Thus, it's easy to see why the founders believed the only viable option were the militias. It was within this environment that the 2nd amendment was born.

The first two phrases of the amendment gives the reason for the right to bear arms, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State..." Today we have a standing army, a military force that's capable of defending the nation which congress has funds to support. Further the American people no longer fear a standing army. Most American are very supportive our armed forces.

The fact is the reason as stated in constitution for the amendment no longer exist.

Regardless of one's opinion as to current relevancy, the original individual right was re-asserted in Heller, and it remains the law until amended.

I see no mob rushing to amend it.

I doubt it will ever be amended because the increase in the number and power of firearms in the nation will convince event the strongest advocates of gun control that easy access to firearms is a necessity. When most Americans carry guns and use them as they see fit, the time for outlawing guns or even controlling them will be long past. There will be no need for the NRA or for most law enforcement because each person will become cop, judge, jury, and executioner.

Sounds like you need a nice calming cup of hot camomile.

 

[Pop23]

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.

Good Post.
I think the key point is there was no real standing army capable of protecting the nation at end of the war, only the remnants of the continental army. Most of the regiments disbanded after the war. Congress was bankrupt and had no money to support an army and most colonists opposed having a standing army. Feeling was strong that two colonies passed laws forbidding any standing army within the boarders of their state without the approval of the legislature. Thus, it's easy to see why the founders believed the only viable option were the militias. It was within this environment that the 2nd amendment was born.

The first two phrases of the amendment gives the reason for the right to bear arms, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State..." Today we have a standing army, a military force that's capable of defending the nation which congress has funds to support. Further the American people no longer fear a standing army. Most American are very supportive our armed forces.

The fact is the reason as stated in constitution for the amendment no longer exist.

Regardless of one's opinion as to current relevancy, the original individual right was re-asserted in Heller, and it remains the law until amended.

I see no mob rushing to amend it.

I doubt it will ever be amended because the increase in the number and power of firearms in the nation will convince event the strongest advocates of gun control that easy access to firearms is a necessity. When most Americans carry guns and use them as they see fit, the time for outlawing guns or even controlling them will be long past. There will be no need for the NRA or for most law enforcement because each person will become cop, judge, jury, and executioner.

So you are advocating that all guns be removed from the citizens of this country. It seems it is the only way that you can effect the policy you have implied.

Right now we have "judge, juries and executioners" out roaming the streets. They're called gang members, robbers and rapists, and, unless you can figure out a way to disarm them first, then you are making those with little defense, completely defenseless. And that is the real "judge, jury and executioners" we should be focusing on, not law abiding citizens who appear to be the brunt of your ire.

 

[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.

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

Yes, states are important. I never said otherwise. But the basic rights are listed in the US Constitution, and cannot be overruled by any state. The US Constitution guarantees certain rights to all citizens. The states may expand on those, but they cannot take them away.

 

[koshergrl]

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.

Actually, what you have sourced doesn't say any of that.

We just have YOU telling us what constituted citizenship. Not that it matters. Blacks fought long and hard to be allowed to bear arms. You are wanting to remove that right from them.

Meanwhile, no, land ownership was not required for citizenship in 1790 .

Naturalization Act of 1790 - Wikipedia