Possible "reasons" for the Second Amendment

[g5000]

I notice your chart begins in 1995. The Brady Bill, which mandates federal background checks, was enacted in 1993:

 

[Flash]

I notice your chart begins in 1995. The Brady Bill, which mandates federal background checks, was enacted in 1993:

That doesn't change much.

Background checks are ignored by criminal like all the other stupid gun laws.

Only people that never had the intentions of committing a crime adhere to the dumbass worthless gun laws.

If you don't believe me just go out on the streets of ghetto Chicago tonight and check it out for yourself. If you are alive we will talk about your results tomorrow.

 

[Flash]

All of these Moon Bats would have been on the side of the gun confiscation government in 1776.

Seventy-two killed resisting gun confiscation in Boston!

Boston – National Guard units seeking to confiscate a cache of recently banned assault weapons were ambushed by elements of a Para-military extremist faction. Military and law enforcement sources estimate that 72 were killed and more than 200 injured before government forces were compelled to withdraw.

Speaking after the clash, the Massachusetts Governor declared that the extremist faction, which was made up of local citizens, has links to the radical right-wing tax protest movement.

The Governor blamed the extremists for recent incidents of vandalism directed against internal revenue offices. The governor, who described the group’s organizers as “criminals,” issued an executive order authorizing the summary arrest of any individual who has interfered with the government’s efforts to secure law and order.

The military raid on the extremist arsenal followed wide-spread refusal by the local citizenry to turn over recently outlawed assault weapons.

The Governor issued a ban on military-style assault weapons and ammunition earlier in the week. This decision followed a meeting in early this month between government and military leaders at which the governor authorized the forcible confiscation of illegal arms.

One government official, speaking on condition of anonymity, pointed out that “none of these people would have been killed had the extremists obeyed the law and turned over their weapons voluntarily.”

Government troops initially succeeded in confiscating a large supply of outlawed weapons and ammunition. However, troops attempting to seize arms and ammunition met with resistance from heavily-armed extremists who had been tipped off regarding the government’s plans.

During a tense standoff in the Lexington town park, National Guard Colonel Francis Smith, commander of the government operation, ordered the armed group to surrender and return to their homes. The impasse was broken by a single shot, which was reportedly fired by one of the right-wing extremists.

Eight civilians were killed in the ensuing exchange.

Ironically, the local citizenry blamed government forces rather than the extremists for the civilian deaths. Before order could be restored, armed citizens from surrounding areas had descended upon the guard units. Colonel Smith, finding his forces over-matched by the armed mob, ordered a retreat.

The Governor has called upon citizens to support the state/national joint task force in its effort to restore law and order. The governor also demanded the surrender of those responsible for planning and leading the attack against the government troops. Samuel Adams, Paul Revere, and John Hancock, who have been identified as “ringleaders” of the extremist faction, remain at large.

And this fellow Americans, is how the American Revolution began, April 20, 1775.

Seventy-two killed resisting gun confiscation in Boston!

 

[Chuz Life]

Many historians and biographers have long tried to find a reason as to the why Founders chose to include within the Bill Of Rights, the most controversial amendment regarding the right for everyone to be armed. One must look at some of the papers, diaries and letters written by these Founders to discern the reason why the amendment was included….and is not causing so much discord.

The first issue regards whether the Founders wanted an “armed militia” to fight off an oppressive government….and for that, an objective observer would argue that in forming such a government, the Founders could not really foresee that what they THEMSELVES were forming in a government, could really prompt that government’s citizens to revolt against it.

So, what are the possible reasons for the second amendment, and do these other reasons make a bit more sense:

Well, as written by several of the Founders, a standing army was just too damn expensive to keep (and pay, and feed, and arm, and clothe)….So, arming common citizens, especially in the vast expanses of the new country, made a heck of a lot more sense.

Additionally, arming common citizens had some other “benefits” for the rather young country. For example:

1. There were always threats that those pesky Brits may want the colonies back

2. There was also the constant threat that those Natives who constantly saw their lands taken over by farmers and colonists may launch uprisings and the federal government had not the will, resources and/or capabilities to defend against such uprisings.

3. Finally, we must not also forget that we were a country of slave owners, and the threat of revolts by the slaves was also a key reason to encourage colonists to remain armed.

Screw all the drama and legalistic hair-splitting. The Founders intent was delineating the limitations the Federal government, and the states were free to make their own legislative codes on gun control. the individual colonies had gun control laws, the individual states had them after the Constitution was drafted and adopted. It's tough that ideologues on both sides can't claim supremacy or being 'the right side' based on the historical facts, but get over it already, or just take more Prozac to make it go away or something.

So, what became of all those early "gun control laws" when the country fell into civil war and citizens on both sides (north and south) were using not only the military rifles of their day but also cannons and other Military weapons to kill one another?

Don't know what your point is here re my post. As for the Civil War it's simple; the North's Lincoln followers seceded from the Union and then invaded the South in order to loot it and force it into the new regime. What has that got to do with the historical gun control articles and statutes I linked to?

Bwahahahahaha!

The North seceded from the Union?

Dude push away from the bong.

 

[mudwhistle]

ISIS has killed some Californians and some homos. What's to worry? We should let them buy all the AR-15s they can carry.

They obviously have a conservative agenda. They love guns, and they hate Californians and homos. Even better, they have killed more Muslims than all our Presidents combined.

Come on!

Well, since he wasn't using a fucking AR-15.....you're dumb.

The San Bernardino shooter used TWO AR-15s. So YER dum!

I say we arm ISIS with more weapons. They kill more Muslims than Putin, Bush, and Obama put together. What's not to like?

The latest attack was with a SIG SAUER MCX. Fucking retard.

Wtf are you doing talking about AR-15s like it just happened yesterday?

Oh, I know. AR-15 is all the left needs to know. It's like Bush. A symbol for all of you liberals to attack. Get rid of all of the AR-15s and all the world will be better. Kumbyaah.


The gun the Orlando shooter used was a Sig Sauer MCX, not an AR-15. That doesn’t change much.

 

[g5000]

ISIS has killed some Californians and some homos. What's to worry? We should let them buy all the AR-15s they can carry.

They obviously have a conservative agenda. They love guns, and they hate Californians and homos. Even better, they have killed more Muslims than all our Presidents combined.

Come on!

Well, since he wasn't using a fucking AR-15.....you're dumb.

The San Bernardino shooter used TWO AR-15s. So YER dum!

I say we arm ISIS with more weapons. They kill more Muslims than Putin, Bush, and Obama put together. What's not to like?

The latest attack was with a SIG SAUER MCX. Fucking retard.

Wtf are you doing talking about AR-15s like it just happened yesterday?

Oh, I know. AR-15 is all the left needs to know. It's like Bush. A symbol for all of you liberals to attack. Get rid of all of the AR-15s and all the world will be better. Kumbyaah.


The gun the Orlando shooter used was a Sig Sauer MCX, not an AR-15. That doesn’t change much.

Hey, look at your own link. It says, "That doesn't change much."

I specifically mentioned Californians, dummy! "ISIS has killed some Californians and some homos."

You know...San Bernardino?

This latest attack is not the only ISIS attack, as you tards constantly remind us from under your beds.

You should be loving on ISIS, killing Californians and homos.

Special bonus, they have killed more Muslims than all our Presidents PLUS Putin combined!


I'd figure you'd be starting a GoFundMe campaign to buy ISIS more AR-15s. And, since you made a big deal out of it, some MCX's, too! They are your kind of people. After all, you want to kick all those dirty Syrian Muslims back into ISIS's jaws. Go the whole yard, man!

 

[mudwhistle]

ISIS has killed some Californians and some homos. What's to worry? We should let them buy all the AR-15s they can carry.

They obviously have a conservative agenda. They love guns, and they hate Californians and homos. Even better, they have killed more Muslims than all our Presidents combined.

Come on!

Well, since he wasn't using a fucking AR-15.....you're dumb.

The San Bernardino shooter used TWO AR-15s. So YER dum!

I say we arm ISIS with more weapons. They kill more Muslims than Putin, Bush, and Obama put together. What's not to like?

The latest attack was with a SIG SAUER MCX. Fucking retard.

Wtf are you doing talking about AR-15s like it just happened yesterday?

Oh, I know. AR-15 is all the left needs to know. It's like Bush. A symbol for all of you liberals to attack. Get rid of all of the AR-15s and all the world will be better. Kumbyaah.


The gun the Orlando shooter used was a Sig Sauer MCX, not an AR-15. That doesn’t change much.

Hey, look at your own link. It says, "That doesn't change much."

I specifically mentioned Californians, dummy! "ISIS has killed some Californians and some homos."

You know...San Bernardino?

This latest attack is not the only ISIS attack, as you tards constantly remind us from under your beds.

You should be loving on ISIS, killing Californians and homos.

Special bonus, they have killed more Muslims than all our Presidents PLUS Putin combined!


I'd figure you'd be starting a GoFundMe campaign to buy ISIS more AR-15s. And, since you made a big deal out of it, some MCX's, too! They are your kind of people. After all, you want to kick all those dirty Syrian Muslims back into ISIS's jaws. Go the whole yard, man!

From what the guy said, Obama inspired him with his bombing campaign in Syria and Iraq, so stop going for the usual low-hanging fruit and look at the real causes.

BTW, the Messiah was the dickhead buying ISIS a shit load of military weapons, so STFU.

ISIS member with a US made M-16A2

 

[nat4900]

If the intent was that only the militia be armed then they could of stopped with those words, but they didn't. The framers of the Constitution chose to include the people's rights to bear arms.

What gives you or the government the right to infringe on mine ? Be specific.

A.......The "militia" is not an inanimate object....it is comprised of "people".

B. ...Whenever we live in a society of more than one person, "rights" are always infringed upon...from having to adhere to traffic lights, to the prevention of running around naked, from having to pay taxes to the curtailment of libel/slanderous statements, etc.

 

[nat4900]

From what the guy said, Obama inspired him with his bombing campaign in Syria and Iraq, so stop going for the usual low-hanging fruit and look at the real causes.

BTW, the Messiah was the dickhead buying ISIS a shit load of military weapons, so STFU.

It is indeed fucked up right wingers like you who "forget" who brought tons of arms into Syria/Iraq and then signed an agreement to leave by a certain date.....But, by all means, exercise your "right" to be a scum bucket and blame Obama....after all, the guy is also a bit too dark for your sensibilities of what a president should look like.

 

[ThunderKiss1965]

Your reasons 1, 2 and 3 boil down to the same reason we need it today, Self Defense,

Meaning that we still fear the Brits invading, Indian uprising and slave revolts, correct???

Thomas Jefferson wrote: "I am not an advocate for frequent changes in laws and constitutions, but laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths discovered and manners and opinions change, with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also to keep pace with the times. We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors."

"No freeman shall be debarred the use of arms (within his own lands or tenements)"
Thomas Jefferson.

That proposed line was not adopted into the Virginia constitution.

Maybe not but its an insight into the minds of the founding fathers.

 

[ThunderKiss1965]

If the intent was that only the militia be armed then they could of stopped with those words, but they didn't. The framers of the Constitution chose to include the people's rights to bear arms.

What gives you or the government the right to infringe on mine ? Be specific.

A.......The "militia" is not an inanimate object....it is comprised of "people".

B. ...Whenever we live in a society of more than one person, "rights" are always infringed upon...from having to adhere to traffic lights, to the prevention of running around naked, from having to pay taxes to the curtailment of libel/slanderous statements, etc.

Sorry but that doesn't cut it and still is no reason to infringe on the rights of law abiding citizens.

 

[g5000]

Your reasons 1, 2 and 3 boil down to the same reason we need it today, Self Defense,

Meaning that we still fear the Brits invading, Indian uprising and slave revolts, correct???

Thomas Jefferson wrote: "I am not an advocate for frequent changes in laws and constitutions, but laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths discovered and manners and opinions change, with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also to keep pace with the times. We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors."

"No freeman shall be debarred the use of arms (within his own lands or tenements)"
Thomas Jefferson.

That proposed line was not adopted into the Virginia constitution.

Maybe not but its an insight into the minds of the founding fathers.

It is an insight into the mind of one Founder. They were not monolithic in their thinking. They were just as fractious as we are today, if not more so.

Jefferson was one of the most left leaning of the bunch. Damn near a proto-commie.

 

[thereisnospoon]

Many historians and biographers have long tried to find a reason as to the why Founders chose to include within the Bill Of Rights, the most controversial amendment regarding the right for everyone to be armed. One must look at some of the papers, diaries and letters written by these Founders to discern the reason why the amendment was included….and is not causing so much discord.

The first issue regards whether the Founders wanted an “armed militia” to fight off an oppressive government….and for that, an objective observer would argue that in forming such a government, the Founders could not really foresee that what they THEMSELVES were forming in a government, could really prompt that government’s citizens to revolt against it.

So, what are the possible reasons for the second amendment, and do these other reasons make a bit more sense:

Well, as written by several of the Founders, a standing army was just too damn expensive to keep (and pay, and feed, and arm, and clothe)….So, arming common citizens, especially in the vast expanses of the new country, made a heck of a lot more sense.

Additionally, arming common citizens had some other “benefits” for the rather young country. For example:

1. There were always threats that those pesky Brits may want the colonies back

2. There was also the constant threat that those Natives who constantly saw their lands taken over by farmers and colonists may launch uprisings and the federal government had not the will, resources and/or capabilities to defend against such uprisings.

3. Finally, we must not also forget that we were a country of slave owners, and the threat of revolts by the slaves was also a key reason to encourage colonists to remain armed.

Stop right there.....This is a loaded post....You used the term "the most controversial amendment".......
There is nothing controversial about it.
The PC left wing hand wringers are all in a tizzy because they have been told to believe that this terrorist Muslim extremist gay bashing puke is not at fault. The use of a GUN is the problem....
If the weapon of choice were a home made bomb similar to the ones used by the Boston Marathon bombers, none of these threads would be in existence.

 

[ThunderKiss1965]

Meaning that we still fear the Brits invading, Indian uprising and slave revolts, correct???

Thomas Jefferson wrote: "I am not an advocate for frequent changes in laws and constitutions, but laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths discovered and manners and opinions change, with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also to keep pace with the times. We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors."

"No freeman shall be debarred the use of arms (within his own lands or tenements)"
Thomas Jefferson.

That proposed line was not adopted into the Virginia constitution.

Maybe not but its an insight into the minds of the founding fathers.

It is an insight into the mind of one Founder. They were not monolithic in their thinking. They were just as fractious as we are today, if not more so.

Jefferson was one of the most left leaning of the bunch. Damn near a proto-commie.

"I ask, Sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them."
George Mason
Co-author of the Second Amendment
during Virginia's Convention to Ratify the Constitution, 1788

"A militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves …"
Richard Henry Lee
writing in Letters from the Federal Farmer to the Republic, Letter XVIII, May, 1788.

"The people are not to be disarmed of their weapons. They are left in full posession of them."
Zachariah Johnson
Elliot's Debates, vol. 3 "The Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution."

"… the people are confirmed by the next article in their right to keep and bear their private arms"
Philadelphia Federal Gazette
June 18, 1789, Pg. 2, Col. 2
Article on the Bill of Rights

And that the said Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the Press, or the rights of Conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms; …"
Samuel Adams
quoted in the Philadelphia Independent Gazetteer, August 20, 1789, "Propositions submitted to the Convention of this State"

 

[thereisnospoon]

An armed population was vital to protect against both foreign threats and the threat of a standing army, which could become an instrument of governmental tyranny."

So, your conclusion is that the Supreme Court was trying to ward off the possible "tyranny" from a democratically-elected, representative, 3-tiered government such as ours?

+if you don't like the ability to own a gun, then don't. But don't you dare tell others they cannot

 

[g5000]

Thomas Jefferson wrote: "I am not an advocate for frequent changes in laws and constitutions, but laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths discovered and manners and opinions change, with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also to keep pace with the times. We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors."

"No freeman shall be debarred the use of arms (within his own lands or tenements)"
Thomas Jefferson.

That proposed line was not adopted into the Virginia constitution.

Maybe not but its an insight into the minds of the founding fathers.

It is an insight into the mind of one Founder. They were not monolithic in their thinking. They were just as fractious as we are today, if not more so.

Jefferson was one of the most left leaning of the bunch. Damn near a proto-commie.

"I ask, Sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them."
George Mason
Co-author of the Second Amendment
during Virginia's Convention to Ratify the Constitution, 1788

"A militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves …"
Richard Henry Lee
writing in Letters from the Federal Farmer to the Republic, Letter XVIII, May, 1788.

"The people are not to be disarmed of their weapons. They are left in full posession of them."
Zachariah Johnson
Elliot's Debates, vol. 3 "The Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution."

"… the people are confirmed by the next article in their right to keep and bear their private arms"
Philadelphia Federal Gazette
June 18, 1789, Pg. 2, Col. 2
Article on the Bill of Rights

And that the said Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the Press, or the rights of Conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms; …"
Samuel Adams
quoted in the Philadelphia Independent Gazetteer, August 20, 1789, "Propositions submitted to the Convention of this State"

My favorite is the Second Militia Act of 1792.

A gun mandate.

No, really. A gun mandate.

And here we have been screaming an insurance mandate is unconstitutional...and our Founders enacted a gun mandate.

"You can't make me buy a commercial product!"

 

[nat4900]

The PC left wing hand wringers are all in a tizzy because they have been told to believe that this terrorist Muslim extremist gay bashing puke is not at fault.

I think after making the above statement you should wipe, flush and wash your hands thoroughly.

 

[thereisnospoon]

The only controversy that exist is with morons like you who can not comprehend what the words "shall not be infringe" means.

First of all the term is "infringed"...and the fact that you left out the well-regulated militia part shows what a dunce you surely are....but, carry on other nitwits like you from the right will surely think you're just a brilliant addition to their ilk.

Yeah and you hand wringing wimps leave out "the right to keep and bear arms"....This is mutually exclusive from the "well regulated militia"

 

[thereisnospoon]

"No freeman shall be debarred the use of arms (within his own lands or tenements)"
Thomas Jefferson.

That proposed line was not adopted into the Virginia constitution.

Maybe not but its an insight into the minds of the founding fathers.

It is an insight into the mind of one Founder. They were not monolithic in their thinking. They were just as fractious as we are today, if not more so.

Jefferson was one of the most left leaning of the bunch. Damn near a proto-commie.

"I ask, Sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them."
George Mason
Co-author of the Second Amendment
during Virginia's Convention to Ratify the Constitution, 1788

"A militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves …"
Richard Henry Lee
writing in Letters from the Federal Farmer to the Republic, Letter XVIII, May, 1788.

"The people are not to be disarmed of their weapons. They are left in full posession of them."
Zachariah Johnson
Elliot's Debates, vol. 3 "The Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution."

"… the people are confirmed by the next article in their right to keep and bear their private arms"
Philadelphia Federal Gazette
June 18, 1789, Pg. 2, Col. 2
Article on the Bill of Rights

And that the said Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the Press, or the rights of Conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms; …"
Samuel Adams
quoted in the Philadelphia Independent Gazetteer, August 20, 1789, "Propositions submitted to the Convention of this State"

My favorite is the Second Militia Act of 1792.

A gun mandate.

No, really. A gun mandate.

And here we have been screaming an insurance mandate is unconstitutional...

"You can't make me buy a commercial product!"

Wha?!!!!! You are free to NOT own a firearm

 

[nat4900]

If the weapon of choice were a home made bomb similar to the ones used by the Boston Marathon bombers, none of these threads would be in existence.

Well, I for one, have not forgotten that "little incident" in CT where 20 BABIES were cut into pieces from the kind of rifle that you morons consider your god-given right for EVERYBODY to own....(as instructed by the NRA)