Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Yes that's fairly clear,your lucky,unlike them you have not lived and died under tyranny,guess they weren't going to take any chances.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?
The problem here is, the Founders wanted to allow states to arm themselves because that helped ensure that state rights were not violated by the Federal government.
But today the idea of state rights is absurd since it has long been rejected by Progs as the Federal government pretty much dictates everything to them now, so the idea of states bearing arms to defend itself from the Federal government today seems absurd.
The rights of the Founders were violated by the Brits.
Then the Brits went after their ammo.
Then they revolted.
So why would they not protect the right to bear arms dingleberry?
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?
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.
The intent of the 2nd is clear.
The framers understood the dangers of the out of control government and provided the populace with a way to stop said tyrannical government.
To say anything else is a lie.
Going back to their original writings, what did they mean by "well-regulated"?
I'm 100% sure that the Founders were not talking about enemas.
That's not what the 2nd says. It says that the right OF THE PEOPLE, not of the state.The problem here is, the Founders wanted to allow states to arm themselves because that helped ensure that state rights were not violated by the Federal government.When all else fails, read the directions.
"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state...."
That's the reason they put the 2nd amendment into the Constitution.
Because the best way to get security and freedom, was to let every able-bodied citizen arm himself as he wanted to.
"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state...."
Well regulated at that time meant to be kept in good working order.
True....a little known factoid is that Ben Franklin also invented Ex-Lax.
The intent of the 2nd is clear.
The framers understood the dangers of the out of control government and provided the populace with a way to stop said tyrannical government.
To say anything else is a lie.
If your other side of the brain is working, do you think that you are fully capable and able and ready to repulse an attack from the US army and air force?.....Just asking.
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.
Isn't it amazing how, when the explanation for the 2nd is right there in its text, people try harder and harder to make believe it's not there, and pretend they need to find some other reason?
The intent of the 2nd is clear.
The framers understood the dangers of the out of control government and provided the populace with a way to stop said tyrannical government.
To say anything else is a lie.
If your other side of the brain is working, do you think that you are fully capable and able and ready to repulse an attack from the US army and air force?.....Just asking.
Do you mean like ISIS, Al Qaeda and other muslim militants are doing?
makes no sense....Re-read what you wrote....and ask a grown up for help in using decent grammar.....
Do you mean like ISIS, Al Qaeda and other muslim militants are doing?
makes no sense....Re-read what you wrote....and ask a grown up for help in using decent grammar.....
