Possible "reasons" for the Second Amendment

[miketx]

makes no sense....Re-read what you wrote....and ask a grown up for help in using decent grammar.....

Spin smoke snark gag choke chuggle smoke...rinse...repeat...

 

[Crixus]

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?

Wrong.......The 2nd amendment is poorly written and vague....prompting 2 centuries of discord and challenges.....Of course, the wording is simple and appeals to simple minds.

Same with the first amendment too.

 

[Chuz Life]

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?

Wrong.......The 2nd amendment is poorly written and vague....prompting 2 centuries of discord and challenges.....Of course, the wording is simple and appeals to simple minds.

We can look to the Constitutions of various States to get a clearer view of what the writers of the 2nd Amendment intended with their wording.


ARTICLE 12. Militia

Section 1. Composition
Section 1. A militia shall be provided and shall consist of all persons over the age of seventeen (17) years, except those persons who may be exempted by the laws of the United States or of this state. The militia may be divided into active and inactive classes and consist of such military organizations as may be provided by law.

 

[nat4900]

We can look to the Constitutions of various States to get a clearer view of what the writers of the 2nd Amendment intended with their wording.


ARTICLE 12. Militia

Section 1. Composition
Section 1. A militia shall be provided and shall consist of all persons over the age of seventeen (17) years, except those persons who may be exempted by the laws of the United States or of this state. The militia may be divided into active and inactive classes and consist of such military organizations as may be provided by law.

Thank you for supporting my position....Much appreciated.

 

[Chuz Life]

We can look to the Constitutions of various States to get a clearer view of what the writers of the 2nd Amendment intended with their wording.


ARTICLE 12. Militia

Section 1. Composition
Section 1. A militia shall be provided and shall consist of all persons over the age of seventeen (17) years, except those persons who may be exempted by the laws of the United States or of this state. The militia may be divided into active and inactive classes and consist of such military organizations as may be provided by law.

Thank you for supporting my position....Much appreciated.

Bwahahahaha!


If you think so.

 

[Little-Acorn]

The 2nd amendment is poorly written and vague....

The usual diversion from liberals who don't like what it clearly says, and so try to pretend that they can't understand what it says and then blame the amendment instead of their own inability to find what they want in it.

prompting 2 centuries of discord and challenges

Exactly. The liberal gun-rights-haters can't find any way to show normal people that it doesn't say what it says. And so they pretend it has strange and undefined meanings that aren't there, and try to pretend it's normal people's fault they can't see those mysterious meanings. And they've been continuing these lies and fables for centuries.

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

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?

Wrong.......The 2nd amendment is poorly written and vague....prompting 2 centuries of discord and challenges.....Of course, the wording is simple and appeals to simple minds.

Maybe this will help..

 

[martybegan]

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.

You have to look at the amendment in two parts.The first part, which regards militias, was put in to assure the States that they would retain the right to their own armed forces, in the form of a citizens militia to be called up in times of war or other calamities. At the time all use of force was jealously guarded by the monarchies at the time in the form of only the crown being able to keep an armed force. The people in the US were afraid of overwhelming federal power if the States themselves could not keep their own forces as a balance.

The 2nd part recognizes that an armed population is the surest way to assure a body of people available for militia service. What is also enshrined is an individuals right to keep arms to defend, if needed the State as part of a militia, but also as important, the right to be able to muster to said militia, thus requiring the right to defend themselves with their own arms.

 

[chikenwing]

Ye

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?

Wrong.......The 2nd amendment is poorly written and vague....prompting 2 centuries of discord and challenges.....Of course, the wording is simple and appeals to simple minds.

It's very clear, the fact there has been people like yourself since day one,blubbering the same shit changes nothing.

 

[LordBrownTrout]

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.

We know that you hate america. Why not just leave? You won't be missed. This admin is probably the most racist, bigoted, prejudiced in the history of the US.

 

[bripat9643]

There's nothing controversial about it. Libs can't stand it when you disagree with them so it immediately forms a controversy in their pea brains. The founders wrote quite a bit on the matter, we don't need to guess what they meant if the simple language was too much for you.

You got to love these brain damaged leftwingers who think it's some kind of mystery why the Founding Fathers put the 2nd Amendment in the BOR.

 

[nat4900]

We can look to the Constitutions of various States to get a clearer view of what the writers of the 2nd Amendment intended with their wording.


ARTICLE 12. Militia

Section 1. Composition
Section 1. A militia shall be provided and shall consist of all persons over the age of seventeen (17) years, except those persons who may be exempted by the laws of the United States or of this state. The militia may be divided into active and inactive classes and consist of such military organizations as may be provided by law.

Thank you for supporting my position....Much appreciated.

Bwahahahaha!


If you think so.

Actually, re-read what you posted about a state's militia.....active and inactive duty and part of a military organization...,,Does THAt resemble some urabn cowboy itching to shoot at those government thugs?

 

[bripat9643]

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?

Wrong.......The 2nd amendment is poorly written and vague....prompting 2 centuries of discord and challenges.....Of course, the wording is simple and appeals to simple minds.

That's what leftwing douche bags say about every part of the Constitution they dislike.

 

[nat4900]

Exactly. The liberal gun-rights-haters can't find any way to show normal people that it doesn't say what it says. And so they pretend it has strange and undefined meanings that aren't there, and try to pretend it's normal people's fault they can't see those mysterious meanings. And they've been continuing these lies and fables for centuries.

Your first big mistake is placing yourself in the "normal people" category. Don't you think that it would have been SIMPLER for the founders to just write....."Everyone MUST have whatever gun they want to be an American"...After all, simple folks like yourself are reading exactly that definition.

 

[Little-Acorn]

Exactly. The liberal gun-rights-haters can't find any way to show normal people that it doesn't say what it says. And so they pretend it has strange and undefined meanings that aren't there, and try to pretend it's normal people's fault they can't see those mysterious meanings. And they've been continuing these lies and fables for centuries.

Your first big mistake is placing yourself in the "normal people" category.

When the liberals can't refute or debate, they insult instead. (yawn)

Don't you think that it would have been SIMPLER for the founders to just write....."Everyone MUST have whatever gun they want to be an American"

The fact that they didn't write that, should be a hint to you: It's not what they wanted.

...After all, simple folks like yourself are reading exactly that definition.

See first comment above.

Insults and lies are all the liberals have.

 

[Chuz Life]

We can look to the Constitutions of various States to get a clearer view of what the writers of the 2nd Amendment intended with their wording.


ARTICLE 12. Militia

Section 1. Composition
Section 1. A militia shall be provided and shall consist of all persons over the age of seventeen (17) years, except those persons who may be exempted by the laws of the United States or of this state. The militia may be divided into active and inactive classes and consist of such military organizations as may be provided by law.

Thank you for supporting my position....Much appreciated.

Bwahahahaha!


If you think so.

Actually, re-read what you posted about a state's militia.....active and inactive duty and part of a military organization...,,Does THAt resemble some urabn cowboy itching to shoot at those government thugs?

It is crystal clear that you have a selective reading problem. You don't even see anything that challenges your views. Do you?

Can you point to any period in our nation's history where "the people" did not have weapons or access to them? If what you say is true ( that the 2nd Amendment only applies to the military) then that should have been especially evident in our nation's early history around the time the 2nd Amendment was written. . .

And as we had a Civil war (70 years after the 2nd Amendment was ratified) where CITIZENS from all parts of the country waged WAR on each other with everything from muzzle loaders to cannons to Gatling guns... and NO-ONE then made the claims that you are making now. . . It seems that you are going to have a very hard time defending your claims.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

"Possible "reasons" for the Second Amendment"

...are moot after Heller/McDonald.

 

[Flash]

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?

Democracy can produce tyranny the same as any other form of government.

Once democracy gets to the point (like it is now in our country) where the 51% finds out they can use the force of the filthy ass government to steal things from the 49% then it can be oppressive.

Three branches of government don't insure anything if all three branches uphold the greed and thievery of a welfare state.

 

[nat4900]

Exactly. The liberal gun-rights-haters can't find any way to show normal people that it doesn't say what it says. And so they pretend it has strange and undefined meanings that aren't there, and try to pretend it's normal people's fault they can't see those mysterious meanings. And they've been continuing these lies and fables for centuries.

Your first big mistake is placing yourself in the "normal people" category.

When the liberals can't refute or debate, they insult instead. (yawn)

Don't you think that it would have been SIMPLER for the founders to just write....."Everyone MUST have whatever gun they want to be an American"

The fact that they didn't write that, should be a hint to you: It's not what they wanted.

...After all, simple folks like yourself are reading exactly that definition.

See first comment above.

Insults and lies are all the liberals have.

But isn't the above bolded part EXACTLY how your ilk interprets the 2nd amendment? Yes or No???

 

[Bruce_T_Laney]

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???

The threat of another country invading the United States of America is possible and just to make it about the British of old is stupid on your part.

China, Russia and Cartels threaten this country daily but please keep on focusing there is no threat at our borders or within it either.

I bet you believe LEO will be able to handle anything that is thrown at them, right?