Possible "reasons" for the Second Amendment

[frigidweirdo]

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

True....and that is why us "leftists" RELY on some redneck from Alabama to defend us from China, Russia and Cartels.........I mean, we don't trust our troops, our navy and our air force......the real defense is that guy in Alabama.......Are we placing too much faith on that guy?

Well they used to use "that guy" in the militias in wars, then decided that wasn't working, and so went for the National Guard.

 

[nat4900]

So Nat a person exercises their right to disagree with you and you respond with insults? Tolerance is definitely not one of your enduring strong points in the art of discussion.

Absolutely true..........Offer me some decent retort and I will follow suit with the same civility.

My O/P offered some OTHER possible reasons for the 2nd amendment......and all I got back from right wingers is basically that its "tough shit"....."we need a revolution", and "do I own a gun."

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

Why don't you move to a country that fit your Progressive views instead?

Do you even own a gun?

I have moved to such a country....and YES for the second question.

What kind of Gun?

Nerf.....

 

[nat4900]

Nerf.....

No, water......LOL

 

[Bruce_T_Laney]

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

True....and that is why us "leftists" RELY on some redneck from Alabama to defend us from China, Russia and Cartels.........I mean, we don't trust our troops, our navy and our air force......the real defense is that guy in Alabama.......Are we placing too much faith on that guy?

Well they used to use "that guy" in the militias in wars, then decided that wasn't working, and so went for the National Guard.

Well it does not matter because even Nancy Pelosi will not even entertain those like you and the OP'er when it come to changing the Second Amendment, and what a terrorist she is!

So as the Progressive Liberal whines about how certain people should not be allow to have their constitutional rights the rest of America will move forward because even if Hillary Clinton win in November she will not have the House to get anything like Gun Control pass, so it is a dead fucking issue but please keep on telling everyone which constitutional rights are valid and which ones should be void in your progressive limp dick worlds!

 

[Rustic]

So Nat a person exercises their right to disagree with you and you respond with insults? Tolerance is definitely not one of your enduring strong points in the art of discussion.

Absolutely true..........Offer me some decent retort and I will follow suit with the same civility.

My O/P offered some OTHER possible reasons for the 2nd amendment......and all I got back from right wingers is basically that its "tough shit"....."we need a revolution", and "do I own a gun."

 

[OKTexas]

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 still don't get it, the bill of rights were insisted on by the States, many of the founders thought them unnecessary because they didn't give the feds the powers needed to curtail those rights. The States were the ones with the foresight, not the founders.

 

[Bruce_T_Laney]

Why don't you move to a country that fit your Progressive views instead?

Do you even own a gun?

I have moved to such a country....and YES for the second question.

What kind of Gun?

Nerf.....

I doubt it because it might poke an eye out. It is most likely on Call of Duty where they pretend to be a real man after a day living a life as a Progressive Liberal without balls..

 

[frigidweirdo]

"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state...."

So, a state must remain free from the tyranny of Washington politicians by arming itself.....In other words, if Mississippi wants to re-establish slave ownership, and the Feds object, Mississippians are armed andready to fight off those US army tanks and jets

Of course not, the notion is nonsense.

The Second Amendment doesn’t ‘trump’ the First.

A minority of Americans can’t subjectively decide that the Federal government has suddenly become ‘tyrannical’ and ‘take up arms’ against the Federal government, contrary to the will of the majority.

The people have the First Amendment right to petition the government for a redress of grievances through the political or judicial process, and the government cannot be ‘overthrown’ by force absent the consent of the majority of the people.

That’s why the Heller Court ruled that the Second Amendment right was an individual – not collective – right, and not dependent upon the militia.

Citizens have the individual right to possess firearms pursuant to the right of self-defense, where the states may not seek to prohibit citizens from indeed possessing firearms.

The Second Amendment right allows citizens to protect themselves from lawlessness, violence, and bodily harm through criminal acts, not ‘overthrow’ the government.

The 1st amendment (especially in conjunction with the 2nd amendment) secures the people's right to "assemble" and to form "militias" to maintain the "security" of their free States.

1. Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

2. "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

No, the First Amendment allows people to assemble to petition the government.

The whole point of that clause is so people can tell the government what they think.

The Presser case in the 1800s didn't say that men had a right to assemble armed together as a military force. This makes no sense.

The Founding Fathers had the contradiction of they wanted the people to be able to overthrow a bad government but didn't want good government to be overthrown.

ALL MILITIAS that are in the Constitution have officers APPOINTED BY THE STATES. Without a state appointed officer, the militia is not the militia in the US constitution and has no protections whatsoever.

 

[nat4900]

So as the Progressive Liberal whines about how certain people should not be allow to have their constitutional rights the rest of America will move forward because even if Hillary Clinton win in November she will not have the House to get anything like Gun Control pass, so it is a dead fucking issue but please keep on telling everyone which constitutional rights are valid and which ones should be void in your progressive limp dick worlds!

An enema may help your disposition.....LOL

 

[Bruce_T_Laney]

So as the Progressive Liberal whines about how certain people should not be allow to have their constitutional rights the rest of America will move forward because even if Hillary Clinton win in November she will not have the House to get anything like Gun Control pass, so it is a dead fucking issue but please keep on telling everyone which constitutional rights are valid and which ones should be void in your progressive limp dick worlds!

An enema may help your disposition.....LOL

Maybe removing your head from your limp dick ass would help you instead?

 

[nat4900]

ALL MILITIAS that are in the Constitution have officers APPOINTED BY THE STATES. Without a state appointed officer, the militia is not the militia in the US constitution and has no protections whatsoever.

...or that latter "militia" you mention (above) is nothing but a posse or just a lynch mob.

 

[Rustic]

Buy more guns and ammo, it's the American thing to do

 

[frigidweirdo]

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

True....and that is why us "leftists" RELY on some redneck from Alabama to defend us from China, Russia and Cartels.........I mean, we don't trust our troops, our navy and our air force......the real defense is that guy in Alabama.......Are we placing too much faith on that guy?

Well they used to use "that guy" in the militias in wars, then decided that wasn't working, and so went for the National Guard.

Well it does not matter because even Nancy Pelosi will not even entertain those like you and the OP'er when it come to changing the Second Amendment, and what a terrorist she is!

So as the Progressive Liberal whines about how certain people should not be allow to have their constitutional rights the rest of America will move forward because even if Hillary Clinton win in November she will not have the House to get anything like Gun Control pass, so it is a dead fucking issue but please keep on telling everyone which constitutional rights are valid and which ones should be void in your progressive limp dick worlds!

So, you've decided you know me, and you know what I think. Well, I have no idea who you are, and can see you don't know who I am.

What is your constitutional right, exactly?

Let's see. The 2A is a limit of the Federal Government, not an empowerment for the citizens.

The Federal govt may not prevent individuals from owning weapons, or being in the militia.

The latter they solved easily. They made the National Guard with the Dick Act and then proceeded to make a completely useless "unorganized militia", which all men are in, and woman can pretend to be in it too. So no one can complain they're not in the militia any more, so you have your right to bear arms protected by having it so weak it's pointless.

The right to keep arms is different. The US govt cannot prevent you having a gun. However it can prevent you having THAT GUN or THIS GUN, it can ban certain types of guns, it can ban SAMs, it can ban tanks, it can ban assault rifles (hence why the Supreme Court can't be bothered with this sort of thing and upheld Presser and Miller), as long as you can get your hands on guns at a decent price, then the US govt hasn't done anything unconstitutional.

 

[frigidweirdo]

ALL MILITIAS that are in the Constitution have officers APPOINTED BY THE STATES. Without a state appointed officer, the militia is not the militia in the US constitution and has no protections whatsoever.

...or that latter "militia" you mention (above) is nothing but a posse or just a lynch mob.

Well, yes, exactly, and the Founding Fathers wanted nothing to do with it.

 

[Rustic]

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

True....and that is why us "leftists" RELY on some redneck from Alabama to defend us from China, Russia and Cartels.........I mean, we don't trust our troops, our navy and our air force......the real defense is that guy in Alabama.......Are we placing too much faith on that guy?

Well they used to use "that guy" in the militias in wars, then decided that wasn't working, and so went for the National Guard.

Well it does not matter because even Nancy Pelosi will not even entertain those like you and the OP'er when it come to changing the Second Amendment, and what a terrorist she is!

So as the Progressive Liberal whines about how certain people should not be allow to have their constitutional rights the rest of America will move forward because even if Hillary Clinton win in November she will not have the House to get anything like Gun Control pass, so it is a dead fucking issue but please keep on telling everyone which constitutional rights are valid and which ones should be void in your progressive limp dick worlds!

So, you've decided you know me, and you know what I think. Well, I have no idea who you are, and can see you don't know who I am.

What is your constitutional right, exactly?

Let's see. The 2A is a limit of the Federal Government, not an empowerment for the citizens.

The Federal govt may not prevent individuals from owning weapons, or being in the militia.

The latter they solved easily. They made the National Guard with the Dick Act and then proceeded to make a completely useless "unorganized militia", which all men are in, and woman can pretend to be in it too. So no one can complain they're not in the militia any more, so you have your right to bear arms protected by having it so weak it's pointless.

The right to keep arms is different. The US govt cannot prevent you having a gun. However it can prevent you having THAT GUN or THIS GUN, it can ban certain types of guns, it can ban SAMs, it can ban tanks, it can ban assault rifles (hence why the Supreme Court can't be bothered with this sort of thing and upheld Presser and Miller), as long as you can get your hands on guns at a decent price, then the US govt hasn't done anything unconstitutional.

Control freak...

 

[nat4900]

The Presser case in the 1800s didn't say that men had a right to assemble armed together as a military force. This makes no sense.

Good case, Presser.........Otherwise, lets say a large group of US born Mexican Americans could arm themselves and storm/occupy.....oh, lets say Trump Towers.LOL

 

[Chuz Life]

"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state...."

So, a state must remain free from the tyranny of Washington politicians by arming itself.....In other words, if Mississippi wants to re-establish slave ownership, and the Feds object, Mississippians are armed andready to fight off those US army tanks and jets

Of course not, the notion is nonsense.

The Second Amendment doesn’t ‘trump’ the First.

A minority of Americans can’t subjectively decide that the Federal government has suddenly become ‘tyrannical’ and ‘take up arms’ against the Federal government, contrary to the will of the majority.

The people have the First Amendment right to petition the government for a redress of grievances through the political or judicial process, and the government cannot be ‘overthrown’ by force absent the consent of the majority of the people.

That’s why the Heller Court ruled that the Second Amendment right was an individual – not collective – right, and not dependent upon the militia.

Citizens have the individual right to possess firearms pursuant to the right of self-defense, where the states may not seek to prohibit citizens from indeed possessing firearms.

The Second Amendment right allows citizens to protect themselves from lawlessness, violence, and bodily harm through criminal acts, not ‘overthrow’ the government.

The 1st amendment (especially in conjunction with the 2nd amendment) secures the people's right to "assemble" and to form "militias" to maintain the "security" of their free States.

1. Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

2. "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

No, the First Amendment allows people to assemble to petition the government.

The whole point of that clause is so people can tell the government what they think.

The Presser case in the 1800s didn't say that men had a right to assemble armed together as a military force. This makes no sense.

The Founding Fathers had the contradiction of they wanted the people to be able to overthrow a bad government but didn't want good government to be overthrown.

ALL MILITIAS that are in the Constitution have officers APPOINTED BY THE STATES. Without a state appointed officer, the militia is not the militia in the US constitution and has no protections whatsoever.

Of course it's my bed time and I don';t have time for a lengthy debate on this but, you are incorrect when you read the BOR's to conclude that we "the people" only have a right to assemble to petition the government. (you are wrong when you conclude that we don't have the right to form militias)

You acknowledge the fact that the founders "wanted the people to be able to overthrow a bad government" and I appreciate that. But! To then suggest that that same "bad government" gets to "appoint the officers" for the militias that are being formed to overthrow that "bad government?"

That is ridiculous.

I think you might want to think that through again.

 

[Rustic]

We really can't do much worse than our current federal government…

 

[Chuz Life]

Why don't you move to a country that fit your Progressive views instead?

Do you even own a gun?

I have moved to such a country....and YES for the second question.

What kind of Gun?

Nerf.....

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

True....and that is why us "leftists" RELY on some redneck from Alabama to defend us from China, Russia and Cartels.........I mean, we don't trust our troops, our navy and our air force......the real defense is that guy in Alabama.......Are we placing too much faith on that guy?

Well they used to use "that guy" in the militias in wars, then decided that wasn't working, and so went for the National Guard.

Well it does not matter because even Nancy Pelosi will not even entertain those like you and the OP'er when it come to changing the Second Amendment, and what a terrorist she is!

So as the Progressive Liberal whines about how certain people should not be allow to have their constitutional rights the rest of America will move forward because even if Hillary Clinton win in November she will not have the House to get anything like Gun Control pass, so it is a dead fucking issue but please keep on telling everyone which constitutional rights are valid and which ones should be void in your progressive limp dick worlds!

So, you've decided you know me, and you know what I think. Well, I have no idea who you are, and can see you don't know who I am.

What is your constitutional right, exactly?

Let's see. The 2A is a limit of the Federal Government, not an empowerment for the citizens.

The Federal govt may not prevent individuals from owning weapons, or being in the militia.

The latter they solved easily. They made the National Guard with the Dick Act and then proceeded to make a completely useless "unorganized militia", which all men are in, and woman can pretend to be in it too. So no one can complain they're not in the militia any more, so you have your right to bear arms protected by having it so weak it's pointless.

The right to keep arms is different. The US govt cannot prevent you having a gun. However it can prevent you having THAT GUN or THIS GUN, it can ban certain types of guns, it can ban SAMs, it can ban tanks, it can ban assault rifles (hence why the Supreme Court can't be bothered with this sort of thing and upheld Presser and Miller), as long as you can get your hands on guns at a decent price, then the US govt hasn't done anything unconstitutional.

Wait. . . so, the "bad Government" that the founders wanted us to have the right to form militias to defend ourselves against not only has the right to decide who the "officers" of the Militias will be. . . . but that same "bad Government" has the final word on what "guns" the people are allowed to have and use while in the Militia as well?

Are you in a State or community that has recently legalized recreational weed by any chance?