Ten Gun Myths and Memes-- Shot Down

[Spoonman]

REALLY???

REGISTRATION INFORMATION

WHO MUST REGISTER

Almost all male U.S. citizens, and male aliens living in the U.S., who are 18 through 25, are required to register with Selective Service. It's important to know that even though he is registered, a man will not automatically be inducted into the military. In a crisis requiring a draft, men would be called in sequence determined by random lottery number and year of birth. Then, they would be examined for mental, physical and moral fitness by the military before being deferred or exempted from military service or inducted into the Armed Forces.

Selective service dumb ass is not the militia Lokk at the fucking age requirement.

The militia
17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age
Selective service
18 through 25

Unorganized
Has no age limitaion.
Plus your weapon is supplied by you the citizen, you don't supply your weapon while in the nation guard of regular service military.

Did you or did you not register with the Selective Service? That is 'answering too federal or state authority'

The 'unorganized militia' is the domain of the Timothy McVeighs of the world. I am not at all surprised a scum bag like you grazes in that herd.


Militia Mythology

With the rise of the "Militia Movement", a once-arcane topic of military structure has suddenly become a controversial subject. People are being told that they are members of a defense organization they've never heard about. Private quasi-armies are said to be as much a part of the Constitution as free speech or jury trials, and armed parading as much a right as having a parade. Unfortunately for the proponents of this cause, its tenets are utterly without support.

To start, I refer any "militia" supporters to the actual text of the Constitution, article I, section 8, which states:

The Congress shall have power: ...
To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions;
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
(emphasis added)

I do not know of any these "militia"s which recognizes the State's authority to appoint its officers and the authority of Congress with regard to *anything* affecting it. They are no militia in the Constitutional sense, and are much closer to the sort of "insurrections" that the real militia was designed to be called out against.

The resurrection of the concept of the militia in modern times has very little little to do with the defense duties in the original concept, and everything to do with the politics of gun control. It is not the purpose of this article to argue regarding an individual right of gun possession. That is far beyond the intended scope. What I say to the more level-headed people concerned with gun rights is to distance themselves from the Soldier-Of-Fortune fantasizers as much as possible. Such thugs have zero Constitutional justification, are real close to the legal line if not over it, and will do legitimate gun-rights far more harm than good by convincing people by abject demonstration that the debate is really about paramilitary gangs which accept no civilian authority but themselves.

uhm, you don't have ot register anymore.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

It adds up to you making it up.

I am not you.

Number of iPads sold by Apple by quarter - Yahoo! Finance

How many guns are in the United States of America

You said AR-15s and not guns. You said sold in America and not the world. Post the fucking facts and stop the bullshit! This is what you commented on:

Quote: Originally Posted by Uncensored2008
Americans have more AR15's than they do iPads.

I said no such thing.

 

[The2ndAmendment]

Spoonman, take a look at my edited version. I completely repudiated his entire link.

 

[Spoonman]

Spoonman, take a look at my edited version. I completely repudiated his entire link.

thanks i'll look now.

 

[Rinata]

This is a first; i actually got negged for creating a topic. No discussion, no exchange, just a straight neg from a rhetorical pissant so drowning in his own insecurities that he just wants to shut people up. Too much of a spineless coward to debate. This is how afraid some people are of facing their hangups i guess.

Is this typical of the right? Or of rabbis? Or just those who don't know baseball from their ass? You tell me.

Bingo!!!

 

[Rinata]

 

[Pogo]

This is a first; i actually got negged for creating a topic. No discussion, no exchange, just a straight neg from a rhetorical pissant so drowning in his own insecurities that he just wants to shut people up. Too much of a spineless coward to debate. This is how afraid some people are of facing their hangups i guess.

Is this typical of the right? Or of rabbis? Or just those who don't know baseball from their ass? You tell me.

Bingo!!!

I've actually lost count of how many negs I got just for binging this topic up, but one of them declared that the article was refuted back on page 1.... and 700 posts and 37 pages later he's still here...

I guess it was a worthwhile topic after all. Who knew. Thanks all for your continuing a dialogue we obviously need.

 

[The2ndAmendment]

No, I just keep bumping it, I want everyone to see you exposed, you mad bro?

 

[Pogo]

Voyeurist fixation noted. Mad? Not in the least, I'm quite happy to see the activity-- that was the whole point, and puts the lie to those who would stifle discourse. Thanks for being part of it, even if you're off topic with all that Amendment jazz.

That post wasn't a reference to you btw. I know we're all on the edges of our seats following the next scheduled briefing/update/papal bull from 2A corporate central, but there really are others here, shocking as it may seem.

 

[Bfgrn]

Selective service dumb ass is not the militia Lokk at the fucking age requirement.

The militia
17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age
Selective service
18 through 25

Unorganized
Has no age limitaion.
Plus your weapon is supplied by you the citizen, you don't supply your weapon while in the nation guard of regular service military.

Did you or did you not register with the Selective Service? That is 'answering too federal or state authority'

The 'unorganized militia' is the domain of the Timothy McVeighs of the world. I am not at all surprised a scum bag like you grazes in that herd.


Militia Mythology

With the rise of the "Militia Movement", a once-arcane topic of military structure has suddenly become a controversial subject. People are being told that they are members of a defense organization they've never heard about. Private quasi-armies are said to be as much a part of the Constitution as free speech or jury trials, and armed parading as much a right as having a parade. Unfortunately for the proponents of this cause, its tenets are utterly without support.

To start, I refer any "militia" supporters to the actual text of the Constitution, article I, section 8, which states:

The Congress shall have power: ...
To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions;
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
(emphasis added)

I do not know of any these "militia"s which recognizes the State's authority to appoint its officers and the authority of Congress with regard to *anything* affecting it. They are no militia in the Constitutional sense, and are much closer to the sort of "insurrections" that the real militia was designed to be called out against.

The resurrection of the concept of the militia in modern times has very little little to do with the defense duties in the original concept, and everything to do with the politics of gun control. It is not the purpose of this article to argue regarding an individual right of gun possession. That is far beyond the intended scope. What I say to the more level-headed people concerned with gun rights is to distance themselves from the Soldier-Of-Fortune fantasizers as much as possible. Such thugs have zero Constitutional justification, are real close to the legal line if not over it, and will do legitimate gun-rights far more harm than good by convincing people by abject demonstration that the debate is really about paramilitary gangs which accept no civilian authority but themselves.

uhm, you don't have ot register anymore.

You most certainly DO have to register.

 

[Spoonman]

Did you or did you not register with the Selective Service? That is 'answering too federal or state authority'

The 'unorganized militia' is the domain of the Timothy McVeighs of the world. I am not at all surprised a scum bag like you grazes in that herd.


Militia Mythology

With the rise of the "Militia Movement", a once-arcane topic of military structure has suddenly become a controversial subject. People are being told that they are members of a defense organization they've never heard about. Private quasi-armies are said to be as much a part of the Constitution as free speech or jury trials, and armed parading as much a right as having a parade. Unfortunately for the proponents of this cause, its tenets are utterly without support.

To start, I refer any "militia" supporters to the actual text of the Constitution, article I, section 8, which states:

The Congress shall have power: ...
To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions;
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
(emphasis added)

I do not know of any these "militia"s which recognizes the State's authority to appoint its officers and the authority of Congress with regard to *anything* affecting it. They are no militia in the Constitutional sense, and are much closer to the sort of "insurrections" that the real militia was designed to be called out against.

The resurrection of the concept of the militia in modern times has very little little to do with the defense duties in the original concept, and everything to do with the politics of gun control. It is not the purpose of this article to argue regarding an individual right of gun possession. That is far beyond the intended scope. What I say to the more level-headed people concerned with gun rights is to distance themselves from the Soldier-Of-Fortune fantasizers as much as possible. Such thugs have zero Constitutional justification, are real close to the legal line if not over it, and will do legitimate gun-rights far more harm than good by convincing people by abject demonstration that the debate is really about paramilitary gangs which accept no civilian authority but themselves.

uhm, you don't have ot register anymore.

You most certainly DO have to register.

no you don't

 

[Bfgrn]

uhm, you don't have ot register anymore.

You most certainly DO have to register.

no you don't

Have your mommy look it up...

Selective Service System: Fast Facts

 

[Spoonman]

You most certainly DO have to register.

no you don't

Have your mommy look it up...

Selective Service System: Fast Facts

she is dead

 

[Bfgrn]

When you read the background writings of the Framers regarding the Second Amendment in full context you would know our Founding Fathers never imagined a well-armed citizenry to keep the American government itself in check. It was all about protecting the American government from both foreign and domestic threats.

I'm going to take a longer look at this. However, I have already determined that is was EDITED by a very well known LIBERAL author.

I will update this in about 5 minutes.

EDIT:

From your own link:

The rights of conscience, of bearing arms, of changing the government, are declared to be inherent in the people. Freedom of the press too.

Here's a potential tyrant who was definitely AFRAID of this power, there's a long quote by John Adams that also shows he was afraid of the Second Amendment:



I have an honest question, were you assuming that we weren't going to read your link, and just take your word for it? No one, including myself, is denying that the Second Amendment is ALSO designed to protect against foreign invasion and unjustified insurrections.

GENOCIDE REFRENCE

at least while it is the practice of nations to determine their contests by the slaughter of their citizens and subjects.

Keep in mind that the quotes and letters he choose in this link, were cherry-picked. He is a known anti-gun activist. And still, he failed, and you failed. By all means, dig up other letters and committee hearings on this issue, you'll be in for a shock. I think there's something in the FEDERALIST PAPERS too, either 26 or 28 that briefly touches this topic.

EDIT 2:

FEDERALIST number 28:

The Federalist #28

It discusses a long deal about the States being able to secure themselves against Federal usurpation, and is generally concurrent with the anti-tyranny view of the second amendment.

I just provided the background writings. Do you need a nanny to read them to you? George Mason was an anti-federalist. His paranoia was not the prevailing mindset of our most significant founding fathers. James Madison, Alexander Hamilton and John Jay who were the authors of the Federalist Papers basically made fun of the paranoid conservatives like Mason.

LOL, come on now, read Federalist number 28, be brave!

I have read Federalist 28. Have you? And if you did, do you even know what Hamilton is arguing for?

I have to laugh when you used the term 'cherry pick'. You have no intention of reading to gain knowledge. You are cherry picking ammunition. But the nuggets you so boastfully beat your chest over do not define the debate. You have merely found your paranoid fear filled brethren from the 18th century who were a minority.

In an 1814 letter to Thomas Cooper, Jefferson wrote of standing armies: “The Greeks and Romans had no standing armies, yet they defended themselves. The Greeks by their laws, and the Romans by the spirit of their people, took care to put into the hands of their rulers no such engine of oppression as a standing army. Their system was to make every man a soldier and oblige him to repair to the standard of his country whenever that was reared. This made them invincible; and the same remedy will make us so.” ref

Had the early framers of the Constitution embraced a standing army during times of peace, then there would be no need for a regulated militia, and thus no need for the 2nd Amendment.

Instead, they openly opposed a standing army during times of peace. Want proof? In the entire Constitution, there are no time limits on the power of Congress to raise money and pay for anything – except an Army. We can have a Navy forever. We can have roads or bridges or post offices or pretty much anything else that supports the "general welfare" without limit and in perpetuity. But an Army? That had to be re-evaluated every two years, when all spending for the past two years of army was zeroed out. It's right there in Article 1, Section 8, line twelve reads that Congress has the power: "To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years."

The Founders knew, from watching the history of Europe, that military coups by a standing army were a greater threat to a nation that most other nations. So they required us to re-evaluate our army every two years.

But without an army, how would we defend ourselves?

With a locally-based, well-regulated - under the control of local authorities, who answer to national authority - militia. Today, we call this the National Guard.
Article 1, Section 8, line 16 of the Constitution doesn't put that two-year limit on the National Guard militia. Instead, it says, Congress has the right to: "To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress."

And make no mistake about it – that militia was to be used to protect our "we the people" government both from foreign armies and from Americans who want to overthrow the government of the United States. Again, line 15 says Congress has the power to: "To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions." Nothing in there about taking down the US government.

As a member of a National Guard militia, the 2nd Amendment is more of a civic duty than a personal right.

Again, it was all about defense of the state – not defense against the state.

In fact, during that first gun debate, the state of New Hampshire introduced an amendment that gave the government permission to confiscate guns when citizens “are or have been in Actual Rebellion.” To those early legislators in New Hampshire, the right to bear arms stops as soon as those arms are taken up against our "we the people" government.

Just ask the ancestors of those who participated in the Whiskey Rebellion. In 1794, armed Americans took up guns against what they viewed as a tyrannical George Washington administration imposing taxes on whiskey. President Washington called up 13,000 militia men, and personally led the troops to squash the rebellion of armed citizens in Bedford, Pennsylvania. No Army. No right to have guns to overthrow the oppressive US government.

 

[Bfgrn]

no you don't

Have your mommy look it up...

Selective Service System: Fast Facts

she is dead

Then I guess you will have to put some big boy pants on and look it up yourself.

 

[Pogo]

You most certainly DO have to register.

no you don't

Have your mommy look it up...

Selective Service System: Fast Facts

OK guys, take a breath and settle down. This level is uncalled for.

 

[Vandalshandle]

I'll say it again. This country had no standing army in the 1700's. They called up the militia to fight indians, French, British, and the Whiskey Rebellion. Militia duty was mandatory, and each member had to bring his own gun. The second ammnedment simply said that the government was not going to ban militia weapons, because citizens were expected to usem their own, in defence of the nation.

 

[OKTexas]

When you read the background writings of the Framers regarding the Second Amendment in full context you would know our Founding Fathers never imagined a well-armed citizenry to keep the American government itself in check. It was all about protecting the American government from both foreign and domestic threats.

I'm going to take a longer look at this. However, I have already determined that is was EDITED by a very well known LIBERAL author.

I will update this in about 5 minutes.

EDIT:

From your own link:









Here's a potential tyrant who was definitely AFRAID of this power, there's a long quote by John Adams that also shows he was afraid of the Second Amendment:



I have an honest question, were you assuming that we weren't going to read your link, and just take your word for it? No one, including myself, is denying that the Second Amendment is ALSO designed to protect against foreign invasion and unjustified insurrections.

GENOCIDE REFRENCE



Keep in mind that the quotes and letters he choose in this link, were cherry-picked. He is a known anti-gun activist. And still, he failed, and you failed. By all means, dig up other letters and committee hearings on this issue, you'll be in for a shock. I think there's something in the FEDERALIST PAPERS too, either 26 or 28 that briefly touches this topic.

EDIT 2:

FEDERALIST number 28:

The Federalist #28

It discusses a long deal about the States being able to secure themselves against Federal usurpation, and is generally concurrent with the anti-tyranny view of the second amendment.

I just provided the background writings. Do you need a nanny to read them to you? George Mason was an anti-federalist. His paranoia was not the prevailing mindset of our most significant founding fathers. James Madison, Alexander Hamilton and John Jay who were the authors of the Federalist Papers basically made fun of the paranoid conservatives like Mason.

LOL, come on now, read Federalist number 28, be brave!

I have read Federalist 28. Have you? And if you did, do you even know what Hamilton is arguing for?

I have to laugh when you used the term 'cherry pick'. You have no intention of reading to gain knowledge. You are cherry picking ammunition. But the nuggets you so boastfully beat your chest over do not define the debate. You have merely found your paranoid fear filled brethren from the 18th century who were a minority.

In an 1814 letter to Thomas Cooper, Jefferson wrote of standing armies: “The Greeks and Romans had no standing armies, yet they defended themselves. The Greeks by their laws, and the Romans by the spirit of their people, took care to put into the hands of their rulers no such engine of oppression as a standing army. Their system was to make every man a soldier and oblige him to repair to the standard of his country whenever that was reared. This made them invincible; and the same remedy will make us so.” ref

Had the early framers of the Constitution embraced a standing army during times of peace, then there would be no need for a regulated militia, and thus no need for the 2nd Amendment.

Instead, they openly opposed a standing army during times of peace. Want proof? In the entire Constitution, there are no time limits on the power of Congress to raise money and pay for anything – except an Army. We can have a Navy forever. We can have roads or bridges or post offices or pretty much anything else that supports the "general welfare" without limit and in perpetuity. But an Army? That had to be re-evaluated every two years, when all spending for the past two years of army was zeroed out. It's right there in Article 1, Section 8, line twelve reads that Congress has the power: "To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years."

The Founders knew, from watching the history of Europe, that military coups by a standing army were a greater threat to a nation that most other nations. So they required us to re-evaluate our army every two years.

But without an army, how would we defend ourselves?

With a locally-based, well-regulated - under the control of local authorities, who answer to national authority - militia. Today, we call this the National Guard.
Article 1, Section 8, line 16 of the Constitution doesn't put that two-year limit on the National Guard militia. Instead, it says, Congress has the right to: "To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress."

And make no mistake about it – that militia was to be used to protect our "we the people" government both from foreign armies and from Americans who want to overthrow the government of the United States. Again, line 15 says Congress has the power to: "To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions." Nothing in there about taking down the US government.

As a member of a National Guard militia, the 2nd Amendment is more of a civic duty than a personal right.

Again, it was all about defense of the state – not defense against the state.

In fact, during that first gun debate, the state of New Hampshire introduced an amendment that gave the government permission to confiscate guns when citizens “are or have been in Actual Rebellion.” To those early legislators in New Hampshire, the right to bear arms stops as soon as those arms are taken up against our "we the people" government.

Just ask the ancestors of those who participated in the Whiskey Rebellion. In 1794, armed Americans took up guns against what they viewed as a tyrannical George Washington administration imposing taxes on whiskey. President Washington called up 13,000 militia men, and personally led the troops to squash the rebellion of armed citizens in Bedford, Pennsylvania. No Army. No right to have guns to overthrow the oppressive US government.

You appear to be making a giant leap to a stand that does not exist. No where in the Constitution is the term "State" used synonymously with the "Federal Government". The reasons for a militia mentioned in Article 1 have nothing to do with the 2nd Amendment. The 2nd Amendment was insisted upon by the States as a precondition to ratification of the Constitution and was meant to protect the States and prevent the Federal Government from disarming them. Their concern was the Federal Government would force the States into a national framework, making the State governments irrelevant. Unfortunately the Feds have accomplished through the power of the purse the very things they feared might be accomplished by force.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

Ten Gun Myths Shot Down in a Hail of • • • bullets ​

• Myth #1: They're coming for your guns.
Fact-check: No one knows the exact number of guns in America, but it's clear there's no practical way to round them all up (never mind that no one in Washington is proposing this). Yet if you fantasize about rifle-toting citizens facing down the government, you'll rest easy knowing that America's roughly 80 million gun owners already have the feds and cops outgunned by a factor of around 79 to 1. (chart)

• Myth #2: Guns don't kill people—people kill people.
Fact-check: People with more guns tend to kill more people—with guns. The states with the highest gun ownership rates have a gun murder rate 114% higher than those with the lowest gun ownership rates...

Myth #3: An armed society is a polite society.
Fact-check: Drivers who carry guns are 44% more likely than unarmed drivers to make obscene gestures at other motorists, and 77% more likely to follow them aggressively.

• Among Texans convicted of serious crimes, those with concealed-handgun licenses were sentenced for threatening someone with a firearm 4.8 times more than those without...​

• Myth #4: More good guys with guns can stop rampaging bad guys.
Fact-check: Mass shootings stopped by armed civilians in the past 30 years: 0

• Chances that a shooting at an ER involves guns taken from guards: 1 in 5.​

• Myth #5: Keeping a gun at home makes you safer.
Fact-check: Owning a gun has been linked to higher risks of homicide, suicide, and accidental death by gun.

• For every time a gun is used in self-defense in the home, there are 7 assaults or murders, 11 suicide attempts, and 4 accidents involving guns in or around a home...​

• Myth #6: Carrying a gun for self-defense makes you safer.
Fact-check: In 2011, nearly 10 times more people were shot and killed in arguments than by civilians trying to stop a crime.

• In one survey, nearly 1% of Americans reported using guns to defend themselves or their property. However, a closer look at their claims found that more than 50% involved using guns in an aggressive manner, such as escalating an argument.
• A Philadelphia study found that the odds of an assault victim being shot were 4.5 times greater if he carried a gun. His odds of being killed were 4.2 times greater.​

• Myth #7: Guns make women safer.
Fact-check: In 2010, nearly 6 times more women were shot by husbands, boyfriends, and ex-partners than murdered by male strangers...

• Myth #8: "Vicious, violent video games" deserve more blame than guns.
Fact-check: So said NRA executive vice president Wayne LaPierre after Newtown. So what's up with Japan?
(chart/resource in link - wont behave here)

• Myth #9: More and more Americans are becoming gun owners.
Fact-check: More guns are being sold, but they're owned by a shrinking portion of the population...

• Around 80% of gun owners are men. On average they own 7.9 guns each...​

• Myth #10: We don't need more gun laws—we just need to enforce the ones we have.
Fact-check: Weak laws and loopholes backed by the gun lobby make it easier to get guns illegally.

• Around 40% of all legal gun sales involve private sellers and don't require background checks. 40% of prison inmates who used guns in their crimes got them this way.
• An investigation found 62% of online gun sellers were willing to sell to buyers who said they couldn't pass a background check...​

Links for substantiation of all points, charts, further point narratives at the article link here.

Here's one of them pertaining to Myth 2, particularly illustrative:

Also worth a look is this chart from one of the resources, listing the world's countries ranked by rate of gun ownership (i.e. how armed we are). Take a look at how far ahead we are.

Topic armed and dangerous, unlocked and loaded. Bring it on.

Sorry I didn't click on this thread before today.

Really excellent, factual post but I'm sure all these pages are full of nutter naysayers.

many lies in that OP

Considering your own less than honest postings, this post of yours is just more hot air unless you post proof.

 

[Bfgrn]

I'm going to take a longer look at this. However, I have already determined that is was EDITED by a very well known LIBERAL author.

I will update this in about 5 minutes.

EDIT:

From your own link:









Here's a potential tyrant who was definitely AFRAID of this power, there's a long quote by John Adams that also shows he was afraid of the Second Amendment:



I have an honest question, were you assuming that we weren't going to read your link, and just take your word for it? No one, including myself, is denying that the Second Amendment is ALSO designed to protect against foreign invasion and unjustified insurrections.

GENOCIDE REFRENCE



Keep in mind that the quotes and letters he choose in this link, were cherry-picked. He is a known anti-gun activist. And still, he failed, and you failed. By all means, dig up other letters and committee hearings on this issue, you'll be in for a shock. I think there's something in the FEDERALIST PAPERS too, either 26 or 28 that briefly touches this topic.

EDIT 2:

FEDERALIST number 28:

The Federalist #28

It discusses a long deal about the States being able to secure themselves against Federal usurpation, and is generally concurrent with the anti-tyranny view of the second amendment.



LOL, come on now, read Federalist number 28, be brave!

I have read Federalist 28. Have you? And if you did, do you even know what Hamilton is arguing for?

I have to laugh when you used the term 'cherry pick'. You have no intention of reading to gain knowledge. You are cherry picking ammunition. But the nuggets you so boastfully beat your chest over do not define the debate. You have merely found your paranoid fear filled brethren from the 18th century who were a minority.

In an 1814 letter to Thomas Cooper, Jefferson wrote of standing armies: “The Greeks and Romans had no standing armies, yet they defended themselves. The Greeks by their laws, and the Romans by the spirit of their people, took care to put into the hands of their rulers no such engine of oppression as a standing army. Their system was to make every man a soldier and oblige him to repair to the standard of his country whenever that was reared. This made them invincible; and the same remedy will make us so.” ref

Had the early framers of the Constitution embraced a standing army during times of peace, then there would be no need for a regulated militia, and thus no need for the 2nd Amendment.

Instead, they openly opposed a standing army during times of peace. Want proof? In the entire Constitution, there are no time limits on the power of Congress to raise money and pay for anything – except an Army. We can have a Navy forever. We can have roads or bridges or post offices or pretty much anything else that supports the "general welfare" without limit and in perpetuity. But an Army? That had to be re-evaluated every two years, when all spending for the past two years of army was zeroed out. It's right there in Article 1, Section 8, line twelve reads that Congress has the power: "To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years."

The Founders knew, from watching the history of Europe, that military coups by a standing army were a greater threat to a nation that most other nations. So they required us to re-evaluate our army every two years.

But without an army, how would we defend ourselves?

With a locally-based, well-regulated - under the control of local authorities, who answer to national authority - militia. Today, we call this the National Guard.
Article 1, Section 8, line 16 of the Constitution doesn't put that two-year limit on the National Guard militia. Instead, it says, Congress has the right to: "To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress."

And make no mistake about it – that militia was to be used to protect our "we the people" government both from foreign armies and from Americans who want to overthrow the government of the United States. Again, line 15 says Congress has the power to: "To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions." Nothing in there about taking down the US government.

As a member of a National Guard militia, the 2nd Amendment is more of a civic duty than a personal right.

Again, it was all about defense of the state – not defense against the state.

In fact, during that first gun debate, the state of New Hampshire introduced an amendment that gave the government permission to confiscate guns when citizens “are or have been in Actual Rebellion.” To those early legislators in New Hampshire, the right to bear arms stops as soon as those arms are taken up against our "we the people" government.

Just ask the ancestors of those who participated in the Whiskey Rebellion. In 1794, armed Americans took up guns against what they viewed as a tyrannical George Washington administration imposing taxes on whiskey. President Washington called up 13,000 militia men, and personally led the troops to squash the rebellion of armed citizens in Bedford, Pennsylvania. No Army. No right to have guns to overthrow the oppressive US government.

You appear to be making a giant leap to a stand that does not exist. No where in the Constitution is the term "State" used synonymously with the "Federal Government". The reasons for a militia mentioned in Article 1 have nothing to do with the 2nd Amendment. The 2nd Amendment was insisted upon by the States as a precondition to ratification of the Constitution and was meant to protect the States and prevent the Federal Government from disarming them. Their concern was the Federal Government would force the States into a national framework, making the State governments irrelevant. Unfortunately the Feds have accomplished through the power of the purse the very things they feared might be accomplished by force.

Bullshit, dogma and doctrinaire.

The reason for the 2nd amendment was to replace a standing army in peacetime.

The James Madison resolution on the issue clearly stated that the right to bear arms “shall not be infringed” since a “well-regulated militia” is the “best security of a free country.”