The 2nd Amendment Was The Founding Fathers' 'Carry Permit' Right ('Constitutional Carry') Established For American Citizens

[easyt65]

Hey Professor Luna, I think I found a picture of you......


NEWS & POLITICS
Critical Race Theory Backers: 'Our Constitution Should Be Burned'

According to a handful of critical race theory proponents who want the controversial worldview to be taught in schools and dominate our society, reason must be rejected and the United States Constitution should be “burned.”


Is that you in the 'pimp' hat or the one on the right?

Critical Race Theory Backers: 'Our Constitution Should Be Burned'

pjmedia.com

 

[BluesLegend]

Do you seriously believe calling people names in such juvenile fashion is any way substantiates your personal opinions and hatred for this country, our Founding Fathers, and the Constitution?

Bwuhahahaha.....

If you had any respect for the Founding Fathers, then you would recognize that they did not have all of the information necessary for designing a Constitution that could handle the expansion of government that the keenest founders could envision.

I find your post particularly ignorant, did you attend public school? The founding fathers had just fought a war to free the people from an oppressive corrupt government, in a world full of countries ruled by oppressive corrupt governments.

 

[easyt65]

I find your post particularly ignorant, did you attend public school? The founding fathers had just fought a war to free the people from an oppressive corrupt government, in a world full of countries ruled by oppressive corrupt governments.

So they wanted to make sure citizens were protected from future such governments. EXCELLENT post - 'drop mic, walk off'.

 

[jillian]

View attachment 493490


"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."

"....shall not be infringed"....PERIOD!


"With over one-third of U.S. states having adopted constitutional carry laws, it seems apropos to point out the Second Amendment was the Founding Fathers’ carry permit.

Which, by the way, is why permitless carry is called constitutional carry, as it is a return to carrying guns for self-defense based on the authority of the Bill of Rights rather than the possession of government-issued permit."



WHY have Liberals / Pro-Big Government Rule Democrats been allowed to indoctrinate Americans into believing that our freedoms of Speech, Religion, private property, and security of ourselves, homes, and possessions do NOT require government permits yet an eqaul right to own weapons DO require government permits / permissions?



"After all, those first ten amendments in the Bill of Rights protect natural rights the Founding Fathers purposely kept from being under the government’s purview. Freedom of speech, religion, and assembly, all protected by the First Amendment, and the right to keep and bear arms, protected by the Second, private property and security in our “persons, houses, papers, and effects,” protected by the Third and Fourth Amendments, and so on.

Do we need a permit from the government to speak freely?
No.

Do we need a permit to practice our religion?
No.

Do we need a permit in order to be secure in our “persons, houses, papers, and effects?”
Again, the answer is no.

Yet we have been conditioned, via decades of incremental government action and establishment media blah-blah-blah, to go along with the push for a permit in order to exercise our right to bear arms for self-defense."



What part of "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" do Power-hungry, Un-Constitutional Power-Assuming / Wielding Liberal Progressive Socialist Democrats NOT understand?

"The Second Amendment was easily accepted because of widespread agreement that the federal government should not have the power to infringe the right of the people to keep and bear arms, any more than it should have the power to abridge the freedom of speech or prohibit the free exercise of religion."



"By adopting a constitutional carry framework, states are simply returning to the view of bearing arms held by our Founding Fathers in 1791, the year the Second Amendment was ratified. This view was well presented in the masterful book, The Right to Bear Arms: A Constitutional Right or a Privilege of the Ruling Class?, where Stephen Halbrook writes, “At the beginning of the early Republic, citizens were at liberty to peaceably carry arms outside the home in public, openly or concealed, without any restrictions. Legal commentators acclaimed the constitutional right to bear arms as the palladium of liberty of a free state.”

Hawkins: Second Amendment Was the Founding Fathers' Carry Permit

With over one-third of states adopting constitutional carry, it is apropos to note the 2nd Amendment was the Founding Fathers' carry permit.

www.breitbart.com

The U.S. Constitution | Constitution Center

Learn about the text, history, and meaning of the U.S. Constitution from leading scholars of diverse legal and philosophical perspectives.

constitutioncenter.org

No Sergei

 

[BluesLegend]

I find your post particularly ignorant, did you attend public school? The founding fathers had just fought a war to free the people from an oppressive corrupt government, in a world full of countries ruled by oppressive corrupt governments.

So they wanted to make sure citizens were protected from future such governments. EXCELLENT post - 'drop mic, walk off'.

Bingo! The founding fathers knew all too well how governments and their corrupt stooges oppress the people hence the Declaration of Independence, Constitution and Bill of Rights. These morons on the left are dumb as a post wishing for big government, been there done that 200+ years ago.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

No Sergei

Very convincing argument. I am nearly persuaded.

 

[$ecular#eckler]

Do you seriously believe calling people names in such juvenile fashion is any way substantiates your personal opinions and hatred for this country, our Founding Fathers, and the Constitution?

Bwuhahahaha.....

If you had any respect for the Founding Fathers, then you would recognize that they did not have all of the information necessary for designing a Constitution that could handle the expansion of government that the keenest founders could envision.

Good thing we have the amendment process.

There is no amendment for any expansion of the government. There was no amendment for the department of war, state, treasury, central bank, commerce, justice, environment, education, and so on - the list is over a hundred and fifty security departments.

The reason for there not being an amendment is because the proper addition is not an amendment - it is a reorder of the organizational charter to ensure the correct balance of power and the checks on power.

 

[$ecular#eckler]

I find your post particularly ignorant, did you attend public school? The founding fathers had just fought a war to free the people from an oppressive corrupt government, in a world full of countries ruled by oppressive corrupt governments.

So they wanted to make sure citizens were protected from future such governments. EXCELLENT post - 'drop mic, walk off'.

I think his post was in response to my brilliant post and has nothing to do with your opening post.

I find your post particularly ignorant, did you attend public school? The founding fathers had just fought a war to free the people from an oppressive corrupt government, in a world full of countries ruled by oppressive corrupt governments.

What does that have to do with the composing of the Constitution, and my assertion that they lacked the information they needed to get it right?

I am certainly not an advocate for frequent and untried changes in laws and constitutions. I think moderate imperfections had better be borne with; because, when once known, we accommodate ourselves to them, and find practical means of correcting their ill effects. But I know also, that 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 disclosed, and manners and opinions change with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also, and 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.
― Thomas Jefferson, 1816

 

[$ecular#eckler]

I find your post particularly ignorant, did you attend public school? The founding fathers had just fought a war to free the people from an oppressive corrupt government, in a world full of countries ruled by oppressive corrupt governments.

So they wanted to make sure citizens were protected from future such governments. EXCELLENT post - 'drop mic, walk off'.

Bingo! The founding fathers knew all too well how governments and their corrupt stooges oppress the people hence the Declaration of Independence, Constitution and Bill of Rights. These morons on the left are dumb as a post wishing for big government, been there done that 200+ years ago.

You are experiencing big government with a lack of balanced power, and inaccurate checks on power; because the only way to do "limited government" is by a charter that details it all, and the almighty United States Constitution does not do it.

 

[$ecular#eckler]

No Sergei

Very convincing argument. I am nearly persuaded.

You are going to have to excuse Jillian, she's a Black woman strongly influenced by Critical Race Theory, and Project 1619, and Black Lives Matter, and ghetto logic. She does not have time to write out details for white people. It is very very difficult for black people to write paragraphs of information. Smart-ass comments is their preference, because white people just wouldn't understand.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Do you seriously believe calling people names in such juvenile fashion is any way substantiates your personal opinions and hatred for this country, our Founding Fathers, and the Constitution?

Bwuhahahaha.....

If you had any respect for the Founding Fathers, then you would recognize that they did not have all of the information necessary for designing a Constitution that could handle the expansion of government that the keenest founders could envision.

Good thing we have the amendment process.

There is no amendment for any expansion of the government. There was no amendment for the department of war, state, treasury, central bank, commerce, justice, environment, education, and so on - the list is over a hundred and fifty security departments.

The reason for there not being an amendment is because the proper addition is not an amendment - it is a reorder of the organizational charter to ensure the correct balance of power and the checks on power.

Every law must be consistent with the limitations provided in the Constitution. To the extent that anyone wishes to create a law directly in conflict with the Constitutional limitations, they must amend or do without.

 

[sartre play]

Pro gun anti gun nuts, we have way to many people with no respect for guns, Who started this whole deal with carrying Guns in public places? why would you need a gun at the grocery store flea mt or to go to lunch?

 

[Osiris-ODS]

Pro gun anti gun nuts, we have way to many people with no respect for guns, Who started this whole deal with carrying Guns in public places? why would you need a gun at the grocery store flea mt or to go to lunch?

"Who started this whole deal with carrying Guns in public places? why would you need a gun at the grocery store flea mt or to go to lunch?"

Educate yourself:

Data Visualization | Defensive Gun Uses in the U.S. | The Heritage Foundation

According to almost every major study on the issue, Americans use their firearms defensively between 500,000 and 3 million times each year. From @HeritageDataViz

www.heritage.org

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Who started this whole deal with carrying Guns in public places?

The founders.



Did you mean to walk right into that one?

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

Waiting for the obligatory "the Second Amendment applied to flintlocks not weapons of war" (ignoring that private citizens owned cannons, gatling guns and warships at the time)

Or "the Second Amendment applies to the state militia which is the National Guard" (ignoring that the militia statement is explanatory not conditional, and that the National Guard did not even exist at the time)

Fortunately I wont see those posts because I think I have all of those idiots on ignore.

The 2nd is no longer needed now that we have a huge standing army.

So you dont know why we have the 2nd Amendment.

 

[danielpalos]

View attachment 493490


"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."

"....shall not be infringed"....PERIOD!


"With over one-third of U.S. states having adopted constitutional carry laws, it seems apropos to point out the Second Amendment was the Founding Fathers’ carry permit.

Which, by the way, is why permitless carry is called constitutional carry, as it is a return to carrying guns for self-defense based on the authority of the Bill of Rights rather than the possession of government-issued permit."



WHY have Liberals / Pro-Big Government Rule Democrats been allowed to indoctrinate Americans into believing that our freedoms of Speech, Religion, private property, and security of ourselves, homes, and possessions do NOT require government permits yet an eqaul right to own weapons DO require government permits / permissions?



"After all, those first ten amendments in the Bill of Rights protect natural rights the Founding Fathers purposely kept from being under the government’s purview. Freedom of speech, religion, and assembly, all protected by the First Amendment, and the right to keep and bear arms, protected by the Second, private property and security in our “persons, houses, papers, and effects,” protected by the Third and Fourth Amendments, and so on.

Do we need a permit from the government to speak freely?
No.

Do we need a permit to practice our religion?
No.

Do we need a permit in order to be secure in our “persons, houses, papers, and effects?”
Again, the answer is no.

Yet we have been conditioned, via decades of incremental government action and establishment media blah-blah-blah, to go along with the push for a permit in order to exercise our right to bear arms for self-defense."



What part of "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" do Power-hungry, Un-Constitutional Power-Assuming / Wielding Liberal Progressive Socialist Democrats NOT understand?

"The Second Amendment was easily accepted because of widespread agreement that the federal government should not have the power to infringe the right of the people to keep and bear arms, any more than it should have the power to abridge the freedom of speech or prohibit the free exercise of religion."



"By adopting a constitutional carry framework, states are simply returning to the view of bearing arms held by our Founding Fathers in 1791, the year the Second Amendment was ratified. This view was well presented in the masterful book, The Right to Bear Arms: A Constitutional Right or a Privilege of the Ruling Class?, where Stephen Halbrook writes, “At the beginning of the early Republic, citizens were at liberty to peaceably carry arms outside the home in public, openly or concealed, without any restrictions. Legal commentators acclaimed the constitutional right to bear arms as the palladium of liberty of a free state.”

Hawkins: Second Amendment Was the Founding Fathers' Carry Permit

With over one-third of states adopting constitutional carry, it is apropos to note the 2nd Amendment was the Founding Fathers' carry permit.

www.breitbart.com

The U.S. Constitution | Constitution Center

Learn about the text, history, and meaning of the U.S. Constitution from leading scholars of diverse legal and philosophical perspectives.

constitutioncenter.org

The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia.

 

[easyt65]

View attachment 493490


"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."

"....shall not be infringed"....PERIOD!


"With over one-third of U.S. states having adopted constitutional carry laws, it seems apropos to point out the Second Amendment was the Founding Fathers’ carry permit.

Which, by the way, is why permitless carry is called constitutional carry, as it is a return to carrying guns for self-defense based on the authority of the Bill of Rights rather than the possession of government-issued permit."



WHY have Liberals / Pro-Big Government Rule Democrats been allowed to indoctrinate Americans into believing that our freedoms of Speech, Religion, private property, and security of ourselves, homes, and possessions do NOT require government permits yet an eqaul right to own weapons DO require government permits / permissions?



"After all, those first ten amendments in the Bill of Rights protect natural rights the Founding Fathers purposely kept from being under the government’s purview. Freedom of speech, religion, and assembly, all protected by the First Amendment, and the right to keep and bear arms, protected by the Second, private property and security in our “persons, houses, papers, and effects,” protected by the Third and Fourth Amendments, and so on.

Do we need a permit from the government to speak freely?
No.

Do we need a permit to practice our religion?
No.

Do we need a permit in order to be secure in our “persons, houses, papers, and effects?”
Again, the answer is no.

Yet we have been conditioned, via decades of incremental government action and establishment media blah-blah-blah, to go along with the push for a permit in order to exercise our right to bear arms for self-defense."



What part of "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" do Power-hungry, Un-Constitutional Power-Assuming / Wielding Liberal Progressive Socialist Democrats NOT understand?

"The Second Amendment was easily accepted because of widespread agreement that the federal government should not have the power to infringe the right of the people to keep and bear arms, any more than it should have the power to abridge the freedom of speech or prohibit the free exercise of religion."



"By adopting a constitutional carry framework, states are simply returning to the view of bearing arms held by our Founding Fathers in 1791, the year the Second Amendment was ratified. This view was well presented in the masterful book, The Right to Bear Arms: A Constitutional Right or a Privilege of the Ruling Class?, where Stephen Halbrook writes, “At the beginning of the early Republic, citizens were at liberty to peaceably carry arms outside the home in public, openly or concealed, without any restrictions. Legal commentators acclaimed the constitutional right to bear arms as the palladium of liberty of a free state.”

Hawkins: Second Amendment Was the Founding Fathers' Carry Permit

With over one-third of states adopting constitutional carry, it is apropos to note the 2nd Amendment was the Founding Fathers' carry permit.

www.breitbart.com

The U.S. Constitution | Constitution Center

Learn about the text, history, and meaning of the U.S. Constitution from leading scholars of diverse legal and philosophical perspectives.

constitutioncenter.org

The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia.

The 2nd Amendment rights 'will not be infringed.'

Again, after just defeating tyrannical leaders who ruled over them, the Founding Fathers created rights intended to prohibit future governments from becoming so and from stripping away their rights and freedoms.

 

[danielpalos]

View attachment 493490


"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."

"....shall not be infringed"....PERIOD!


"With over one-third of U.S. states having adopted constitutional carry laws, it seems apropos to point out the Second Amendment was the Founding Fathers’ carry permit.

Which, by the way, is why permitless carry is called constitutional carry, as it is a return to carrying guns for self-defense based on the authority of the Bill of Rights rather than the possession of government-issued permit."



WHY have Liberals / Pro-Big Government Rule Democrats been allowed to indoctrinate Americans into believing that our freedoms of Speech, Religion, private property, and security of ourselves, homes, and possessions do NOT require government permits yet an eqaul right to own weapons DO require government permits / permissions?



"After all, those first ten amendments in the Bill of Rights protect natural rights the Founding Fathers purposely kept from being under the government’s purview. Freedom of speech, religion, and assembly, all protected by the First Amendment, and the right to keep and bear arms, protected by the Second, private property and security in our “persons, houses, papers, and effects,” protected by the Third and Fourth Amendments, and so on.

Do we need a permit from the government to speak freely?
No.

Do we need a permit to practice our religion?
No.

Do we need a permit in order to be secure in our “persons, houses, papers, and effects?”
Again, the answer is no.

Yet we have been conditioned, via decades of incremental government action and establishment media blah-blah-blah, to go along with the push for a permit in order to exercise our right to bear arms for self-defense."



What part of "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" do Power-hungry, Un-Constitutional Power-Assuming / Wielding Liberal Progressive Socialist Democrats NOT understand?

"The Second Amendment was easily accepted because of widespread agreement that the federal government should not have the power to infringe the right of the people to keep and bear arms, any more than it should have the power to abridge the freedom of speech or prohibit the free exercise of religion."



"By adopting a constitutional carry framework, states are simply returning to the view of bearing arms held by our Founding Fathers in 1791, the year the Second Amendment was ratified. This view was well presented in the masterful book, The Right to Bear Arms: A Constitutional Right or a Privilege of the Ruling Class?, where Stephen Halbrook writes, “At the beginning of the early Republic, citizens were at liberty to peaceably carry arms outside the home in public, openly or concealed, without any restrictions. Legal commentators acclaimed the constitutional right to bear arms as the palladium of liberty of a free state.”

Hawkins: Second Amendment Was the Founding Fathers' Carry Permit

With over one-third of states adopting constitutional carry, it is apropos to note the 2nd Amendment was the Founding Fathers' carry permit.

www.breitbart.com

The U.S. Constitution | Constitution Center

Learn about the text, history, and meaning of the U.S. Constitution from leading scholars of diverse legal and philosophical perspectives.

constitutioncenter.org

The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia.

The 2nd Amendment rights 'will not be infringed.'

Again, after just defeating tyrannical leaders who ruled over them, the Founding Fathers created rights intended to prohibit future governments from becoming so and from stripping away their rights and freedoms.

Our Second Amendment says nothing about tyrannical Government only the security of a free State.

 

[easyt65]

View attachment 493490


"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."

"....shall not be infringed"....PERIOD!


"With over one-third of U.S. states having adopted constitutional carry laws, it seems apropos to point out the Second Amendment was the Founding Fathers’ carry permit.

Which, by the way, is why permitless carry is called constitutional carry, as it is a return to carrying guns for self-defense based on the authority of the Bill of Rights rather than the possession of government-issued permit."



WHY have Liberals / Pro-Big Government Rule Democrats been allowed to indoctrinate Americans into believing that our freedoms of Speech, Religion, private property, and security of ourselves, homes, and possessions do NOT require government permits yet an eqaul right to own weapons DO require government permits / permissions?



"After all, those first ten amendments in the Bill of Rights protect natural rights the Founding Fathers purposely kept from being under the government’s purview. Freedom of speech, religion, and assembly, all protected by the First Amendment, and the right to keep and bear arms, protected by the Second, private property and security in our “persons, houses, papers, and effects,” protected by the Third and Fourth Amendments, and so on.

Do we need a permit from the government to speak freely?
No.

Do we need a permit to practice our religion?
No.

Do we need a permit in order to be secure in our “persons, houses, papers, and effects?”
Again, the answer is no.

Yet we have been conditioned, via decades of incremental government action and establishment media blah-blah-blah, to go along with the push for a permit in order to exercise our right to bear arms for self-defense."



What part of "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" do Power-hungry, Un-Constitutional Power-Assuming / Wielding Liberal Progressive Socialist Democrats NOT understand?

"The Second Amendment was easily accepted because of widespread agreement that the federal government should not have the power to infringe the right of the people to keep and bear arms, any more than it should have the power to abridge the freedom of speech or prohibit the free exercise of religion."



"By adopting a constitutional carry framework, states are simply returning to the view of bearing arms held by our Founding Fathers in 1791, the year the Second Amendment was ratified. This view was well presented in the masterful book, The Right to Bear Arms: A Constitutional Right or a Privilege of the Ruling Class?, where Stephen Halbrook writes, “At the beginning of the early Republic, citizens were at liberty to peaceably carry arms outside the home in public, openly or concealed, without any restrictions. Legal commentators acclaimed the constitutional right to bear arms as the palladium of liberty of a free state.”

Hawkins: Second Amendment Was the Founding Fathers' Carry Permit

With over one-third of states adopting constitutional carry, it is apropos to note the 2nd Amendment was the Founding Fathers' carry permit.

www.breitbart.com

The U.S. Constitution | Constitution Center

Learn about the text, history, and meaning of the U.S. Constitution from leading scholars of diverse legal and philosophical perspectives.

constitutioncenter.org

The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia.

The 2nd Amendment rights 'will not be infringed.'

Again, after just defeating tyrannical leaders who ruled over them, the Founding Fathers created rights intended to prohibit future governments from becoming so and from stripping away their rights and freedoms.

Our Second Amendment says nothing about tyrannical Government only the security of a free State.

A past tyrannical govt is part of the reason for the Constitution, & you forgot to mention how the 2nd Amendment - and others addresses INDIVIDUALS' rights and freedoms.

 

[danielpalos]

View attachment 493490


"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."

"....shall not be infringed"....PERIOD!


"With over one-third of U.S. states having adopted constitutional carry laws, it seems apropos to point out the Second Amendment was the Founding Fathers’ carry permit.

Which, by the way, is why permitless carry is called constitutional carry, as it is a return to carrying guns for self-defense based on the authority of the Bill of Rights rather than the possession of government-issued permit."



WHY have Liberals / Pro-Big Government Rule Democrats been allowed to indoctrinate Americans into believing that our freedoms of Speech, Religion, private property, and security of ourselves, homes, and possessions do NOT require government permits yet an eqaul right to own weapons DO require government permits / permissions?



"After all, those first ten amendments in the Bill of Rights protect natural rights the Founding Fathers purposely kept from being under the government’s purview. Freedom of speech, religion, and assembly, all protected by the First Amendment, and the right to keep and bear arms, protected by the Second, private property and security in our “persons, houses, papers, and effects,” protected by the Third and Fourth Amendments, and so on.

Do we need a permit from the government to speak freely?
No.

Do we need a permit to practice our religion?
No.

Do we need a permit in order to be secure in our “persons, houses, papers, and effects?”
Again, the answer is no.

Yet we have been conditioned, via decades of incremental government action and establishment media blah-blah-blah, to go along with the push for a permit in order to exercise our right to bear arms for self-defense."



What part of "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" do Power-hungry, Un-Constitutional Power-Assuming / Wielding Liberal Progressive Socialist Democrats NOT understand?

"The Second Amendment was easily accepted because of widespread agreement that the federal government should not have the power to infringe the right of the people to keep and bear arms, any more than it should have the power to abridge the freedom of speech or prohibit the free exercise of religion."



"By adopting a constitutional carry framework, states are simply returning to the view of bearing arms held by our Founding Fathers in 1791, the year the Second Amendment was ratified. This view was well presented in the masterful book, The Right to Bear Arms: A Constitutional Right or a Privilege of the Ruling Class?, where Stephen Halbrook writes, “At the beginning of the early Republic, citizens were at liberty to peaceably carry arms outside the home in public, openly or concealed, without any restrictions. Legal commentators acclaimed the constitutional right to bear arms as the palladium of liberty of a free state.”

Hawkins: Second Amendment Was the Founding Fathers' Carry Permit

With over one-third of states adopting constitutional carry, it is apropos to note the 2nd Amendment was the Founding Fathers' carry permit.

www.breitbart.com

The U.S. Constitution | Constitution Center

Learn about the text, history, and meaning of the U.S. Constitution from leading scholars of diverse legal and philosophical perspectives.

constitutioncenter.org

The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia.

The 2nd Amendment rights 'will not be infringed.'

Again, after just defeating tyrannical leaders who ruled over them, the Founding Fathers created rights intended to prohibit future governments from becoming so and from stripping away their rights and freedoms.

Our Second Amendment says nothing about tyrannical Government only the security of a free State.

A past tyrannical govt is part of the reason for the Constitution, & you forgot to mention how the 2nd Amendment - and others addresses INDIVIDUALS' rights and freedoms.

Our Constitution is express not implied. None of the other amendments are about the security of a free State and what is necessary not optional.