What Do The Words "A Well Regulated Militia" Mean?

[rightwinger]

Who says they are not nor ever will be needed? Why would they have ever been needed? Even as early as the revolution there was a standing army.

They are not needed.

We have the strongest military in history to defend us.

If our government gets out of hand we have a stronger weapon than a militia.......we have a first amendment and the right to vote

The Constitution (and all its Amendments, and our right to vote) will not mean shit, on the day that the government decides to arbitrarily set aside the Constitution, in whole or in part.

It is against that eventuality that the citizens' Right to Bear Arms must - and WILL - be sustained, against all comers, and all challengers, and all attempts to subvert or dilute that Right.

It does not even matter than an armed citizenry would be outgunned at the outbreak of any large-scale resistance or rebellion against some future tyranny; only that the citizenry is sufficiently equipped to commence resistance.

It does not matter that Gun-Grabbers (nor, indeed, Gun Owners themselves) believe that the advent of such a tyranny - requiring popular resistance - is likely or unlikely; merely that the contingency is already contemplated, and the citizenry equipped to resist; however imperfectly, until the Armed Forces themselves come over to the side of the Constitutionalists.

And, beyond the macro-scale, are the thousand and one reasons why the citizenry wishes to possess firearms; each depending upon their locale and circumstances and the like.

We have tradition and custom-and-usage and an operative, existing and powerfully-backed interpretation of the Constitution and its Amendments on our side in this matter.

We are far better organized, and we can see Gun-Grabbers coming a mile off.

You cannot have the guns.

Each and every time you try to make a grab for them, we are going to bitch-slap you in the Legislative Chambers and in the Law Courts and in the Court of Public Opinion.

The guns are ours.

The Right to own them and use them are ours.

You cannot have them.

"No" means "no".

We have gone 225 years and never needed our "Well Regulated Militia" to keep the Government in check

We did have a lengthy period where our Government got out of hand and denied people freedom, liberty, the vote, a fair court system, free access to public facilities. Our Government also supported terrorism against a segment of our population

Our people did not rise up in armed conflict with that Government. They relied of their constitutional freedom of assembly, a free press and our court system to protect their freedom.

Our first amendment is much stronger than our second

 

[jon_berzerk]

Or what it really means....Since militias are no longer needed, we still want to keep our guns anyway

Who says they are not nor ever will be needed? Why would they have ever been needed? Even as early as the revolution there was a standing army.

They are not needed.

We have the strongest military in history to defend us.

If our government gets out of hand we have a stronger weapon than a militia.......we have a first amendment and the right to vote

a lot of people say

"look at that obama he is giving police forces all around the country

military grade weapons and vehicles like he starting his civilian army"


really one should thank the obama admin for putting more and more military

hardware out into the streets where the armed citizenry can get its hands on it when the

time comes

 

[rightwinger]

Who says they are not nor ever will be needed? Why would they have ever been needed? Even as early as the revolution there was a standing army.

They are not needed.

We have the strongest military in history to defend us.

If our government gets out of hand we have a stronger weapon than a militia.......we have a first amendment and the right to vote

a lot of people say

"look at that obama he is giving police forces all around the country

military grade weapons and vehicles like he starting his civilian army"


really one should thank the obama admin for putting more and more military

hardware out into the streets where the armed citizenry can get its hands on it when the

time comes

 

[Kondor3]

They are not needed.

We have the strongest military in history to defend us.

If our government gets out of hand we have a stronger weapon than a militia.......we have a first amendment and the right to vote

The Constitution (and all its Amendments, and our right to vote) will not mean shit, on the day that the government decides to arbitrarily set aside the Constitution, in whole or in part.

It is against that eventuality that the citizens' Right to Bear Arms must - and WILL - be sustained, against all comers, and all challengers, and all attempts to subvert or dilute that Right.

It does not even matter than an armed citizenry would be outgunned at the outbreak of any large-scale resistance or rebellion against some future tyranny; only that the citizenry is sufficiently equipped to commence resistance.

It does not matter that Gun-Grabbers (nor, indeed, Gun Owners themselves) believe that the advent of such a tyranny - requiring popular resistance - is likely or unlikely; merely that the contingency is already contemplated, and the citizenry equipped to resist; however imperfectly, until the Armed Forces themselves come over to the side of the Constitutionalists.

And, beyond the macro-scale, are the thousand and one reasons why the citizenry wishes to possess firearms; each depending upon their locale and circumstances and the like.

We have tradition and custom-and-usage and an operative, existing and powerfully-backed interpretation of the Constitution and its Amendments on our side in this matter.

We are far better organized, and we can see Gun-Grabbers coming a mile off.

You cannot have the guns.

Each and every time you try to make a grab for them, we are going to bitch-slap you in the Legislative Chambers and in the Law Courts and in the Court of Public Opinion.

The guns are ours.

The Right to own them and use them are ours.

You cannot have them.

"No" means "no".

We have gone 225 years and never needed our "Well Regulated Militia" to keep the Government in check

We did have a lengthy period where our Government got out of hand and denied people freedom, liberty, the vote, a fair court system, free access to public facilities. Our Government also supported terrorism against a segment of our population

Our people did not rise up in armed conflict with that Government. They relied of their constitutional freedom of assembly, a free press and our court system to protect their freedom.

Our first amendment is much stronger than our second

And the minute we surrender our arms, we run a vastly higher risk that we WILL need them for the first time, shortly thereafter.

No thank you.

Not gonna happen.

You keep harping on reliance upon the Constitution, freedom of press, the courts, etc.

That all goes down the toilet, if tyranny raises its ugly head within our borders.

Trouble is, that won't mean shit, if that day ever comes.

An armed citizenry is an integral part of ensuring that that day never DOES come.

You have a naive trust in government that is not shared by a great many of your fellow countrymen.

The Right to Bear Arms is ours.

We intend to keep it.

"No" means "no".

 

[Freewill]

Or what it really means....Since militias are no longer needed, we still want to keep our guns anyway

Who says they are not nor ever will be needed? Why would they have ever been needed? Even as early as the revolution there was a standing army.

They are not needed.

We have the strongest military in history to defend us.

If our government gets out of hand we have a stronger weapon than a militia.......we have a first amendment and the right to vote

the point is that it does not matter if a militia is needed or not. YOUR and my opinion is not the question it is what the COTUS says and it is pretty clear. Now if you wish to change the wording, and do it without just ignoring it or continuing a lie, then have a convention and get the required votes from the states.

BTW I personally think that gun owners have gone over board and are a bit on the paranoid side. I own a few hunting guns but I don't need to own an AK47 or an assault rife to feel powerful. But again that is me, that is my opinion.

 

[rightwinger]

The Constitution (and all its Amendments, and our right to vote) will not mean shit, on the day that the government decides to arbitrarily set aside the Constitution, in whole or in part.

It is against that eventuality that the citizens' Right to Bear Arms must - and WILL - be sustained, against all comers, and all challengers, and all attempts to subvert or dilute that Right.

It does not even matter than an armed citizenry would be outgunned at the outbreak of any large-scale resistance or rebellion against some future tyranny; only that the citizenry is sufficiently equipped to commence resistance.

It does not matter that Gun-Grabbers (nor, indeed, Gun Owners themselves) believe that the advent of such a tyranny - requiring popular resistance - is likely or unlikely; merely that the contingency is already contemplated, and the citizenry equipped to resist; however imperfectly, until the Armed Forces themselves come over to the side of the Constitutionalists.

And, beyond the macro-scale, are the thousand and one reasons why the citizenry wishes to possess firearms; each depending upon their locale and circumstances and the like.

We have tradition and custom-and-usage and an operative, existing and powerfully-backed interpretation of the Constitution and its Amendments on our side in this matter.

We are far better organized, and we can see Gun-Grabbers coming a mile off.

You cannot have the guns.

Each and every time you try to make a grab for them, we are going to bitch-slap you in the Legislative Chambers and in the Law Courts and in the Court of Public Opinion.

The guns are ours.

The Right to own them and use them are ours.

You cannot have them.

"No" means "no".

We have gone 225 years and never needed our "Well Regulated Militia" to keep the Government in check

We did have a lengthy period where our Government got out of hand and denied people freedom, liberty, the vote, a fair court system, free access to public facilities. Our Government also supported terrorism against a segment of our population

Our people did not rise up in armed conflict with that Government. They relied of their constitutional freedom of assembly, a free press and our court system to protect their freedom.

Our first amendment is much stronger than our second

And the minute we surrender our arms, we run a vastly higher risk that we WILL need them for the first time, shortly thereafter.

No thank you.

Not gonna happen.

You keep harping on reliance upon the Constitution, freedom of press, the courts, etc.

That all goes down the toilet, if tyranny raises its ugly head within our borders.

Trouble is, that won't mean shit, if that day ever comes.

An armed citizenry is an integral part of ensuring that that day never DOES come.

You have a naive trust in government that is not shared by a great many of your fellow countrymen.

The Right to Bear Arms is ours.

We intend to keep it.

"No" means "no".

Our government does not fear the arms of our citizens. They fear a free press that can bring them to their knees, they fear a free and open voting process that will quickly remove them from power.

The fantasies of some gun owners that they will someday be called to use their guns to bring down the government are laughable

Little boys playing Army

 

[Freewill]

So it's true...
It seems from the posts here from the lefties...
It has nothing to do with gun laws or regulations....

They just don't want Americans to have guns.....

They slipped up here and showed their true colors....

In the words of Al Sharpton who the left reveres....

Nice try.but we got ya!

I hate to say this but I can see both sides. One is the side that wants unrestricted gun ownership. The other side wants a complete ban. Those views are set the scale of the discussion. So between those two falls everyone.

Arguing the ban side I would say if there were no mass killings using guns you would not hear a peep about banning guns. And on the other side if gun owners would not freak out every time there is a mass killing and a few bring up gun control I think their side would be better served. I also say that the argument that people need guns to counter the government really is not going to happen. At least I don't see it and as f..ked up is this government I am not too sure I am willing to put my country into the hands of someone just because they are the most powerful. What my opinion is the gun lobbies best argument is that people have the right to self defense. It is beyond logic that the police can protect everyone, they can't now and I don't see that in the future. So if a person feels the need they should be able to have a gun to protect them and theirs. Also the argument is that the COTUS is clear in that the right to bare arms will not be infringed. That one is really hard to get around.

The gun ban side, I say you can't win the argument. There first of all are too many guns already. Second it is a huge business with huge influence. In my opinion you ought to argue for gun control. If a person wishes to own a lot of guns good for them but they damn well protect those guns. If an assault rifle is stolen and used in a crime then the original owner should be criminally negligent for their poor lack of gun control. If you child takes your gun and decides to shoot the school bully and his friends the same thing. GUN CONTROL is imperative it should just not be done by the government.

 

[Freewill]

We have gone 225 years and never needed our "Well Regulated Militia" to keep the Government in check

We did have a lengthy period where our Government got out of hand and denied people freedom, liberty, the vote, a fair court system, free access to public facilities. Our Government also supported terrorism against a segment of our population

Our people did not rise up in armed conflict with that Government. They relied of their constitutional freedom of assembly, a free press and our court system to protect their freedom.

Our first amendment is much stronger than our second

And the minute we surrender our arms, we run a vastly higher risk that we WILL need them for the first time, shortly thereafter.

No thank you.

Not gonna happen.

You keep harping on reliance upon the Constitution, freedom of press, the courts, etc.

That all goes down the toilet, if tyranny raises its ugly head within our borders.

Trouble is, that won't mean shit, if that day ever comes.

An armed citizenry is an integral part of ensuring that that day never DOES come.

You have a naive trust in government that is not shared by a great many of your fellow countrymen.

The Right to Bear Arms is ours.

We intend to keep it.

"No" means "no".

Our government does not fear the arms of our citizens. They fear a free press that can bring them to their knees, they fear a free and open voting process that will quickly remove them from power.

The fantasies of some gun owners that they will someday be called to use their guns to bring down the government are laughable

Little boys playing Army

Damn man then we are in trouble. "Free Press" in this day is just not happening.

 

[Kondor3]

...BTW I personally think that gun owners have gone over board and are a bit on the paranoid side...

Agreed, believe it or not.

Then again, with the advent of the Internet and other social media, as well as the unfolding of a Lost Generation of idiot gang-bangers and others manifesting mindless violence, Gun-Grabbers have been particularly obnoxious and strident in their assaults against Gun Owners.

There's an old and humorous saying...

"Remember, just because you're paranoid, doesn't mean that they're NOT out to get you."

Truth be told, given the constant assault, I can't blame 'em for getting a little paranoid.

But I completely understand and sympathize with the "Rights" argument, and their firm intention to sustain that Right, and I stand alongside them, in defending it.

...I own a few hunting guns but I don't need to own an AK47 or an assault rife to feel powerful...

Hell, I don't even own one of those. Always figured that guns and kids in the same house were a toxic mix and just asking for trouble, regardless of the precautions one might take.

But I want that Right to Bear Arms preserved, in its entirety, in the event that I ever change my mind about owning guns, and on behalf of family, friends and neighbors who already own them.

 

[rightwinger]

And the minute we surrender our arms, we run a vastly higher risk that we WILL need them for the first time, shortly thereafter.

No thank you.

Not gonna happen.

You keep harping on reliance upon the Constitution, freedom of press, the courts, etc.

That all goes down the toilet, if tyranny raises its ugly head within our borders.

Trouble is, that won't mean shit, if that day ever comes.

An armed citizenry is an integral part of ensuring that that day never DOES come.

You have a naive trust in government that is not shared by a great many of your fellow countrymen.

The Right to Bear Arms is ours.

We intend to keep it.

"No" means "no".

Our government does not fear the arms of our citizens. They fear a free press that can bring them to their knees, they fear a free and open voting process that will quickly remove them from power.

The fantasies of some gun owners that they will someday be called to use their guns to bring down the government are laughable

Little boys playing Army

Damn man then we are in trouble. "Free Press" in this day is just not happening.

We have a more free and open press than in any time in human history. In addition to thousands of independent media outlets, we have this thing called "The Interweb" which allows the average person to publish and access information and opinions instantaneously around the world

 

[natstew]

I need hunting rifles and a shotgun to hunt with.
I need an M-16 to protect myself from a tyrannical Federal Government with.

 

[rightwinger]

I need hunting rifles and a shotgun to hunt with.
I need an M-16 to protect myself from a tyrannical Federal Government with.

Proves my point

 

[Kondor3]

...Our government does not fear the arms of our citizens. They fear a free press that can bring them to their knees, they fear a free and open voting process that will quickly remove them from power...

The government does not need to fear the arms of our citizens; merely the mindset that will impel the populace to rebellion, in the event that tyranny manifests itself here.

...The fantasies of some gun owners that they will someday be called to use their guns to bring down the government are laughable...

I seriously doubt that most Gun Owners believe that their arms can bring down the Government.

On the contrary... should armed rebellion ever become necessary due to our own Government setting aside the Constitution, those citizen arms merely get them in the door of various caches of better weapons scattered throughout the country.

By which time - if the Constitutional Crisis is sufficiently egregious - the bulk of the Armed Forces themselves will probably go over to the side of the Constitutionalists; sworn to defend and protect the Constitution and The People, rather than the Government; in the final analysis.

Citizen arms are merely an opening-days tool, used to leverage better arms, in order for such Resistance to gain sufficient traction to cause entire Army formations to go over to the side of The People.

A very, very long shot, and a highly unlikely scenario, but, for the past 230-ish years, we have rested easier, knowing that this Final Bulwark against Tyranny exists, and there is no reason to set that aside now - especially now, when large-scale government and standing armies and vast bureaucracies and largely un-accountable government agencies exist.

...Little boys playing Army

Of course.

But here's the thing.

They have the RIGHT to play Army.

They have the RIGHT to own and use firearms, as a Final Bulwark against Tyranny.

They have the RIGHT to own and use firearms, for a thousand-and-one OTHER reasons that have nothing whatsoever to do with standing guard against Tyranny.

They have the RIGHT.

And you are NOT going to be allowed to STRIP them of that Right.

Never.

That's not partisan propagandizing.

That's a rock-solid promise.

Better that a thousand gang-banger punks and second-story men die, than a single American be stripped of his Constitutional Right to Bear Arms.

Better that a dozen or more school-kids die, two or three times each year, in mass-shootings, scattered across the country, than a single American be stripped of his Constitutional Right to Bear Arms.

Don't want school-kids being shot?

Then start disciplining the little phukkers at an earlier age and teaching them right from wrong and what is moral and what is not, so you have fewer of them growing up into little wankers who are likely to undertake such a tragic turn.

Then start killing - on-the-scene, or through capital punishment - the little wankers who DO undertake such horrific massacres.

But keep your phukking hands off the Right to Bear Arms.

Because you're going to get bitch-slapped every time you try... today.. tomorrow... or a hundred years from now.

All the juicy rationalizations and hair-shirt mewling about gun-deaths isn't going to do you a damned bit of good.

More emphasis on crime-control, and less emphasis on demonizing the vast percentage of law-abiding Americans who own guns, and who support the Right to Bear Arms.

You cannot have the guns, and you cannot strip-away the Right to Bear Arms.

You won't stop, because you don't have it in you to believe that you're on the wrong side of The Law and history on this one.

So, you'll continue to try.

And we'll continue to slap you down.

You will tire before we do.

Even if this drags on for centuries.

Guaranteed.

 

[Freewill]

...BTW I personally think that gun owners have gone over board and are a bit on the paranoid side...

Agreed, believe it or not.

Then again, with the advent of the Internet and other social media, as well as the unfolding of a Lost Generation of idiot gang-bangers and others manifesting mindless violence, Gun-Grabbers have been particularly obnoxious and strident in their assaults against Gun Owners.

There's an old and humorous saying...

"Remember, just because you're paranoid, doesn't mean that they're NOT out to get you."

Truth be told, given the constant assault, I can't blame 'em for getting a little paranoid.

But I completely understand and sympathize with the "Rights" argument, and their firm intention to sustain that Right, and I stand alongside them, in defending it.

...I own a few hunting guns but I don't need to own an AK47 or an assault rife to feel powerful...

Hell, I don't even own one of those. Always figured that guns and kids in the same house were a toxic mix and just asking for trouble, regardless of the precautions one might take.

But I want that Right to Bear Arms preserved, in its entirety, in the event that I ever change my mind about owning guns, and on behalf of family, friends and neighbors who already own them.

As long as your support of the gun lobby is just not based on being Anti-liberal gun control.

I think most men, can't speak for women, like automatic weapons because they are everything men like. They are finely made machined instruments that a person can shoot , modify will all types of neat gadgets and destroy things (targets). I really think it fills a primal urge.

 

[Freewill]

Our government does not fear the arms of our citizens. They fear a free press that can bring them to their knees, they fear a free and open voting process that will quickly remove them from power.

The fantasies of some gun owners that they will someday be called to use their guns to bring down the government are laughable

Little boys playing Army

Damn man then we are in trouble. "Free Press" in this day is just not happening.

We have a more free and open press than in any time in human history. In addition to thousands of independent media outlets, we have this thing called "The Interweb" which allows the average person to publish and access information and opinions instantaneously around the world

Well I do agree with this but having information and having a free press are two different things. As has been pointed out many times FOX news dominates Internet news but even with their base is it still much smaller then the alphabet news services. So yes, if someone wants to know what is going on they have the access like never before. They just have to be able to sort all the real apples from the road apples. Who is going to do that?

Most people still get their news from the alphabets. I talk to people like that and mention the 16 year old boy killed by drone and they look at me like I am a crazy conspiracy theory nut and am just making things up.

 

[Wildman]

"We have gone 225 years and never needed...," rabid gun control freaks trying to ban our heritage of gun ownership.

WHY ? do you liberfailures, want to ban guns ?

if any gun banners want my gun(s).., all i can say is come and take them, but.., do not come alone, bring along as many of your tyrant in "arms" buddies/boy friends so i can teach/convince you libertards the importance of gun/firearms/weapons ownership, AND why the second should actually be the FIRST Amdt. OK ?





oooooh BTW,

 

[Kondor3]

...As long as your support of the gun lobby is just not based on being Anti-liberal gun control...

I'm as capable as anyone else of having an occasional short-term knee-jerk reaction, but, for me, the Right to Bear Arms is not such an example. It's a calculated, considered position.

As to supporting the 'gun lobby', frankly, I couldn't give a tinker's damn less about it; I care about the Right to Bear Arms.

Happily, however, in this instance, the 'gun lobby' - the collective of lobbying entities and activities, comprised of a hybrid of weapons-manufacturers and retailers and large-scale grass-roots Gun Rights activism - is the most convenient and best-funded banner under which to conduct vigilance and resistance against the Gun-Grabbers.

Tons of support from both The People and Big Business in this instance, to offset the poorly-organized and badly-funded Gun-Grabbing movement, who are ubiquitous and loud but who lack the Constitutional standing and infrastructure and popular support to make any real headway against the US Constitution and the citizenry's Right to Bear Arms.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

And why do RWers and other Republicans like to ignore it?

it means every citizen should be required to undergo firearms training

Sent from my XT1080 using Tapatalk

 

[rightwinger]

"We have gone 225 years and never needed...," rabid gun control freaks trying to ban our heritage of gun ownership.

WHY ? do you liberfailures, want to ban guns ?

if any gun banners want my gun(s).., all i can say is come and take them, but.., do not come alone, bring along as many of your tyrant in "arms" buddies/boy friends so i can teach/convince you libertards the importance of gun/firearms/weapons ownership, AND why the second should actually be the FIRST Amdt. OK ?





oooooh BTW,

 

[rightwinger]

Damn man then we are in trouble. "Free Press" in this day is just not happening.

We have a more free and open press than in any time in human history. In addition to thousands of independent media outlets, we have this thing called "The Interweb" which allows the average person to publish and access information and opinions instantaneously around the world

Well I do agree with this but having information and having a free press are two different things. As has been pointed out many times FOX news dominates Internet news but even with their base is it still much smaller then the alphabet news services. So yes, if someone wants to know what is going on they have the access like never before. They just have to be able to sort all the real apples from the road apples. Who is going to do that?

Most people still get their news from the alphabets. I talk to people like that and mention the 16 year old boy killed by drone and they look at me like I am a crazy conspiracy theory nut and am just making things up.

A free press is needed to keep the people informed on the excesses of Government. Fox and all the legitimate news agencies are just a small piece of that. With the internet, people can instantaneously pass on information to others. Twitter and facebook, smartphone cameras can record news as it happens and broadcast it around the world

Your smartphone is a better tool to keep your government in check than your gun is