Why was the second amendment written?

[Rye Catcher]

opinion only an opinion.

shall not be infringed is not an opinion.

Yes it is. In fact gun ownership and possession has been regulated for centuries.

 

[Gdjjr]

Yes it is. In fact gun ownership and possession has been regulated for centuries.

opinions are like asses- everyone has one- some smell worse than others and they, nor yours, changes the words or their meaning- but, I tell you what, hero, come and take it- but, don't bring your choice of fire arm and see how far you get-

 

[westwall]

The founders / framers (especially the framers) debated heavily before the Constitutional Convention. Us gun nuts (sic) know a little more history than you, so don't waste your desperation with non sequitirs.

Not only were we left with a Constitution, but the words explaining the meanings and intent of that Constitution. Let me leave you with some more of their wisdom:

"...on every question of construction, carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed."

Founders Online: From Thomas Jefferson to William Johnson, 12 June 1823

I understand. When the facts call your narrative into question, you have to try something to refute them. The problem is, you have nothing to refute the truth with. And you are losing sight of what the OP asked.

“I am not an advocate for frequent changes in laws and Constitutions. But 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 discovered and manners and opinions change, with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also to 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

Was bolding that supposed to try and silence the truth? Did you read the quotes I have used of Jefferson's on this this thread? Do you need me to repeat them?

First, and foremost, George Washington disagrees with what you are trying to sell. There is a way to make changes. Here is George Washington's words. Hell, let me make them big and bold so you can see them. Maybe that's been your problem... type is too small:

"If in the opinion of the People, the distribution or modification of the Constitutional powers be in any particular wrong, let it be corrected by an amendment in the way which the Constitution designates. But let there be no change by usurpation; for though this, in one instance, may be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed."

FAREWELL ADDRESS TO THE PEOPLE OF THE UNITED STATES

The American people are free to change their form of government, the concept of unalienable Rights is NOT what Jefferson was alluding to. There are limits to what government can change in our Republic. Let us quote Thomas Jefferson again:

Nothing is unchangeable but the inherent and unalienable rights of man. - Thomas Jefferson

In today’s political climate, amending the Constitution is impossible. It hasn’t been amended in over 40 years

Our constitution is written in broad terms. Leaving up to future generations what they want to do

Exactly. The Founders set up our system to be adversarial. That way the Rights of the individual would be much harder to take away through legislative fiat.

They were brilliant men.

The Constitution is written in broad enough terms that Amendments are rarely needed

Indeed it is, and yet the Bill of Rights are very precise. The only way to narrow their meaning, and intent, is via intentional misinterpretation, and outright denying the actual meanings of the words they very carefully wrote the Bill of Rights with.

The 2nd is an excellent example of their forethought, and brilliance, for if they had written it poorly, the guns would already be gone, and this country would be the dictatorial hell hole you so desire.

 

[westwall]

The founders / framers (especially the framers) debated heavily before the Constitutional Convention. Us gun nuts (sic) know a little more history than you, so don't waste your desperation with non sequitirs.

Not only were we left with a Constitution, but the words explaining the meanings and intent of that Constitution. Let me leave you with some more of their wisdom:

"...on every question of construction, carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed."

Founders Online: From Thomas Jefferson to William Johnson, 12 June 1823

I understand. When the facts call your narrative into question, you have to try something to refute them. The problem is, you have nothing to refute the truth with. And you are losing sight of what the OP asked.

“I am not an advocate for frequent changes in laws and Constitutions. But 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 discovered and manners and opinions change, with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also to 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

Was bolding that supposed to try and silence the truth? Did you read the quotes I have used of Jefferson's on this this thread? Do you need me to repeat them?

First, and foremost, George Washington disagrees with what you are trying to sell. There is a way to make changes. Here is George Washington's words. Hell, let me make them big and bold so you can see them. Maybe that's been your problem... type is too small:

"If in the opinion of the People, the distribution or modification of the Constitutional powers be in any particular wrong, let it be corrected by an amendment in the way which the Constitution designates. But let there be no change by usurpation; for though this, in one instance, may be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed."

FAREWELL ADDRESS TO THE PEOPLE OF THE UNITED STATES

The American people are free to change their form of government, the concept of unalienable Rights is NOT what Jefferson was alluding to. There are limits to what government can change in our Republic. Let us quote Thomas Jefferson again:

Nothing is unchangeable but the inherent and unalienable rights of man. - Thomas Jefferson

In today’s political climate, amending the Constitution is impossible. It hasn’t been amended in over 40 years

Our constitution is written in broad terms. Leaving up to future generations what they want to do

The Bill of Rights and the concept of unalienable Rights - Rights that are so sacred that they transcend government and are above the law is beyond the legitimate bounds of government.

Our Constitution and laws give people more rights than the Bible does

No, they merely specify what those Rights are that the government can't screw with. The Bill of Rights gives nothing.

 

[westwall]

Was bolding that supposed to try and silence the truth? Did you read the quotes I have used of Jefferson's on this this thread? Do you need me to repeat them?

First, and foremost, George Washington disagrees with what you are trying to sell. There is a way to make changes. Here is George Washington's words. Hell, let me make them big and bold so you can see them. Maybe that's been your problem... type is too small:

"If in the opinion of the People, the distribution or modification of the Constitutional powers be in any particular wrong, let it be corrected by an amendment in the way which the Constitution designates. But let there be no change by usurpation; for though this, in one instance, may be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed."

FAREWELL ADDRESS TO THE PEOPLE OF THE UNITED STATES

The American people are free to change their form of government, the concept of unalienable Rights is NOT what Jefferson was alluding to. There are limits to what government can change in our Republic. Let us quote Thomas Jefferson again:

Nothing is unchangeable but the inherent and unalienable rights of man. - Thomas Jefferson

In today’s political climate, amending the Constitution is impossible. It hasn’t been amended in over 40 years

Our constitution is written in broad terms. Leaving up to future generations what they want to do

Exactly. The Founders set up our system to be adversarial. That way the Rights of the individual would be much harder to take away through legislative fiat.

They were brilliant men.

The Constitution is written in broad enough terms that Amendments are rarely needed

Shall not be infringed is not a broad term. The Right of the People is equally unequivocal in its meaning.

Open to interpretation. Nobody has unlimited arms rights
You cannot buy an RPG or Stinger missile
You cannot fire your weapon any time or any place you want

Not open. The laws we have now violate the COTUS and BOR. The PEOPLE foolishly allowed those laws to remain.

 

[westwall]

opinion only an opinion.

shall not be infringed is not an opinion.

Yes it is. In fact gun ownership and possession has been regulated for centuries.

Illegally. And in this country at the Federal level only from the 1930's.

 

[Rye Catcher]

It talks about a "well regulated militia", and that was because the US didn't have a standing military yet, so it depended on the people for defense.

Personally? I think that after we stood up our military, and made it one of the most formidable on the planet, that is when the 2nd became obsolete. And, while I'm from Montana and didn't know what store bought meat was most of my childhood, I'm also a hunter. And, if a person wants a 6 shooter, or any other kind of handgun, I would like the ammo to only be around 9 rounds before you have to reload. If you want to own a rifle, bolt action or lever action rifles are perfectly fine, and again, I'd like to see an ammo limit of about 10 rounds or less before reloading.

Semi automatic weapons that fire a round with each trigger squeeze that holds 30 plus rounds? Don't see the use of them. Handguns are better for home defense, and the AR-15 is designed to throw lots of ammo downrange quickly, which the only use I could see is in a war zone. And yeah, I served 20 years in the Navy.

You have a 99.997 chance of not getting murdered by a person with a gun

So guns aren't the problem

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

LOL. A gun is a problem when it is in the hands of a drunk, a mentally ill person or a violent criminal, or one in the making. Thus I will now use the phrase people control, does that make the issue clear.

Every post when gun control is the issue, the same people defend all common sense gun regulations with the phrase, "shall not be infringed". If that phrase is taken literally it means the drunk, the seriously mentally ill and the violent felon have the absolute right to own and possess a firearm all of the time, everywhere they go.

 

[westwall]

It talks about a "well regulated militia", and that was because the US didn't have a standing military yet, so it depended on the people for defense.

Personally? I think that after we stood up our military, and made it one of the most formidable on the planet, that is when the 2nd became obsolete. And, while I'm from Montana and didn't know what store bought meat was most of my childhood, I'm also a hunter. And, if a person wants a 6 shooter, or any other kind of handgun, I would like the ammo to only be around 9 rounds before you have to reload. If you want to own a rifle, bolt action or lever action rifles are perfectly fine, and again, I'd like to see an ammo limit of about 10 rounds or less before reloading.

Semi automatic weapons that fire a round with each trigger squeeze that holds 30 plus rounds? Don't see the use of them. Handguns are better for home defense, and the AR-15 is designed to throw lots of ammo downrange quickly, which the only use I could see is in a war zone. And yeah, I served 20 years in the Navy.

You have a 99.997 chance of not getting murdered by a person with a gun

So guns aren't the problem

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

LOL. A gun is a problem when it is in the hands of a drunk, a mentally ill person or a violent criminal, or one in the making. Thus I will now use the phrase people control, does that make the issue clear.

Every post when gun control is the issue, the same people defend all common sense gun regulations with the phrase, "shall not be infringed". If that phrase is taken literally it means the drunk, the seriously mentally ill and the violent felon have the absolute right to own and possess a firearm all of the time, everywhere they go.

Wow, you're finally getting it. Keep bad people off the streets.

Exactly what we have been saying for decades. Nice to see you catching up.

 

[Gdjjr]

LOL. A gun is a problem when it is in the hands of a drunk, a mentally ill person or a violent criminal, or one in the making. Thus I will now use the phrase people control, does that make the issue clear.

Every post when gun control is the issue, the same people defend all common sense gun regulations with the phrase, "shall not be infringed". If that phrase is taken literally it means the drunk, the seriously mentally ill and the violent felon have the absolute right to own and possess a firearm all of the time, everywhere they go.

You're using thought policing- it's after 1984- if one has not committed a criminal offense making him a criminal by law is immoral- real criminal offenses are immoral- ALL of them, including thought policing- what if is used to justify ignorance and control of the other ignorant- justify is an excuse, an excuse is an attempt to justify, usually lame- reason is a sound explanation - thought policing is not sound- it is based on a preconceived notion- sold with fear of what if-

 

[Porter Rockwell]

Was bolding that supposed to try and silence the truth? Did you read the quotes I have used of Jefferson's on this this thread? Do you need me to repeat them?

First, and foremost, George Washington disagrees with what you are trying to sell. There is a way to make changes. Here is George Washington's words. Hell, let me make them big and bold so you can see them. Maybe that's been your problem... type is too small:

"If in the opinion of the People, the distribution or modification of the Constitutional powers be in any particular wrong, let it be corrected by an amendment in the way which the Constitution designates. But let there be no change by usurpation; for though this, in one instance, may be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed."

FAREWELL ADDRESS TO THE PEOPLE OF THE UNITED STATES

The American people are free to change their form of government, the concept of unalienable Rights is NOT what Jefferson was alluding to. There are limits to what government can change in our Republic. Let us quote Thomas Jefferson again:

Nothing is unchangeable but the inherent and unalienable rights of man. - Thomas Jefferson

In today’s political climate, amending the Constitution is impossible. It hasn’t been amended in over 40 years

Our constitution is written in broad terms. Leaving up to future generations what they want to do

Exactly. The Founders set up our system to be adversarial. That way the Rights of the individual would be much harder to take away through legislative fiat.

They were brilliant men.

The Constitution is written in broad enough terms that Amendments are rarely needed

Shall not be infringed is not a broad term. The Right of the People is equally unequivocal in its meaning.

Open to interpretation. Nobody has unlimited arms rights
You cannot buy an RPG or Stinger missile
You cannot fire your weapon any time or any place you want

According to the court rulings:

“By the "absolute rights" of individuals is meant those which are so in their primary and strictest sense, such as would belong to their persons merely in a state of nature, and which every man is entitled to enjoy, whether out of society or in it. The rights of personal security, of personal liberty, and private property do not depend upon the Constitution for their existence. They existed before the Constitution was made, or the government was organized. These are what are termed the "absolute rights" of individuals, which belong to them independently of all government, and which all governments which derive their power from the consent of the governed were instituted to protect.” People v. Berberrich (N. Y.) 20 Barb. 224, 229; McCartee v. Orphan Asylum Soc. (N. Y.) 9 Cow. 437, 511, 513, 18 Am. Dec. 516; People v. Toynbee (N. Y.) 2 Parker, Cr. R. 329, 369, 370 (quoting 1 Bl. Comm. 123) - {1855}


“The absolute rights of individuals may be resolved into the right of personal security, the right of personal liberty, and the right to acquire and enjoy property. These rights are declared to be natural, inherent, and unalienable.” Atchison & N. R. Co. v. Baty, 6 Neb. 37, 40, 29 Am. Rep. 356 (1877)

“Men are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights,-'life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness;'and to 'secure,'not grant or create, these rights, governments are instituted. That property which a man has honestly acquired he retains full control of, subject to these limitations: First, that he shall not use it to his neighbor's injury, and that does not mean that he must use it for his neighbor's benefit; second, that if the devotes it to a public use, he gives to the public a right to control that use; and third, that whenever the public needs require, the public may take it upon payment of due compensation.” BUDD v. PEOPLE OF STATE OF NEW YORK, 143 U.S. 517 (1892)

To repeat points already made (for those too lazy to read the thread):

According to Wikipedia:


"The first state court decision resulting from the "right to bear arms" issue was Bliss v. Commonwealth. The court held that "the right of citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State must be preserved entire, ..." "This holding was unique because it stated that the right to bear arms is absolute and unqualified."

Right to keep and bear arms in the United States - Wikipedia

In 1846 the Georgia Supreme Court ruled:

“The right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed." The right of the whole people, old and young, men, women and boys, and not militia only, to keep and bear arms of every description, not such merely as are used by the militia, shall not be infringed, curtailed, or broken in upon, in the smallest degree; and all this for the important end to be attained: the rearing up and qualifying a well-regulated militia, so vitally necessary to the security of a free State. Our opinion is, that any law, State or Federal, is repugnant to the Constitution, and void, which contravenes this right, originally belonging to our forefathers, trampled under foot by Charles I. and his two wicked sons and successors, reestablished by the revolution of 1688, conveyed to this land of liberty by the colonists, and finally incorporated conspicuously in our own Magna Charta!” Nunn v State 1 Ga. (1 Kel.) 243 (1846)

In Texas, their Supreme Court made the point unequivocally clear:

"The right of a citizen to bear arms in lawful defense of himself or the State, is absolute. He does not derive it from the State government. It is one of the high powers delegated directly to the citizen, and is excepted out of the general powers of government. A law cannot be passed to infringe upon or impair it, because it is above the law, and independent of the lawmaking power."

-Cockrum v. State, 24 Tex. 394 (1859)

Then, the United States Supreme Court weighed in:

“The Government of the United States, although it is, within the scope of its powers, supreme and beyond the States, can neither grant nor secure to its citizens rights or privileges which are not expressly or by implication placed under its jurisdiction. All that cannot be so granted or secured are left to the exclusive protection of the States.

..The right there specified is that of "bearing arms for a lawful purpose." This is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. United States v. Cruikshank 92 US 542 (1875)

So, once again, The Right to keep and bear Arms is a Right, but it was not granted by the Constitution, neither is it dependent upon the Constitution for its existence. It is above the law and the lawmaking power and it is absolute. By any and all definitions, the Right to keep and bear Arms is a personal Liberty and it is an extension of your Right to Life. That is another way of saying that the Right is an unalienable Right.

So there is your interpretation.

 

[Gdjjr]

So there is your interpretation.

This deserves a 5 Star Rating!

 

[Porter Rockwell]

opinion only an opinion.

shall not be infringed is not an opinion.

Yes it is. In fact gun ownership and possession has been regulated for centuries.

LMFAO. Have you been keeping up with this thread? That is not true and has been exposed for the lie it is.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

It talks about a "well regulated militia", and that was because the US didn't have a standing military yet, so it depended on the people for defense.

Personally? I think that after we stood up our military, and made it one of the most formidable on the planet, that is when the 2nd became obsolete. And, while I'm from Montana and didn't know what store bought meat was most of my childhood, I'm also a hunter. And, if a person wants a 6 shooter, or any other kind of handgun, I would like the ammo to only be around 9 rounds before you have to reload. If you want to own a rifle, bolt action or lever action rifles are perfectly fine, and again, I'd like to see an ammo limit of about 10 rounds or less before reloading.

Semi automatic weapons that fire a round with each trigger squeeze that holds 30 plus rounds? Don't see the use of them. Handguns are better for home defense, and the AR-15 is designed to throw lots of ammo downrange quickly, which the only use I could see is in a war zone. And yeah, I served 20 years in the Navy.

You have a 99.997 chance of not getting murdered by a person with a gun

So guns aren't the problem

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

LOL. A gun is a problem when it is in the hands of a drunk, a mentally ill person or a violent criminal, or one in the making. Thus I will now use the phrase people control, does that make the issue clear.

Every post when gun control is the issue, the same people defend all common sense gun regulations with the phrase, "shall not be infringed". If that phrase is taken literally it means the drunk, the seriously mentally ill and the violent felon have the absolute right to own and possess a firearm all of the time, everywhere they go.

Listen to yourself: gun control.

If a man is a drunk, he can go to a bar, drink until he's fall down drunk, get in his car, drive down the road and kill your family in a DUI.

He goes to court, then to prison and serves his term. He gets out of jail, goes back to a bar, gets sloppy ass drunk and gets in his car and kills another person. Our society tolerates that, being satisfied with criminalizing his actions, not banning alcohol or cars.

When it comes to firearms, people like you are only consistent with inconsistency. Bottom line: The way to keep firearms out of the wrong hands is to keep the bodies of those wrong hands in jail, prison, or a mental institution. That controls the wrong hands - which is the real issue.

 

[Blues Man]

It talks about a "well regulated militia", and that was because the US didn't have a standing military yet, so it depended on the people for defense.

Personally? I think that after we stood up our military, and made it one of the most formidable on the planet, that is when the 2nd became obsolete. And, while I'm from Montana and didn't know what store bought meat was most of my childhood, I'm also a hunter. And, if a person wants a 6 shooter, or any other kind of handgun, I would like the ammo to only be around 9 rounds before you have to reload. If you want to own a rifle, bolt action or lever action rifles are perfectly fine, and again, I'd like to see an ammo limit of about 10 rounds or less before reloading.

Semi automatic weapons that fire a round with each trigger squeeze that holds 30 plus rounds? Don't see the use of them. Handguns are better for home defense, and the AR-15 is designed to throw lots of ammo downrange quickly, which the only use I could see is in a war zone. And yeah, I served 20 years in the Navy.

You have a 99.997 chance of not getting murdered by a person with a gun

So guns aren't the problem

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

LOL. A gun is a problem when it is in the hands of a drunk, a mentally ill person or a violent criminal, or one in the making. Thus I will now use the phrase people control, does that make the issue clear.

Every post when gun control is the issue, the same people defend all common sense gun regulations with the phrase, "shall not be infringed". If that phrase is taken literally it means the drunk, the seriously mentally ill and the violent felon have the absolute right to own and possess a firearm all of the time, everywhere they go.

And yet the fact remains that less than . 003 percent of the population will use a firearm to murder anyone

Most murders committed with guns are committed by people who are already banned from possessing a firearm

So again the mere ownership of guns is not the problem

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

 

[Chuz Life]

I doubt many will agree on the purpose of the second amendment, but I'd love to hear why everybody thinks the second amendment was written. Personally, I understand that it was put there so that we could take back our government if they get out of control.

According to my history lessons / teacher (public school circa mid 70's,) The Bill of Rights (including the 2nd Amendment) was added to put an end to the rebellion that was surely going to rise against the newly written Constitution, as it was.

The Constitution, without the Coll of Rights, did not go far enough to give "the people" the power and control OVER their government that they were demanding.

The entire Bill of Rights (including the 2nd) was about limiting the power of the government and recognizing the rights and the power of the people.

 

[Bo Didleysquat]

The Constitution established a Navy. It did not establish a standing Army
They relied on well regulated (trained and organized) militias to provide security while we organized an Army
That is what happened in the Revolutionary War

Cute how you selectively use "well regulated" in its correct period context. You still phrased it in a way that supports the current lefty notion that our 2nd amendment right is limited to being in some formally trained government approved militia, but at least you addressebd "some" of the original and correct context. Commies are like weeds. Spray them here, and they just sprout up over there. You got called on your context lie, but here you are organising a new way to exploit the original context.

It is nice how we now have all of the branches of military AND the right to keep and bear arms.

Funny how you present some obscure explanation of “well regulated” while you ignore how well regulated militias of the 18th century were organized and controlled

It's not obscure. It is the meaning of the term at the time. Funnily enough you find well regulated on clocks of the era.

I think you will have a hard time convincing people that government needed to control who could own clocks.

They control the people themselves, that's why they don't mind the people having guns to use on each other because they've seen the public will swallow shit forever and never do anything but turn upon each other.

Yes, government officials, the schools, politicians, and of course, the billionaires who buy those politicians have been hard at work dumbing down the population.

They screwed the pooch with the impeachment though. That woke a lot of people up.

Bullshit, the american public is utterly cucked to concentrated wealth. What are "the woke" doing? Posting and tweeting?

 

[Bo Didleysquat]

I doubt many will agree on the purpose of the second amendment, but I'd love to hear why everybody thinks the second amendment was written. Personally, I understand that it was put there so that we could take back our government if they get out of control.

According to my history lessons / teacher (public school circa mid 70's,) The Bill of Rights (including the 2nd Amendment) was added to put an end to the rebellion that was surely going to rise against the newly written Constitution, as it was.

The Constitution, without the Coll of Rights, did not go far enough to give "the people" the power and control OVER their government that they were demanding.

The entire Bill of Rights (including the 2nd) was about limiting the power of the government and recognizing the rights and the power of the people.

Lofty vacuous rhetoric when only white males of the aristocracy are granted representation. Clearly the founders' claim that there were God given inalienable rights, only applied to wealthy white males.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

It talks about a "well regulated militia", and that was because the US didn't have a standing military yet, so it depended on the people for defense.

Personally? I think that after we stood up our military, and made it one of the most formidable on the planet, that is when the 2nd became obsolete. And, while I'm from Montana and didn't know what store bought meat was most of my childhood, I'm also a hunter. And, if a person wants a 6 shooter, or any other kind of handgun, I would like the ammo to only be around 9 rounds before you have to reload. If you want to own a rifle, bolt action or lever action rifles are perfectly fine, and again, I'd like to see an ammo limit of about 10 rounds or less before reloading.

Semi automatic weapons that fire a round with each trigger squeeze that holds 30 plus rounds? Don't see the use of them. Handguns are better for home defense, and the AR-15 is designed to throw lots of ammo downrange quickly, which the only use I could see is in a war zone. And yeah, I served 20 years in the Navy.

You have a 99.997 chance of not getting murdered by a person with a gun

So guns aren't the problem

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

LOL. A gun is a problem when it is in the hands of a drunk, a mentally ill person or a violent criminal, or one in the making. Thus I will now use the phrase people control, does that make the issue clear.

Every post when gun control is the issue, the same people defend all common sense gun regulations with the phrase, "shall not be infringed". If that phrase is taken literally it means the drunk, the seriously mentally ill and the violent felon have the absolute right to own and possess a firearm all of the time, everywhere they go.

And yet the fact remains that less than . 003 percent of the population will use a firearm to murder anyone

Most murders committed with guns are committed by people who are already banned from possessing a firearm

So again the mere ownership of guns is not the problem

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

325 MILLION people in the United States and less than .003 percent can't be trusted to own a firearm. Keep those .003 percent away from society. Problem solved.

 

[westwall]

Cute how you selectively use "well regulated" in its correct period context. You still phrased it in a way that supports the current lefty notion that our 2nd amendment right is limited to being in some formally trained government approved militia, but at least you addressebd "some" of the original and correct context. Commies are like weeds. Spray them here, and they just sprout up over there. You got called on your context lie, but here you are organising a new way to exploit the original context.

It is nice how we now have all of the branches of military AND the right to keep and bear arms.

Funny how you present some obscure explanation of “well regulated” while you ignore how well regulated militias of the 18th century were organized and controlled

It's not obscure. It is the meaning of the term at the time. Funnily enough you find well regulated on clocks of the era.

I think you will have a hard time convincing people that government needed to control who could own clocks.

They control the people themselves, that's why they don't mind the people having guns to use on each other because they've seen the public will swallow shit forever and never do anything but turn upon each other.

Yes, government officials, the schools, politicians, and of course, the billionaires who buy those politicians have been hard at work dumbing down the population.

They screwed the pooch with the impeachment though. That woke a lot of people up.

Bullshit, the american public is utterly cucked to concentrated wealth. What are "the woke" doing? Posting and tweeting?

No, they are talking face to face and figuring out how to deal with agents provocateurs, such as yourself, so that they are ready when the time comes.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

I doubt many will agree on the purpose of the second amendment, but I'd love to hear why everybody thinks the second amendment was written. Personally, I understand that it was put there so that we could take back our government if they get out of control.

According to my history lessons / teacher (public school circa mid 70's,) The Bill of Rights (including the 2nd Amendment) was added to put an end to the rebellion that was surely going to rise against the newly written Constitution, as it was.

The Constitution, without the Coll of Rights, did not go far enough to give "the people" the power and control OVER their government that they were demanding.

The entire Bill of Rights (including the 2nd) was about limiting the power of the government and recognizing the rights and the power of the people.

Lofty vacuous rhetoric when only white males of the aristocracy are granted representation. Clearly the founders' claim that there were God given inalienable rights, only applied to wealthy white males.

Commies can never say unalienable.

You have conflated Liberty with citizenry. Despite the fact that only whites could be citizens under the Constitution as originally written and intended, people came from all over the world because of the opportunities and the fact that the unalienable Rights for all was becoming a reality. Having all the Rights in the world, however, does not guarantee citizenship.