Why was the second amendment written?

[EvMetro]

And the PEOPLE, ARE the militia.

Thanks for making that clear.

Exactly

That is why we need them well regulated

Careful there, the commies like to conflate a well regulated militia with a militia that is burdened with regulations.

So wrong ^^^. The Framers did by defining a well regulated militia. Read Article I, sec. 8, clause 15 & 16. No where in COTUS is the establishment of a Militia legally established by a bunch of disaffected citizens.

Unless you support and defend the Mafia and Neighborhood Gang members you must agree, that a Well Regulated Militia is what the Framers approved, and not some rubes in camouflage carrying guns and pretending they want to take their country back.

Are you saying that you are one of those commies who wants to conflate "well regulated" with "encumbered with regulations" , as if the original context that lefties try to hide never existed?

Any way you slice it, well regulated means a militia you can depend on. In the 18th century that meant militias that were trained, had an organized structure, were registered as members of the militia and had a record of the arms they possessed

This is great! They had food stamps and section 8 housing back in those days (general welfare) AND gun control laws! They must have been trying to create a commie country, right? How many people registered their guns to be eligible for an inevitable gun confiscation? I bet that notion really went over well back in those days...

 

[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.

Without reading the entire thread, let us bear in mind that James Madison is the father of the Constitution and the primary author of the Second Amendment. He would be your best authority.

According to Madison:

"Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of." James Madison, Federalist No. 46, January 29, 1788


Much can be debated, but why did Madison point out that Americans had an advantage of being armed over all other nations? Perhaps when Madison became president and he nominated Joseph Story to the United States Supreme Court the answer becomes irrefutable. As Justice of the United States Supreme Court, Story wrote:

"The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the Liberties of a Republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them."
- Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States, 1833

A palladium is a safeguard, so the Right to keep and bear Arms is a safeguard of the Liberties of a Republic. The Bill of Rights codified the unalienable Rights mentioned in the Declaration of Independence, so the Right to keep and bear Arms exists to insure the security of a free state and, as a last resort, to prevent tyranny in government.

 

[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.

The United States is a Republic, so it is a damn good thing that lefties don't get to decide the value of my life and / or come up with an arbitrary number of bullets that I might have in order to properly defend myself with.

Have you ever gotten out of bed in the middle of the night, confronted by multiple intruders and forced to spring into action? My neighbor did:

Video shows woman shoot at burglars in home invasion - CNN Video

So, you would try and insure the security of a free state with ten rounds when it's clear you might not be able to defend your own home with that few rounds? My personal safety, according to the courts, is my responsibility. If you feel safe with nine rounds, go with God. As for me, I might carry more like 109 bullets at a time.

 

[Rye Catcher]

And the PEOPLE, ARE the militia.

Thanks for making that clear.

Exactly

That is why we need them well regulated

Careful there, the commies like to conflate a well regulated militia with a militia that is burdened with regulations.

So wrong ^^^. The Framers did by defining a well regulated militia. Read Article I, sec. 8, clause 15 & 16. No where in COTUS is the establishment of a Militia legally established by a bunch of disaffected citizens.

Unless you support and defend the Mafia and Neighborhood Gang members you must agree, that a Well Regulated Militia is what the Framers approved, and not some rubes in camouflage carrying guns and pretending they want to take their country back.

Are you saying that you are one of those commies who wants to conflate "well regulated" with "encumbered with regulations" , as if the original context that lefties try to hide never existed?

I'm not a "commie". Your use of that term as a pejorative and an ad hominem is noted.

If you are suggesting Well Regulated are Encumbered with
Regulations as written in clause 16, I suggest you read it.

What you consider encumbered regulations are not for you or me to decide. It is up to the Congress for, "organizing, arming and disciplining the Militia"...leaving to the individual states, "the appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by the Congress:

The clear implication is that the National Guard and the USNR are the Militias, and no other such Militia exists legally.

 

[Rye Catcher]

Exactly

That is why we need them well regulated

Careful there, the commies like to conflate a well regulated militia with a militia that is burdened with regulations.

So wrong ^^^. The Framers did by defining a well regulated militia. Read Article I, sec. 8, clause 15 & 16. No where in COTUS is the establishment of a Militia legally established by a bunch of disaffected citizens.

Unless you support and defend the Mafia and Neighborhood Gang members you must agree, that a Well Regulated Militia is what the Framers approved, and not some rubes in camouflage carrying guns and pretending they want to take their country back.

Are you saying that you are one of those commies who wants to conflate "well regulated" with "encumbered with regulations" , as if the original context that lefties try to hide never existed?

I'm not a "commie". Your use of that term as a pejorative and an ad hominem is noted.

If you are suggesting Well Regulated are Encumbered with
Regulations as written in clause 16, I suggest you read it.

What you consider encumbered regulations are not for you or me to decide. It is up to the Congress for, "organizing, arming and disciplining the Militia"...leaving to the individual states, "the appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by the Congress:

The clear implication is that the National Guard and the USNR are the Militias, and no other such Militia exists legally.

I'm not a "commie". Your use of that term as a pejorative and an ad hominem is noted.

If you are suggesting Well Regulated are Encumbered with
Regulations as written in clause 16, I suggest you read it.

What you consider encumbered regulations are not for you or me to decide. It is up to the Congress for, "organizing, arming and disciplining the Militia"...leaving to the individual states, "the appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by the Congress:

The clear implication is that the National Guard and the USNR are the Militias, and no other such Militia exists legally.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

Exactly

That is why we need them well regulated

Careful there, the commies like to conflate a well regulated militia with a militia that is burdened with regulations.

So wrong ^^^. The Framers did by defining a well regulated militia. Read Article I, sec. 8, clause 15 & 16. No where in COTUS is the establishment of a Militia legally established by a bunch of disaffected citizens.

Unless you support and defend the Mafia and Neighborhood Gang members you must agree, that a Well Regulated Militia is what the Framers approved, and not some rubes in camouflage carrying guns and pretending they want to take their country back.

Are you saying that you are one of those commies who wants to conflate "well regulated" with "encumbered with regulations" , as if the original context that lefties try to hide never existed?

I'm not a "commie". Your use of that term as a pejorative and an ad hominem is noted.

If you are suggesting Well Regulated are Encumbered with
Regulations as written in clause 16, I suggest you read it.

What you consider encumbered regulations are not for you or me to decide. It is up to the Congress for, "organizing, arming and disciplining the Militia"...leaving to the individual states, "the appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by the Congress:

The clear implication is that the National Guard and the USNR are the Militias, and no other such Militia exists legally.

You are just plain wrong on every level.

 

[Rye Catcher]

Careful there, the commies like to conflate a well regulated militia with a militia that is burdened with regulations.

So wrong ^^^. The Framers did by defining a well regulated militia. Read Article I, sec. 8, clause 15 & 16. No where in COTUS is the establishment of a Militia legally established by a bunch of disaffected citizens.

Unless you support and defend the Mafia and Neighborhood Gang members you must agree, that a Well Regulated Militia is what the Framers approved, and not some rubes in camouflage carrying guns and pretending they want to take their country back.

Are you saying that you are one of those commies who wants to conflate "well regulated" with "encumbered with regulations" , as if the original context that lefties try to hide never existed?

I'm not a "commie". Your use of that term as a pejorative and an ad hominem is noted.

If you are suggesting Well Regulated are Encumbered with
Regulations as written in clause 16, I suggest you read it.

What you consider encumbered regulations are not for you or me to decide. It is up to the Congress for, "organizing, arming and disciplining the Militia"...leaving to the individual states, "the appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by the Congress:

The clear implication is that the National Guard and the USNR are the Militias, and no other such Militia exists legally.

You are just plain wrong on every level.

Prove it.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

So wrong ^^^. The Framers did by defining a well regulated militia. Read Article I, sec. 8, clause 15 & 16. No where in COTUS is the establishment of a Militia legally established by a bunch of disaffected citizens.

Unless you support and defend the Mafia and Neighborhood Gang members you must agree, that a Well Regulated Militia is what the Framers approved, and not some rubes in camouflage carrying guns and pretending they want to take their country back.

Are you saying that you are one of those commies who wants to conflate "well regulated" with "encumbered with regulations" , as if the original context that lefties try to hide never existed?

I'm not a "commie". Your use of that term as a pejorative and an ad hominem is noted.

If you are suggesting Well Regulated are Encumbered with
Regulations as written in clause 16, I suggest you read it.

What you consider encumbered regulations are not for you or me to decide. It is up to the Congress for, "organizing, arming and disciplining the Militia"...leaving to the individual states, "the appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by the Congress:

The clear implication is that the National Guard and the USNR are the Militias, and no other such Militia exists legally.

You are just plain wrong on every level.

Prove it.

Okay...

10 U.S.C. § 311 - U.S. Code - Unannotated Title 10. Armed Forces § 311. Militia:  composition and classes

(a)  The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32 , under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.

(b)  The classes of the militia are--

(1)  the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia;  and

(2)  the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.

Rather than argue the most obvious objections you are about to lob at me, I decided not to reinvent the wheel. Here is your response:

What is the "Militia"? And Who are "The People"? | Citizens Committee For The Right To Keep And Bear Arms

In addition, the earliest courts, including the United States Supreme Court had the opportunity to over-rule the state courts. They didn't. So, let's review some of the more important ones:

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. It is above the reach of the government.

Final Note: IF the militia is limited as per my link to any certain age group, that was nullified by The Civil Rights Act of 1964 because firearms have been legally connected to Interstate Commerce. And Title II of that Act outlaws age discrimination in areas of Interstate Commerce.

Regardless of which legal defense I'm forced to advocate for, you are wrong on every level.

 

[westwall]

Because militias are necessary to the security of a free state

And the PEOPLE, ARE the militia.

Thanks for making that clear.

Exactly

That is why we need them well regulated

Careful there, the commies like to conflate a well regulated militia with a militia that is burdened with regulations.

LOL.......regulated means regulations

Not when it was written it didn't.

 

[westwall]

Because militias are necessary to the security of a free state

And the PEOPLE, ARE the militia.

Thanks for making that clear.

Exactly

That is why we need them well regulated

Well regulated means the PEOPLE have the guns, and they are in good working order with plenty of ammunition.

Thanks for making that clear.

That’s a start....it also means we know who we can count on if invaded, who to call, the people we call are trained, we have a command structure in place

We don’t want a bunch of untrained gun nuts running around shooting at shadows

The security of a free state depends on it

Most gun nuts are better trained than law enforcement, and by a country mile. The Founders understood that. The Founders also understood that people like you are corrupt. Regulations like you want are easily controlled by the corrupt.

That's why the Founders specified SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

And no, the US Military will not in mass join in an insurrection to overthrow an out of control government.

Considering that the military is drawn from the same population against which an out-of-control government might try to use them; I think it's a safe bet that if it ever comes to that, that the bulk of the military population would side with the people rather than with the government.

 

[westwall]

And the PEOPLE, ARE the militia.

Thanks for making that clear.

Exactly

That is why we need them well regulated

Careful there, the commies like to conflate a well regulated militia with a militia that is burdened with regulations.

LOL.......regulated means regulations

There really are people who think "we'll regulated" meant "encumbered by regulations." I'm not kidding, I have actually seen commies post such ignorance.

regulated means regulations
Learn English




regulation
[ reg-yuh-ley-shuhn ]
SEE SYNONYMS FOR regulation ON THESAURUS.COM
noun
a law, rule, or other order prescribed by authority, especially to regulate conduct.
the act of regulating or the state of being regulated.

Well regulated, at the time the 2nd was written, meant "in good working order "

Learn the context of the time.

 

[EvMetro]

Careful there, the commies like to conflate a well regulated militia with a militia that is burdened with regulations.

So wrong ^^^. The Framers did by defining a well regulated militia. Read Article I, sec. 8, clause 15 & 16. No where in COTUS is the establishment of a Militia legally established by a bunch of disaffected citizens.

Unless you support and defend the Mafia and Neighborhood Gang members you must agree, that a Well Regulated Militia is what the Framers approved, and not some rubes in camouflage carrying guns and pretending they want to take their country back.

Are you saying that you are one of those commies who wants to conflate "well regulated" with "encumbered with regulations" , as if the original context that lefties try to hide never existed?

I'm not a "commie". Your use of that term as a pejorative and an ad hominem is noted.

If you are suggesting Well Regulated are Encumbered with
Regulations as written in clause 16, I suggest you read it.

What you consider encumbered regulations are not for you or me to decide. It is up to the Congress for, "organizing, arming and disciplining the Militia"...leaving to the individual states, "the appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by the Congress:

The clear implication is that the National Guard and the USNR are the Militias, and no other such Militia exists legally.

I'm not a "commie". Your use of that term as a pejorative and an ad hominem is noted.

If you are suggesting Well Regulated are Encumbered with
Regulations as written in clause 16, I suggest you read it.

What you consider encumbered regulations are not for you or me to decide. It is up to the Congress for, "organizing, arming and disciplining the Militia"...leaving to the individual states, "the appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by the Congress:

The clear implication is that the National Guard and the USNR are the Militias, and no other such Militia exists legally.

Commies resent being called commies, so they hide behind many other political identifying terms like progressive, democrat, socialist, republican, liberal, libertarian, lefty, you name it. Regardless of what name commies hide behind, I can still spot commies faster than Mccarthy did.

BTW, I never claimed that a well regulated militia is encumbered with regulation.

 

[westwall]

Careful there, the commies like to conflate a well regulated militia with a militia that is burdened with regulations.

LOL.......regulated means regulations

There really are people who think "we'll regulated" meant "encumbered by regulations." I'm not kidding, I have actually seen commies post such ignorance.

regulated means regulations
Learn English

Not only are there idiots who think "we'll regulated" meant "encumbered with regulations", there are also people who think "general welfare" meant free shit for commies. Food stamps, section 8 housing, etc.

Regulated is synonymous with regulation

General Welfare means doing what is best for the country, that can include food stamps and section 8 housing

Not when you know the context of the times. That's why you ignore that. So you can lie.

 

[westwall]

Answer to the OP:

https://www.history.com/news/bill-of-rights-constitution-first-10-amendments-james-madison

You were already pwned. Time for you to leave.

 

[westwall]

The Second Amendment was written by people who were aware of their recent and past history. Aware people today understand that as well as the fact that it is no longer 1776.

Some people. Most people understand that the pen is mightier than the gun. The First A. is more powerful against government "getting out of control" than a disorganized group of citizens armed with guns standing up to a 21st Century Military force.

And no, the US Military will not in mass join in an insurrection to overthrow an out of control government. That is why the Framers added the power of Impeachment, to protect and defend COTUS.

The pen is mightier only when it has a gun to back it up. Moron.

 

[OldLady]

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.

 

[westwall]

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.

Libs believe the 2nd Amendment was necessary to protect the Army's (the "militia"'s) ability to be armed. Without the 2nd Amendment, our men would have been landing on shore on D-Day with just their dicks in their hands.

The 2nd Amendment guaranteed them the right to be armed and defend them selves.

OTOH, conservatives see the 2nd Amendment as protecting the rights of the people to self defense.

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.

 

[EvMetro]

LOL.......regulated means regulations

There really are people who think "we'll regulated" meant "encumbered by regulations." I'm not kidding, I have actually seen commies post such ignorance.

regulated means regulations
Learn English

Not only are there idiots who think "we'll regulated" meant "encumbered with regulations", there are also people who think "general welfare" meant free shit for commies. Food stamps, section 8 housing, etc.

Regulated is synonymous with regulation

General Welfare means doing what is best for the country, that can include food stamps and section 8 housing

Not when you know the context of the times. That's why you ignore that. So you can lie.

Rightwinger certainly does know the period correct meaning of "well regulated", he isn't ignorant there, but he is pretty ignorant to think nobody sees how he avoids discussion of it.

 

[Bo Didleysquat]

lagging behind 21st century tech.

I'm down with that...

No match for a drone, mass surveillance, concentration camps and militarized corporate state police in an authoritarian walled in society.

Bosquat Didleyfuck, first in with arms raised ready to surrender. He would have been the first to surrender to the British and turn in Geo Washington over for a loaf of bread.

Oh I've got my guns, but the point is, the public surrendered long ago, and is hell bent on sticking to it.